Marrin--Intelligence Studies Versus Intelligence School--2008

8/7/2019 Marrin--Intelligence Studies Versus Intelligence School--2008

1/9

Intelligence Studies versus Intelligence School and Implications for IAFIE

Email sent via IAFIE listserv6 July 2008

From: Marrin, Stephen

Subject: [members] Intell Studies v Intell School and Implications for IAFIE

Date: Sunday, 6 July, 2008, 15:43

Using the ideas in the previous email (below on "Learning the Lessons of All-Source Intell

Analysis") re: the Reeces Peanut Butter Cup analogy, below is the outline of the presentation Iwas planning to give at the IAFIE conference but was not able to because of time considerations.

I am sending it out now to elicit thought/discussion re: intell education; please consider it a'working paper' since it will likely be adapted for publication in the near future....The general theme is the differentiation Im making between intelligence studies and intelligence

school, and what that might mean in terms of degree granting programs in academia and theimplications for IAFIE both as an association as a possible future player in intelligence education

certification processes.The caveat on the front end is that I am speaking mostly to the US national security communitythat teaches or studies analysis from the perspective of colleges and universities. How this plays

out in terms of people from other countries, other disciplines (law enforcement, business), otherspecialties (the various INTs, counterintelligence, etc), and those who teach to either intell

studies or practitioner proficiency from the perspective of governmental training programsor private sector firms (ie. Pherson Associates; Lowenthal's Intelligence and Security

Academy) will have to be addressed by those who are more immersed in those communitiesAt the end of the long email/presentation are a series of questions; please consider them as

possible points to discuss via the listserv or at future conferences...Regards,Stephen Marrin

INTELLIGENCE STUDIESAs specified in the previous email, I consider intelligence studies to be the study and

understanding of the intelligence processes themselves. It began as an academic complement tothe practice of national security intelligence; the contribution that higher education has made to

interpreting its past, understanding its present and planning for its future. This intelligencestudies literaturewhich is quite large, and growinghas historically been produced in political

science or history departments, with additional contributions from a handful of publicationvenues within government. In the mid-1980s, a new section was created at the International

Studies Association, called the Intelligence Studies Section. That section provided a single focalpoint for research on the subject and brought together scholars from different disciplines to talk

about intelligence. I dont think intelligence studies would exist in the form it is today withoutthe presence of the Intelligence Studies Section at ISA. And out of these conversations,

intelligence studies as an academic discipline was born. Sort of (and there I defer to BillSpracher on the ways that intell studies is.and is notan academic discipline).


2/9


3/9

those provide the students with knowledge *about* the subject that can be useful when they goout and get jobs *doing* the work of intelligence officers.

These kinds of courses also have the potential to provide students with useful frameworks for

thinking about the kind of work they will be engaged in when they actually enter the field as

practitioners. For example, thinking about analytic techniques in a social science methodologycontext; or the inevitability of intelligence failureand the reasons failure will be inevitableasper Richard Betts work; or even an understanding of the role that information and intelligence

analysis might play in decisionmaking. For example, Harvards Intelligence and Policy Programwas an effort to provide this kind of conceptual framework for senior intelligence community

managers as drawn from a strain of the intelligence studies literature (sort of). The same benefitin terms of conceptualizing and contextualizing the work of intelligence can be provided to

prospective intelligence officers as they work through their experiences in academia as well.

But these courses usually do not provide students with exercises useful in the practice ofintelligence. Sometimes professors in graduate-level security studies courses have exercises in

the production of policy papers or white papers as a way for the student to gain some proficiencyin terms of the kinds of writing or thinking required of a practitioner. But purely developing

practitioner proficiency is not the goal of intelligence studies; rather, the emphasis is onconceptualization and contextualization of the study of intelligence itself.

Traditionally, as per ISAs Intelligence Studies Section, this kind of intelligence studies

coursework was taught in a liberal arts context, while most knowledge that was applied in naturewas taught in training programs by the government itself. But that is beginning to change. An

alternate model to intelligence studies in a liberal arts context is what Im calling intelligenceschool.INTELLIGENCE SCHOOLRecently, a number of academic programs have been developed with an applied orientation; toproduce practitioners with the knowledge, skills and abilities required for entry into the

intelligence community as analysts. The goal of these programs is practitioner proficiency; forthe student to learn a body of knowledge before going out to do that work. Proficiency could

involve skills related to researching, analytic methods or techniques, writing,presentation/briefing, and so on. Im not convinced that there is much value in adding particular

kinds of software familiarization (other than the basic Word/Powerpoint/excel package) oranalytic tools to this set of skills (particular in a higher education vice for profit training center

context) but am willing to debate the issue.Intelligence schools would be those that emphasize this pre-professional knowledge and skillset like medical school, law school, business school, schools of education or journalism, or even

nursing or any of a number of academic schools or departments that are pre-professional innature. The emphasis is on preparing the student for a career in that field. And from the

students perspective, the existence of intelligence schools provides a very workable educationaloption for those who self-identify early as interested in entering the intelligence 'profession.


4/9

But there are different kinds of intelligence schools, at different degree levels. What role does anundergraduate pre-professional degree play vis a vis a graduate pre-professional degree? Is there

a differentiation here paralegal at the undergraduate versus a lawyer at the graduate level? Or anurse at the undergraduate level versus a doctor at the graduate level? Or are they equivalent

degrees in terms of practitioner proficiency? For example, if you have a 4-year undergraduate

intelligence school; is the student who makes it through that program at the same level ofproficiency as the graduate of a 2-year graduate program? How do you evaluate proficiency, andis it linked to the degree?

