Behaviouralism as a mission and a programme for theory-building in Political Science has been facing many difficulties and problems:
1. The theory-building process is very slow and proving hazardous. It is difficult to maintain a balance between the requisites of generality and validity. Some theories have been appearing in the sub-field of international relations, which is not very suitable for the making of a scientific political theory, but others are lacking.
2. Lack of money, opportunity and resources, bias, fear, defective conduct of scientific enterprise, etc., are proving great hurdles to the behaviouralists.
3. Changing nature of the data of politics itself is a very big problem. All hopes are pinned on development research tools and techniques, increase of know-how, use of computers, information technology (IT), collaboration of other sciences, and cooperation of society.
4. Some of the dilemmas before them are:
(a) Relationship between old and new approaches,
(b) Conjoining of micro and macro researches,
(c) Inapplicability of data pertaining to group on discrete units,
(d) Discrepancy between the findings derived from system as a whole and from case studies.
5. Solution of some of the problems can be found if researchers inculcate and develop interdisciplinary perspective, which obviously is another herculean task.
6. Post-behaviouralism has encouraged scholars to imbibe values and fight for them, but there is lack of consensus regarding choice of values. If there is politicisation of the profession, their findings would obviously be considered as biased and parochial. What would happen to the goal of building a scientific political theory? Still they can stand up for broad social values.
7. Scholars of the Third World countries are unwilling to accept the call and challenges of behavioural movement. They still like to cherish the age-old theories and goals, leaving politics in the hands of oligarchy.
It can be said that so far achievements of the behavioural movement have not been spectacular or epoch-making. The discipline has moved towards the growth and development of a scientific political theory, still there is a gap between quality and quantity, micro and macro, and, validity and generality. But there appears to be no other way out except accommodating existing theories with a behavioural perspective, at least, till the scholars reach their ultimate goal. From behaviouralism, as such, our expectations should be neither more nor less.