Global Security and Intelligence Studies Volume 4, Number 1, Spring/Summer 2019 | Page 15

Global Security and Intelligence Studies
competency than undergraduate programs, there is no substantive distinction in
the assessment methods. Both levels in the sample show a preference for direct,
qualitative assessment measures of SLOs.
Literature: Assessment as a Neglected Area
of the Intelligence Studies Literature
Many observers have noted the substantial growth of the field of intelligence
studies, and its associated literature, over the last decade. With
regard to programs, the organizational growth and student enrollment
have been substantial. In 2006, only 4 of the top 25 universities noted in U.S. News
and World Report had courses in intelligence; by 2013, that proportion had grown
to more than half (Smith 2013, 25). In 2015, Stephen Coulthart and Matthew
Crosston identified 17 programs in intelligence studies at U.S. civilian institutions
of higher education, with the vast majority of them being established since 2005
(Coulthart and Crosston 2015, 54). Since that time, additional programs have
been established and only one of the programs noted in the Coulthart and Crosston
study has been disestablished. Landon Murray noted a comparable growth
with regard to scholarship. In 2013, he noted that “both qualitatively and quantitatively,
the scholarly literature on academic intelligence curricula ... has grown
impressively” (Landon-Murrary 2013, 769). That sentiment appears to be even
more true today.
One concern that arises from this rapid growth is the consistency of the
educational experience that is being offered at different programs in this field of
study. Some have likened the field of intelligence studies as an academic version
of the Wild West with programs reflecting the unique collection of faculty in their
programs (Marrin 2011, 5). This is an issue where assessment and accreditation
could be of value to intelligence studies. Assessment tools or accrediting bodies
that gave meaningful measures of program performance could promote quality
educational experiences in the field.
As it stands, the eclectic nature of the intelligence studies environment
can be attributed to three primary factors. First, with the substantial student demand,
qualified faculty are in short supply. In 2011, Martin Rudner assessed that
the demand for new intelligence studies programs had exceeded the supply and
that appears to still be true today (Rudner 2009, 121). Second, the background of
those faculty are uncommonly diverse for a field of study. Since there is only one
doctoral-level degree in intelligence studies in the United States, faculty tend to
come from a variety of academic backgrounds and with varying levels of practical
experience in the field. This, in and of itself, is no vice as the study of intelligence
is inherently interdisciplinary and borrows from several academic fields. Lastly,
attempts to define a common vision of the field of intelligence studies are still in
their infancy. For instance, the International Association for Intelligence Educa-
4