Crossing Disciplinary Boundaries in Democracy Measurement: A Multi-Level Methodological Framework Combining Repertory Grid and Semantic Differential

Research on democratic attitudes predominantly relies on standardized, deductive survey instruments that presuppose a shared, liberal-theoretical understanding of democracy. Yet, comparative political theory and recent empirical evidence highlight that democracy is an essentially contested (Gallie 1956) and travelling concept whose meanings shift across time, space, and cultural contexts (Gagnon et al. 2025). Existing survey-based instruments thus risk re-inscribing Western conceptual boundaries into global research and occluding alternative normative horizons (Osterberg-Kaufmann et al. 2020). To address this challenge, my paper develops a methodological framework that purposefully crosses disciplinary boundaries by integrating constructivist cognitive psychology (Repertory Grid Technique) with psycholinguistic measurement (Semantic Differential) into a multi-level design for democracy research (Osterberg-Kaufmann/Stadelmaier 2020). Building on a Repertory Grid study on meaning structures of democracy in Singapore (Osterberg-Kaufmann/Stadelmaier 2020, Osterberg-Kaufmann/Teo 2022), I show how repertory grid interviews generate culturally grounded, inductively derived construct systems that reveal respondents’ own conceptual distinctions. In a second step, I demonstrate how these constructs can be transformed into polarity profiles and subsequently operationalized as semantic differential scales. This enables a transition from qualitative depth to quantitative breadth, retaining conceptual richness while achieving representativeness. The paper situates this methodological innovation at the intersection of political science, psychology, and linguistic measurement theory, arguing that beyond-disciplinarity is not merely a heuristic enrichment but a substantive precondition for grasping the plurality of democratic meanings. I reflect on the epistemological implications of combining inductive construct elicitation with deductive survey logic, discuss tensions between constructivist and positivist paradigms, and propose a roadmap for future mixed-method designs in global democracy studies. By doing so, the paper directly speaks to the workshop’s interest in the promises and perils of transcending disciplinary boundaries, the systematization of knowledge-generative modes within democracy studies, and the role of methodological diversity in advancing the science of democracy.