Global Security and Intelligence Studies Volume 4, Number 1, Spring/Summer 2019 | Page 21

Global Security and Intelligence Studies
advocates of assessment. Linda Suskie, a higher education consultant, says that
“Good assessments are not once-and-done affairs. They are part of an ongoing,
organized, and systematized effort to understand and improve teaching and learning”
(Suskie 2009, 50).
Beyond the cues from the administration, research has attempted to find
ways to develop faculty support for program assessment. In her 1996 book, Cushman
notes that assessment works best when there is faculty buy-in and when it is
done collaboratively (Cushman 1996, 10). Banta et al. echo this sentiment, noting
that assessment programs are most effective when done in an environment that is
receptive, supportive and enabling (Banta et al. 1996, 62). However, the question
of how to develop the culture of assessment among the faculty is open to debate.
One path is to provide compensation and institutional support, such that assessment
is truly reflected as a priority and not an add-on function. As Kelly and
Klunk note, “increased resources in support of learning assessments are likely to
have an impact on the development of learning assessment in departments” (Kelly
and Klunk 2003, 453).
Methods and Data Sources
To gain an insight on the role of assessment practices on intelligence studies
programs, requests for participation were sent to 16 institutions which reflect
the universe of civilian intelligence education programs in the United
States. This listing largely comes from the Coulthart and Crosston study (2015),
though modifications were made for programs that had both been created since
that time (e.g., the Citadel), as well as those that had been disestablished. Of these,
eight programs from six different schools agreed to participate on the record. In
addition to these, two additional schools agreed to be interviewed under the stipulation
that their information not be directly quoted in the study.
The participating programs provided information regarding program objectives,
curricula, and assessment plans that allowed for comparison and evaluation.
Additionally, program leaders and assessment coordinators were interviewed
to get additional insight and context on the programs contained in this
study. These interviews were guided by a list of 10 open-response questions that
the author constructed. The questionnaire instrument is included in appendix A
of this paper.
The programs utilized in this study reflect the diversity of the intelligence
studies landscape within the civilian academic community. This is particularly
true with regard to the three graduate-level programs in the study. The Masters of
Science in Intelligence and National Security Studies at the University of Texas at
El Paso is an established and traditional program. A member of the Intelligence
Community’s Centers of Academic Excellence program, this degree primarily of-
10