Thus understanding different philosophies and methodologies is of prime importance in order to compare how political scientists approach the analysis of politics.
In this connection interpretivist or behavioralist political scientists are two important analyst groups. Depending upon various philosophies and methodology these scientists may analyze same situation differently. Moreover, the factors which may have a direct or indirect impact on the logic and thought development process of a political scientist are innumerable. Among these factors there may be the personal influences of the analyst and the way he construct his thoughts on various situations that may arise in politics. However, this subjectivity in an analytical work may damage its authenticity being an unbiased analysis. Political scientists are no exception to this subjectivity and interpretivist or behavioralist scientists may deduce mutually conflicting conclusions while contemplating a specific situation or scenario. This paper will investigate and compare how a difference of approach among interpretivist or behavioralist political scientists will affect respective analysis.
The interpretivist scientists have some reservations on the applications of natural and formal science in social domains. An interpretivist scientist would like to understand the societies on the basis sociological studies. The idea of using natural sciences like law, astronomy, biology, chemistry, earth science, physics etc. is somewhat foreign to interpretivism. They tends to interpret the societies and politics as an human interaction science, where people and their action are considered purely in relation to social sciences like history, business administration, political sciences, sociology, economics, education etc. Interpretivism is a process that enables a social scientist to freely interpret the political scenario or political actions of an individual without any external input or clarification. In other word