Global Security and Intelligence Studies Volume 2, Issue 1, Fall 2016 | Page 22

Global Security and Intelligence Studies
getting a jump on IC training. Several of our respondents noted an aversion to training
but still described training-like program features.
Conclusion
This article has been an effort to clarify the views and practices of those teaching
in civilian intelligence curricula in the United States regarding the role of
training and tradecraft in their (and other) programs. As we built our sample,
we purposefully sought out varying viewpoints based on asking interviewees who
they think views and approaches intelligence education differently than they do. So,
although comprising 10 interviewees, our sample was constructed to be inclusive of
the constructs and views of the broader intelligence education community.
This study has confirmed that in concept and in practice, the delineation
between intelligence education and training may not be so stark. It has also argued
that there is good reason for this. As has been discussed, analytic tradecraft and
competencies sometimes fit into the “education basket” and have important foundations
in social science. There are also noted limits and gaps in IC training and tradecraft, and
academic programs can provide a venue for future intelligence practitioners to get
sensitized to such issues. When academic programs take on appropriate facets and
fundamentals of training and tradecraft, they can more explicitly connect professional
practice with social science foundations, counter the uneven nature of IC training,
and make explicit key issues and problems in contemporary tradecraft (such as those
identified by Chang and Tetlock 2016). In general, colleges and universities can help
create a more seamless transition from intelligence education to training.
A number of possible steps that might help academic intelligence programs
better prepare graduates for careers in the IC have been outlined, and some represent
a complement to the current ICCAE program. But more than anything, our hope
was to offer a somewhat inclusive empirical look at a topic that has thus far received
only passing comments in the literature. Ours is just a single set of findings, but one
capturing the views of 10 intelligence educators—including what could be considered
thought or industry leaders. It is our hope that such conversations will continue and
help keep important issues out front and out in the open. This will propel the continual
enhancement and refinement of academic programs meant to prepare America’s next
generation of intelligence professionals.
Acknowledgments
We would like to share our deep appreciation to those who spent time talking with us
for this study, and thanks to the anonymous reviewers who helped us to improve this
article in important ways.
16