Editing Behavioralism (section)

==As a political approach==
Prior to the "behavioralist revolution", political science being a science at all was disputed.<ref>Dahl, p. 763</ref> Critics saw the study of politics as being primarily qualitative and normative, and claimed that it lacked a scientific method necessary to be deemed a science.<ref>Guy, p. 57 says, "On the basis of the philosophical approach, traditionalists prescribe normative solutions to political problems. In their view, no political inquiry into social problems can remain neutral or completely free of normative judgements or prescriptions."</ref> Behavioralists used strict methodology and empirical research to validate their study as a [[social science]].<ref>Guy p 58</ref> The behavioralist approach was innovative because it changed the attitude of the purpose of inquiry. It moved toward research that was supported by verifiable facts.<ref>Kegley, p 48</ref> In the period of 1954–63, [[Gabriel Almond]] spread behavioralism to comparative politics by creation of a committee in SSRC.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://kellogg.nd.edu/sites/default/files/old_files/documents/330_0.pdf|title=The Past and present of Comparative Politics|last=Institute|first=Kellogg|date=October 2006|website=kellogg.nd.edu|access-date=8 September 2019}}</ref> During its rise in popularity in the 1960s and '70s, behavioralism challenged the realist and liberal approaches, which the behavioralists called "traditionalism", and other studies of political behavior that was not based on fact.

To understand political behavior, behavioralism uses the following methods: sampling, interviewing, scoring and scaling, and statistical analysis.<ref>Petro, p 7</ref>

Behavioralism studies how individuals behave in group positions realistically rather than how they should behave. For example, a study of the [[United States Congress]] might include a consideration of how members of Congress behave in their positions. The subject of interest is how Congress becomes an 'arena of actions' and the surrounding formal and informal spheres of power.<ref>Grigsby, p 15</ref>