Culturalism and structuralism in international relations
During the last 60 years scholars of political science have debated many fundamental issues concerning three broad dimensions of the research process: the scope and objectives of research, the methods of theory generation, and the methods of empirical analysis. In these discussions, conventional research practices and proposed alternatives have been challenged. Recently it has become apparent that comparativists hold widely divergent views about the nature of political leadership and the solutions required to realize more fully the potential of comparative politics to produce knowledge about leaders in democratizing systems. Which, if any, of three existing approaches (RCT, Culturalism and Structural Theory) do you believe represent an advance, and which do you consider to be a step in the wrong direction? Why? Illustrate your answers using examples and show the strengths and weakness of the methodological approaches you choose to discuss.