The trend toward democratization in countries across the globe – that began in the 1980s – challenged scholars to pursue two potentially contradictory goals. On the one hand, researchers sought to increase analytic differentiation so as to capture the diverse forms of democracy that had emerged. On the other hand, they sought to avoid the problem of conceptual stretching that arose if the concept of democracy was applied to cases for which, by relevant scholarly standards, it was not appropriate. This chapter argues that the pursuit of these two goals led to a proliferation of conceptual innovations, including numerous subtypes of democracy – that is to say, democracy “with adjectives.” This chapter explores the strengths and weaknesses of alternative strategies that emerged: descending and climbing Sartori’s ladder of generality, which is a kind hierarchy; generating “diminished” subtypes of democracy, based on a part–whole hierarchy; shifting the overarching concept, of which democracy was treated as a specific type; and changing the definition of democracy. This chapter elucidates these strategies and explores trade-offs among them. A brief Glossary of Terms is included.

Concept formation is critical for many social scientific goals, yet it often appears neglected. This chapter underscores the importance of concepts in empirical work oriented toward causal inference, including experiments. It explores the role of conceptual hierarchies, typologies, and dichotomies both for causal attribution and for assessing generalizability. Using an example from the Metaketa Initiative, this chapter highlights the value of Sartori’s ladder of abstraction for fostering cumulative learning from experimental research. Wider use of the tools of concept formation can aid assessment of both the internal and external validity of causal claims.