Global Security and Intelligence Studies Volume 2, Issue 1, Fall 2016 | Page 20

Global Security and Intelligence Studies
limited knowledge of social science methodology (Gentry 2015; Marrin 2012) and the
perceived anti-intellectualism in the IC’s analytic corps (Gentry 2015; Lowenthal 2013b).
There are several other skill sets and competencies found in IC training and
tradecraft that would seem to fit well into the purview of academic education. These
include grappling with uncertainty in assessments and findings, the explicit recognition
of assumptions (and their limits, contingencies), separating those assumptions from
information, working to manage personal and analytic shortcomings, thinking carefully
about the quality of information and methods, and thinking about alternative views
and possibilities. It is hard to imagine any educator suggesting it would be acceptable
for students to graduate without these skills, regardless of their discipline and career
intentions. However, the broad value and impact of higher education for students and
society has come under increased scrutiny in recent years (Arum and Roksa 2010;
Berg and Seeber 2016; Ginsberg 2011). Perhaps the most common concern is that the
“administrative bloat” of higher education has diminished in different ways the role of
faculty members, with important implications for students (Berg and Seeber 2016).
If students are leaving academic intelligence programs with these competencies welldeveloped,
however, they will have a head start on key IC tradecraft and standards and
will be better positioned to learn others and practice them in the longer term.
These types of skills and competencies—and mindsets, really—are not always
expressly reflected in the current standards of the International Association for
Intelligence Education (IAFIE). IAFIE standards are largely the same for graduate and
undergraduate programs, with standards for the former increasing “depth and rigor in
the instruction of” undergraduate outcomes (International Association for Intelligence
Education 2011). Thus, as academic programs seek guidance or certification from the
association, such outcomes and objectives may not be given a central role in intelligence
curricula. And while US IC-emphasized competencies and practices should, of course,
not drive IAFIE academic standards, they can contain rather basic guidelines for the
improved conduct of intelligence analysis. IAFIE members and officers might, over time,
arrive at additional standards by engaging stakeholders on an international basis. Any
such standards could deviate from professional intelligence communities when those
competencies or practices are found to have important limits or not to be appropriate
for academic programs. Examining those limits can also be important, helping future
practitioners identify potential pitfalls. These standards might be revisited somewhat
regularly as knowledge grows.
A number of additional initiatives could be pursued, or extended, to help
integrate this and other content into academic programs in a broad, successful way. The
IC could expand its reach to schools outside of the ICCAE program, providing guidance
and even training to academic intelligence educators. Our respondents involved in
ICCAE spoke positively of ICCAE (and other IC) events and trainings. An expanded,
more inclusive approach of this kind may also prove successful. Additionally, the IC
could certify intelligence educators to indicate their ability to teach to IC standards and
practices. Likewise, the IC, perhaps via the ODNI, could help establish or certify certain
courses—for example, pre-professional training in analytic methodologies, writing, and
sourcing practices.
14