Global Security and Intelligence Studies Volume 2, Issue 1, Fall 2016 | Page 11

Academic Intelligence Programs in the United States
“education” is normally associated with academic courses or programs
geared to provide more conceptual and theoretical frameworks having
less immediate effect on performance, but layering the foundation for
improved performance over the longer term. (Marrin 2009, 131)
Varying—though limited—views have been registered on the issue of
incorporating training into academic programs, as we will see. But, regardless of these
differing views, Marrin suggests a fundamentally new facet of intelligence education
has emerged: the introduction of training and tradecraft into academic programs
(Marrin 2009).
Some, including Jennifer Sims and Martin Rudner, have commented that
tradecraft is not well-advised to be in the purview of intelligence studies programs
and is best addressed through professional training (Rudner 2009; Spracher 2009).
Sims has observed, “We definitely should not be teaching tradecraft and professional
practice,” though does see a role for professional schools (Spracher, 2009, 118). Martin
Rudner has similarly written
What are the objectives of Intelligence and National Security Studies in
higher education? Certainly not to provide training in actual intelligence
tradecraft. That is something best left to the national Intelligence and
Security Community itself. (Rudner 2009, 116)
Others have discussed perspectives and practices that seem more in line with
training and instruction in tradecraft. Spracher found that intelligence curricula
and courses do a relatively good job of addressing intelligence core competencies,
as laid out by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) (Spracher
2009). These competencies include engagement and collaboration, critical thinking,
personal leadership and integrity, accountability for results, technical expertise, and
communication. The programs Spracher examined did not speak equally well to
the different competency areas, however—engagement and collaboration, personal
leadership and integrity, and accountability for results did not receive as much
treatment as the others.
Spracher also surveyed newer IC analysts to investigate how well their academic
preparation helped them to meet IC core competency standards. Respondents
said that their academic backgrounds were less effective in preparing them in the
competency areas of engagement and collaboration, and technical expertise (which
includes professional tradecraft). Recognizing the difficulty of learning some of the
core competencies in the classroom, Carl J. Jensen has suggested the IC consider
establishing a university-based intelligence training corps similar to the military’s
Reserve Officers’ Training Corp (ROTC) model (Jensen 2011).
Both Spracher and Jensen see a place for training and tradecraft in academic
intelligence programs. Similarly, James G. Breckenridge has suggested that, when
properly prepared, new graduates of intelligence degree programs
5