[1] In a 1998 article, Christian Reus-Smit and Richard Price suggested that the rationalist–constructivist debate was, or was about to become, the most significant in the discipline of international relations theory.
[6] Meanwhile, political economist Robyn Klingler-Vidra further substantiated the debate in her book addressing that contextualism and rationality are often construed as diametric opposites.
On the other hand, scholarship that examines context, such as norms, culture, and institutions, as the core analytical object seeks to explain why locales pursue often idiosyncratic actions.
[10] Explanations emanating from context as the analytical inroads, reveal variance, diversity, and specificity through qualitative research methods.
To illustrate, Context-specific explanations, as one would expect, repudiate the idea that rational actor models could account for the variety of preferences caused by distinct (local) experiences.