Global Security and Intelligence Studies Volume 2, Issue 1, Fall 2016 | Page 15

Academic Intelligence Programs in the United States
2014). While this use has been intermittent and thus sometimes limited, Marchio
demonstrates that most of the ICD 203 analytic standards were present in analytic
products from the early years of the IC through the 1990s. While the IC does have a
history of establishing groups to evaluate the value and accuracy of analytic products
(Marchio 2014), John A. Gentry has noted that the current IC does not, in a systematic
way, evaluate the accuracy standard (Gentry 2015). Thus, analysts can meet all other
standards while still falling short, and not being measured, on perhaps the key standard.
Doing so would no doubt be extremely challenging, to be sure. Mark M. Lowenthal
has similarly commented that ICD 203 and sourcing requirements can place more
emphasis on process than content, putting sometimes unhelpful requirements and
restraints on analysts (Lowenthal 2013b).
Study Methodology and Data
We do not think of our sample as representative—though our sampling was
designed to include diverse perspectives and programs—but more as a
“roundtable” of educators who, to date, have not been queried in a focused
way on this important topic. We do not offer definitive conclusions to these questions
and issues, but rather seek to move the dialogue forward in a more inclusive, empirical
fashion. The intelligence educators and program directors we interviewed come
from graduate and undergraduate programs, online and brick-and-mortar schools,
programs with minors to standalone degrees, and the east and west coasts—and several
places in between. Our purposive sampling was intended to make our group of 10 as
diverse in perspective as possible, asking each participant to name individuals who
approach and view intelligence education differently than they do. It is also important
to note that we are focused only on the U.S. context, and findings about practice and
perspectives would surely vary in other parts of the world.
Training and Tradecraft: Views and Practices from Higher Education
In our conversations, each of the 10 intelligence educators and program directors
were asked, among other questions, what aspects of their program’s approach or
offerings could be characterized as training or tradecraft. Many respondents asked
what we meant by those terms. Prior to beginning our interviews, we made the decision
to defer to their views and examples, allowing them to set the terms rather than us.
We felt that this would allow for a more organic picture to emerge. Respondents also
discussed the role of training and tradecraft more generally, the unique approaches
found in their programs, and what attributes distinguish different types of academic
intelligence programs.
Not surprisingly, interviewees from various kinds and levels of programs
stressed the educational role of their programs, while often also assigning training
a role, be it large or small. Some said that as a matter of policy, they do not engage
in training or instruction on analytic tradecraft, though often with caveats such as
providing introductions to or needed methodological foundations in analytical
9