The Real Peer Review team flagged an article that's now ten years in print. "Drawing upon insights from the sociology of science, I shall show how and why intersectionality could become a feminist success story. I shall argue that, paradoxically, it is precisely the concept's alleged weaknesses — its ambiguity and open-endedness — that were the secrets to its success and, more generally, make it a good feminist theory." I wonder if that's worth a trip to the library to see how its citation history has evolved.
As far as ambiguity and open-endedness: if you have an explanation that might work everywhere, it will be useless; on the other hand, if it yields no testable implications whatsoever, it will also be useless.