Global Security and Intelligence Studies Volume 2, Issue 1, Fall 2016 | Page 21

Academic Intelligence Programs in the United States Measures of this kind would seem a necessary step for the sort of waiver system promoted by James G. Breckenridge (Breckenridge 2010). Such steps would also be a good complement to what Carl J. Jensen has suggested on a collegiate intelligence corps (Jensen 2011). One can imagine practical limits and reasons not to do these things— for example, many enrolled students would not likely end up in the IC. However, such measures could help those students who do go on to intelligence careers better develop and retain key skill sets, while also inculcating the shared language, understanding, and identity that initiatives like Analysis 101 are meant to accomplish (but may not, for example, if intelligence agencies opt not to participate). However, there will likely be instances when intelligence educators resist the teaching of certain analytic tradecraft, even if it is endorsed by the IC. As Chang and Tetlock have pointed out, IC training may not reflect the most current, complete understanding of analytic process and related insights (for example, from psychology) (Chang and Tetlock 2016). Thus, intelligence curricula and educators can likely maintain instruction and coursework more continually up-to-date than their professional counterparts. This will raise awareness and skills in intelligence analysts that may be missing in IC-wide and agency-specific training. Speaking to this sort of independence, one of our respondents told us that their approach to instruction on intelligence analysis is “not drawn from the IC’s understanding of how to do intelligence analysis.” Even across specific INTs and analytic positions, there are unifying frameworks and techniques that are applicable. It may be in the successful use those frameworks and techniques that more robust analysis will emerge—or not, in their absence. These, for example, could include the IC’s Analytic Tradecraft Standards, which certainly have some critical roots in social science methodology. It is a possibility that the particulars and technicalities of the specific INTs could serve to obscure the use of the more broad, underlying facets of analytic tradecraft. And as Bruce and George have written, analytic training is quite varied in the IC and could be prone to underemphasizing certain content and approaches (Bruce and George 2015). A key, then, is finding an appropriate middle ground between training and education, and then within training and tradecraft, in academic programs. It is toward this middle ground that this article has sought to help us move; although as more specialized intelligence degrees emerge in areas like geospatial and cyber intelligence, this navigation and balance will be further challenged. Again, the full realization of the benefits afforded by academic intelligence programs will depend on how these programs are designed. It is very difficult to imagine a graduate degree in geospatial intelligence analysis that does not get heavily into training and tradecraft. We believe that conventional education and training can be melded in ways that do not erode either, but in fact strengthen both. Other professions employ such an approach (Finckenauer 2005), and a more purposive combination should come with long-term professional development and performance benefits. The input from the 10 intelligence educators we spoke with, on net, tended to agree. Of course, there were different views about the degree to which programs should take on a more professional coloring, with some seeing their role as providing needed foundations and others as 15