Global Security and Intelligence Studies Volume 5, Number 1, Spring / Summer 2020 | Page 107

The Challenge of Evaluating and Testing Critical Thinking in Potential Intelligence Analysts
Teaching Critical Thinking
and the Skill Gap
The challenge then becomes how
can critical thinking be taught
effectively? In the article, Critical
Thinking; Why is it So Hard To
Teach?, the author points out that critical
thinking is not even a skill. Willingham
(2007) states, “... teaching [people]
to think critically probably lies in a
small part in showing them new ways
of thinking and enabling them to deploy
the right type of thinking at the
right time.” The author also states that
there are metacognitive strategies that
once learned can make critical thinking
more likely and that domain knowledge
and practice are paramount to aptitude,
which is supported by the infusion approach
of the generalist and specifist
perspectives.
Students who take classes in
intelligence analysis or complete programs
of study, degrees, or certificates
in this area are exposed to analytical
methodologies and generalist frameworks
for structured problem solving
and improving critical thinking skillsets.
These metacognition strategies, or
thinking about thinking, assist students
in developing a critical thinking skillset
that enables understanding and control
of the cognitive processes like not
settling on the first conclusion, avoiding
biases, ignoring countervailing evidence,
overconfidence, etc. Additionally,
most intelligence analysis classes
teach and stress methodologies, but
there are strengths and weaknesses to
utilizing methodologies.
Methodology has an advantage
because it can be replicated; this is important
especially in viewing the IC as
a profession that relies on a scientific
model. Historically, in the IC, e.g.,
the Office of Strategic Service (OAS)
in 1947, academics performing intelligence
analysis were trained in and familiar
with rigorous critical thinking. In
the 1960s, the employment pool opened
up in the IC and with this change, there
had to be a codification of thinking. According
to Jan Goldman, methodology
did not get introduced until Sherman
Kent, commonly known as the father of
intelligence analysis, along with Richard
Heur’s analysis of competing hypotheses
for observed data. “He [Kent] codified
analytic methodologies because
IAs’ thinking had to be replicated and
professional” (Goldman 2019).
In addition to replication, appositive
to utilizing methodologies, an
analyst has to be able to differentiate
and sometimes utilize numerous methodologies.
One analyst stated, “I do not
limit myself to one methodology but
use: competing hypothesis, qualitative,
quantitative, mixed-method, whatif
scenarios, scenario trees, weighted
ranking, probability trees, pros cons
and fixes, casual flow and diagraming.
Different problem sets require different
analytics or a mix of methodologies”
(Doe 2019). Mark Sanders (2019)
states, “I really like red team approaches
where an analyst can think contrarian
views. What I look for in an analyst is
someone who does not mirror image
a viewpoint.” On the other hand, some
feel that methodologies are dangerous
if that is all that is relied upon. Using
93