Global Security and Intelligence Studies Volume 1, Number 1, Fall 2015 | Page 39

Applying a Critical Thinking Framework to Improve Intelligence Analysis
may ensure the analyst has objectively valued his or her holdings while maintaining all
pertinent and potential alternatives. Therefore, an analyst who applies critical thinking
will ensure that biases will not dictate what the information means, and will determine
the value of competing alternatives in order to mitigate rash judgments. Applying critical
thinking to intelligence analysis is not only paramount for the quality of the analysis,
but in today’s unconventional environments, it is more important than ever. We are
currently involved in counterinsurgency (COIN) operations in Iraq and Afghanistan,
and the combating of terrorist or counterterrorism operations may become routine
missions for the U.S. Army. As such, it is imperative that we modify our analytical
procedures to face these challenges.
Conceptual Framework
Introduction
Since this study focused on the Critical Thinking applied to Intelligence Analysis
Process (CTIAP) written by Dr. Curt Friedel and myself, as the primary researcher
(Hess and Friedel 2008), I will discuss this first. The CTIAP was the conceptual
framework examined for the course of this study. The CTIAP utilizes Dr. Peter Facione’s
research that produced a definition and specific cognitive skills necessary for effective
critical thinking (Facione 2010), and applies it to the U.S. Army’s intelligence analysis
process found in FM 2-01.3 Intelligence Preparation of the Battlefield (IPB). Facione’s
six cognitive skills were interpretation, analysis, evaluation, inference, explanation, and
self-regulation (Facione 2010, 5).
There are two predominate schools of thought pertaining to critical thinking:
Facione (2010) and Paul and Elder (2002). Facione’s research has focused on the
critical thinking aspects applied domain specifically, while Paul and Elder’s focus was
more toward critical thinking as a standalone cognitive ability that generally improves
thinking. I chose Facione’s research as the basis for both the CTIAP (Hess and Friedel
2008) and for this study since I consider intelligence analysis a unique domain because
it is tailored to the specific mission in which it may be utilized. For instance, intelligence
analysis may take on a different role in conventional warfare that it takes in a COIN or
counterterrorism operation.
CTIAP Discussed and Defined
The CTIAP was developed through an application of Facione’s (2010) six
cognitive skills to the steps of IPB. The following section discusses the six cognitive
steps and how they might be applied to the intelligence process.
Interpretation was defined as the ability “…to comprehend and express the
meaning or significance of a wide variety of experiences, situations, data, events,
judgments, conventions, beliefs, rules, procedures, or criteria” (Facione 2010, 5). In
other words, the analyst must understand the context of information being evaluated,
which could be rooted in culture, religious ideology, political gain, or various other
32