Global Security and Intelligence Studies Volume 1, Number 1, Fall 2015 | Page 41

Applying a Critical Thinking Framework to Improve Intelligence Analysis
at the big picture: both ‘to state and to justify that reasoning in terms of evidential,
conceptual, methodological, criteriological, and contextual considerations upon
which one’s results were based; and to present one’s reasoning in the form of cogent
arguments’” (Facione 2010, 6). For the intelligence analyst, the skill of explanation is
used to present conclusions and assessments that are specific to the mission assigned.
Providing explanation of the analysis of a situation that is not relevant or cogent to the
larger task may be completely counterproductive. In addition, the employment of a
strong explanation may ensure that the analyst is not providing an assessment that is
vague or more “strategic” than applicable to a particular mission.
Lastly, self-regulation was to “…self-consciously monitor one’s cognitive
activities, the elements used in those activities, and the resulted educed, particularly
by applying skills in analysis, and evaluation to one’s own inferential judgments with a
view toward questioning, confirming, validating, or correcting either one’s reasoning
or one’s results” (Facione 2010, 7). Self-regulation may perhaps be the most crucial
cognitive skill for the intelligence analyst. It is common for initial reports in the field to
be unclear and usually far from accurate; these routinely contribute to the “fog of war”.
Therefore, it is imperative for the analyst to acquire a final and complete report, as well
as update on all products and assessments resulting from incomplete reports. As in the
aforementioned discussion of each critical thinking skill, self-regulation may be applied
with each skill throughout the critical thinking process. By doing so, the information
gleaned by each skill is questioned, confirmed, and validated. Self-regulation is the
step in which the analyst needs to ensure that various personal biases are removed as
much as possible. Being aware of one’s biases is paramount to ensuring their presence
is reduced.
The CTIAP method applies each of the six cognitive skills defined by Facione
and determines how they affect each step of the IPB process (Facione 2010). According
to FM 2-01.3, there are four steps in the IPB process: (1) define the operational
environment, (2) describe environmental effects on operations, (3) evaluate the threat,
and (4) determine threat courses of action.
The analyst begins the IPB process by utilizing a framework that is built using
the operational variables of political, military, economic, social, infrastructure, and
information (PMESII) and the urban terrain analysis variables of areas, structures,
capabilities, organizations, peoples, and events (ASCOPE). Of note, an analyst may,
and should, substitute these variables based on mission requirements. All information
will be organized within this framework.
Next, the analyst will determine how he or she will evaluate information. This
should be a 1–5 point scale that weighs the value of the source of information, as well as
providing criteria to upgrade or downgrade the value based on data confirmed through
other reporting. The intent of this analysis of the reporting and the value of the data are
to enable the analyst to prioritize targets and threat intent.
The organization of the reporting through the framework may enable the analyst
to determine whether he or she has sufficient collection. Through this analysis, the
analyst may need to reprioritize collection strategies as well as evaluate the relationship
between the variables of the framework.
34