That is not to say that a social-psychological approach has nothing to say about senators engaged in high politics or that a rational choice approach has nothing to say about ordinary citizens engaged in mass politics, but the two approaches should differ in their applicability to these situations. Others dislike the rational choice approach because it is unapologetically social science. Those who prize detailed narratives of particular cases understandably feel devalued by rational choice. Similarly, those who believe that a country's unique history or culture determines the operation of its institutions and political processes may reject the rational choice approach. In both these cases, I believe that the critics' complaints often are less directed at a particular approach than at the idea of social science in general.
Rational choice is more self-consciously theoretical than other research programs.
Practitioners engage in model-building, and they make simplifying assumptions and draw logical consequences using the classic deductive method. Understandably, scholars whose approaches are inductive and empirical sometimes feel that rational choice models omit much of the rich detail they have painstakingly compiled. All in all, criticisms of the flowering rational choice research program are not without merit, but neither are they debilitating. Given the heterogeneity of the political science profession, it would be surprising if any one approach won general acceptance. The best rational choice applications carry over central features of the earlier institutional and behavioral traditions.