Global Security and Intelligence Studies Volume 2, Issue 1, Fall 2016 | Page 9

Academic Intelligence Programs in the United States
literature and the field: are the new degree programs value-adding features of the U.S.
higher education system? Some early research does suggest that the programs are a
valuable addition to existing liberal arts programs, but others argue that intelligence
agencies may not want to hire applicants with specialized intelligence backgrounds,
preferring instead conventional academic backgrounds (Spracher 2009). This latter
view is predicated on the assumption that analysts can develop the more technical
facets of intelligence analysis through training and professional development.
A closely related issue is the role of training and tradecraft—namely analytical
techniques—in U.S. academic intelligence programs. Given the professional orientation
of some civilian intelligence curricula, it seems that a blending of training and education
might prove to be part of the contributions these newer programs can make. Efforts
to better harmonize education and training will require close examination of what
facets of analytic tradecraft—and in what measure—could enhance the value-added of
academic intelligence programs.
That academic intelligence programs in the United States have incorporated
what would be considered training and tradecraft has been observed in the literature
(Marrin 2009). This study will drill down into that “blurring” to get a sense of how
broadly it is occurring and what form(s) it is taking. It is informed by interviews with
10 U.S. intelligence educators, several of who established and now direct intelligence
programs. This is a group that has not been asked to comment on these specific issues,
despite their wealth of knowledge and experience. We discussed with interviewees
whether or not they feel this sort of content is useful in preparing students for intelligence
careers, what instructional areas they offer in this realm, what they consider to be the
more unique approaches taken in their programs, and what key facets differentiate
academic intelligence programs.
We found that intelligence educators and program directors in U.S. higher
education take differing views and approaches regarding training and tradecraft
instruction. Some put the role of training at the center of their mission, while others
disavowed it quite strongly—though often with exceptions and qualifications, which
we will explore. When asked about the presence and nature of training and tradecraft
in their programs, study respondents frequently cited structured analytic techniques
(SATs). The article concludes that the delineation between intelligence education and
training need not be so stark, largely because of the educational and social science
underpinnings of analytic tradecraft and competencies, as well as various issues in IC
training and tradecraft. By better connecting professional practice with social science
foundations, academic intelligence programs can help create a better transition from
education to training. It is important to note that our findings speak only to the U.S.
context and are not definitive conclusions, although certainly the output of a diverse
sample. Future research will need to determine whether these observations are present
in other countries.
Before moving to the findings section, the relevant literature will be surveyed.
This entails the views and opinions registered to date on the teaching of intelligence
tradecraft in academic programs, as well as related empirical findings. What training
and tradecraft mean, in practice, in the IC will then be briefly explored, as well as
3