This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Sylvan, D. A. Articles by Thorson, S. J. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Ontologies, Problem Representation, and the Cuban Missile Crisis

Ohio State University

Stuart J. Thorson

Syracuse University

"Problem representation" and "ontology" are introduced as concepts critical to understanding foreign policy decision making. The article explicates these concepts and their relationship and focuses on such issues of representation rather than veridical descriptions of reality, thereby shifting attention away from concern with misperception and toward attempting to understand how these representations are socially constructed and modified. It is argued that the conflict resolution process can be enhanced by inclusion of concerns with "problem representation" and "ontology" along with traditional interest in "option selection." These concepts are then related to decision making in the cuban missile crisis. Two different ways of using new information on the crisis — and more generally understanding foreign policy decision making — are presented. The first is deemed an "option selection" perspective. A second approach expresses a theory of foreign policy decision making in a model of one important aspect of the Cuban missile crisis — the debate over whether Soviet missiles in Cuba were offensive. That model illustrates why focusing primarily on options or alternatives may obscure the most critical determinants of decision making. By focusing on ontologies and problem representations, the new model illustrates an approach to understanding and representing why some decision makers are predisposed to particular options over others.

Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 36, No. 4, 709-732 (1992)
DOI: 10.1177/0022002792036004005


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				D. A. Sylvan, J. W. Keller, and Y. Z. Haftel Forecasting Israeli-Palestinian Relations Journal of Peace Research, July 1, 2004; 41(4): 445 - 463. [Abstract] [PDF]

				K. Scapple Is Consensus Necessary for Effective Environmental Treaties? The Journal of Environment Development, December 1, 1998; 7(4): 364 - 386. [Abstract] [PDF]

				G. Duffy and S. A. Tucker Political Science: Artificial Intelligence Applications Social Science Computer Review, April 1, 1995; 13(1): 1 - 20. [Abstract] [PDF]

				P. J. Haney The Nixon Administration and Middle East Crises: Theory and Evidence of Presidential Management of Foreign Policy Decision Making Political Research Quarterly, December 1, 1994; 47(4): 939 - 959. [Abstract] [PDF]