Global Security and Intelligence Studies Volume 2, Issue 1, Fall 2016 | Page 10

Global Security and Intelligence Studies
related training and tradecraft issues and shortcomings. This will help us to frame
the findings and discussion sections that follow. Having explored the parameters of
training and tradecraft in various ways, we then consider what specific facets are and/
or can be addressed by academic programs. This is informed by our interviews and
more general considerations about the educational underpinnings of intelligence
tradecraft. Some recommendations will also be made.
Literature Review
Perspectives and Findings on Intelligence Training in Higher Education
The growth of intelligence degrees in the United States has been rapid in the post-
9/11 era. Currently, there are roughly 30 such programs in existence, based on
a search done by the current authors. This number seems to have continued
growing in recent years and through the present (Coulthart and Crosston 2015). Given
the central place the study of intelligence practice and process has taken in academic
degree programs, more space is afforded for specialized content. It is this content that
degrees in political science, international affairs, regional studies, and other areas
cannot focus on in as much depth.
To be sure, there are critics of these programs. Mark M. Lowenthal, for
example, has voiced the opinion that intelligence should not be a major, only a minor
(Lowenthal 2013a). Similar sentiments were found in William C. Spracher’s interview
research (Spracher 2009). For example, Arthur Hulnick commented that intelligence
studies should not be a “distinct program,” but instead “integrated with other liberal
arts subjects” (Spracher 2009, 103). Others have suggested that the analytic profession
requires degrees with an explicit focus on intelligence analysis (Hendrickson 2013).
Such programs emphasize a generalist approach, intending to produce graduates who
have the ability to move in and out of different intelligence accounts.
These perspectives suggest a practitioner-oriented skill set, on the one hand,
and a broader academic approach, on the other hand. How the more applied and
practical facets of academic programs bleed into the realm of training and tradecraft
remains to be explored, both conceptually and empirically. Broadly conceptualized,
tradecraft, a term now used in both operational and analytical contexts, refers to the
tools and methods used by intelligence practitioners to execute their responsibilities.
Our focus here is on the analytical, as the tools of espionage are surely beyond the
domain of higher education.
In the IC, the tools and methods of tradecraft are developed through
professional experience, socialization, and development and, as we will see shortly,
increasingly training. Distinguishing intelligence training and education, Stephen
Marrin has made the following observation:
In terms of intelligence analysis, the term “training” is usually associated
with internal government programs intended to provide specific
instruction for the implementation of job-related tasks, while the term
4