Global Security and Intelligence Studies Volume 2, Issue 1, Fall 2016 | Page 17

Academic Intelligence Programs in the United States
Some respondents told us that “bottonology” is more perishable than educational and
social science foundations and that their students will be more employable if they also
specialize in a substantive area (meaning regional or functional). These educators seek to
inculcate skills and mentalities that will transcend specific agency training and culture.
To be sure, some programs do introduce their students to explicit analytic methods
and tools, such as the software program Analyst’s Notebook, as early as their freshman
year. Others “specifically look at, how does one perform the functions of an intelligence
officer, at the undergraduate level.” And even those who were skeptical of the role of
training and tradecraft cast some of their programs’ aspects in those terms. One such
respondent, speaking about a graduate-level course in intelligence analysis, commented
it had
[S]trong elements of both training and education to it. There is a lot of
discussion of secrets versus puzzles versus mysteries…and let’s do it in
groups because that’s how things work in the real IC…that is probably our
most directly, training-like…no-kidding practical course.
Our discussions about specific curricular facets that intelligence educators
considered to be training- or tradecraft-centered frequently turned to SATs, often
coupled with critical thinking and/or social science methodology. So, while the efficacy
of such techniques remains something of an open question, among other noted issues,
SATs (with caveats) have been incorporated into some civilian intelligence education
programs. For example, one graduate-level faculty member told us
The closest we get to training is, we teach structured analytic techniques…
but it’s not so much to train them to use it, as it is to complement what we
do. We do research methods, so, social science methodology. I do a lot of
critical thinking…in my courses.
Similar to the above quote, several other respondents highlighted teaching the
fundamental social science methods or theory underlying SATs and critical thinking.
The emphasis on social science frames more than practical application was seen to
some as a key difference between intelligence education and training programs. This
addresses an issue that has been noted by many in recent years, namely that intelligence
programs and professionals lack needed social science foundations (Collier 2005;
Gentry 2015; Landon-Murray 2011; Marrin 2012). The emphasis placed on social
science methods by our interviewees suggests that academic programs are addressing
these competencies, certainly a positive indicator. A couple educators suggested that
SATs really fall into social science and educational domains. Along these lines, other
respondents added:
We certainly do talk about SATs and the methodologies related to
intelligence analysis, but we’re not talking about specific software
packages…I guess you could argue that some of the specific techniques…
11