So far, the answer is that no proficiency instruments exist, and proficiency is not linked to level

of degree. But I think in general you can assume that the bulk of the graduate students will bemore proficient than all but the most proficient undergrads. So perhaps it isor will

bepossible to make a distinction in terms of practitioner proficiency based on the degreeacquired. But it is going to take a while; we are going to have to walk carefully through a

credentialing process that is linked to practitioner proficiency in order to get there.

Given where we are, how should hiring authorities address the expertise acquired in intelligenceschools? Should they accept, for example, some of the courses as equivalent to what is taught in

their own training courses? Should graduates of these intelligence schools be placed out ofcertain training courses by virtue of the degree they possess? Andover the long term--should

government agencies look to these kinds of intelligence schools as an opportunity to outsourcesome of their skills-development training programs?

The big question here is: How should the intersection of pre-professional intelligence education

and the world of practice actually function?

If intelligence schools and their degrees are eventually going to be accepted as a legitimatefeeder stream into the intelligence community, they are going to have to make the case that their

graduates meet and even exceed basic baseline proficiency standards in the intelligencecommunity. If they cannot or will not do that, then they will never gain widespread acceptance

from hiring authorities. But if they can make that case, the long term vision might involve theeventual outsourcing to the educational community the initial evaluation of prospective entrants

into the field. In other words, the student will have to graduate from intelligence school first inorder to get a job in the intelligence community.That vision may be a long time in coming, but intelligence schools need to build the foundation

necessary to get there if it is to be realized. And at that point, we can talk about the creation of aprofessional doctoral intelligence degree program as the intelligence equivalent to a JD or MD.

But we are years.probably decades.away from when that kind of degree will make sense.Until that time comes, working to ensure that intelligence schools are able to teach theirgraduates how to become more proficient, documenting that proficiency and working with the

government to compare/contrast proficiency of graduates in academia to those in government,and eventually distinguishing undergraduate from graduate proficiency will be good first

steps.


5/9

Intell Studies Versus Intell SchoolSo now we have two models of intelligence education; one I am calling intelligencestudies.that is generally taught in a liberal arts context.and the other is a pre-professional

intelligence school.

While proponents of each approach like to view their own model as better than the other, thatself-promotion may just be a combination of ego and a certain amount of parochialism. In

reality, neither approach is any better than the other. There are strengths and weaknesses to bothapproaches, and they are best used in combination for maximum benefit.

For example, in a recent discussion one observer questioned the wisdom of relying too much on

undergraduate programs of intelligence studies. This person goes on to say that A number ofschools have started intelligence studies majors or concentrations for undergraduates. While I

think that they can fill part of the need for (intelligence community) personnel, I think that itwould be a mistake to let those programs dominate (intelligence community) hiring. They have

the potential to add to the problem of too much intellectual uniformity in the (intelligencecommunity). Some could also end up doing more vocational training than educating.

Intellectually vibrant and valuable students are going to be interested in all sorts of differentthings out there in the world, not just how to do intelligence analysis.This commentary is an important one, for it highlights something that has to be pointed out:

different educational programs serve different purposes, and the intelligence community needs totake advantage of all of them.

As I pointed out at the meeting that led to the founding of IAFIE, the intelligence school

approach provides a pathway for one kind of student to enter the intelligence community, but theestablishment of that pathway should not do anything to change the more idiosyncratic path that

many people take before entering the intelligence community. The others in the room gave aname to this idea: the value of the 'meandering' approach. So let me make a distinction here

about the value of intelligence studies versus intelligence school. And that is.

Maybe intelligence school should be considered a finishing school for generalists, andintelligence studies is familiarization with intelligence for everyone else. There are different

kinds of analysts. And maybe they need different kinds of educations.

Real subject matter expertsthe specialists--are the anchors of the intelligence community. Theyhave deep knowledge of the subject matter; the language, the culture, the history, andin the

best casehave lived in the areas that they are subject matter experts on. They provide aconceptual value added to the intelligence analysis product; a depth of knowledge that goes

beyond the raw intelligence itself. These kinds of specialists should probably not go throughintelligence school; they should spend their time gaining additional knowledge and expertise.

But intelligence studies courses providing concept and context might also provide value forspecialists; to give them the kind of foundation that will prove to be useful for them later on in

their careers.


6/9

The generalists who work in the intelligence community, on the other hand, might have somelanguage ability, some knowledge of culture, some knowledge of history, but their real role in

the process is to highlight issues that are of interest to US decisionmakers.to providedecisionmakers with the best *intelligence* available on the subject, not necessarily the best

interpretation of that intelligence because they dont necessarily have the depth of knowledge or

expertise to provide that step back assessment. But they do serve a very important purpose.

And that purposeand what they need to know and what they need to dois different from

what a specialist needs to know and what a specialist needs to do. So maybe the education theyneed should be different as well. Maybe intelligence school is the best educational foundation for

the core group of generalists who do much of the analytic grunt-work in the intelligencecommunity.

So maybe in the end what you have is a graduated educational system based on the role of each

individual in the process. Intelligence school at the undergraduate level will provide the analyticsupport; the kind of people that CIA used to call intelligence assistants. These assistants can

support intelligence analysts, who are either generalists who have graduated from a graduateintelligence school, or specialists who have taken a meandering path into the community, and

then gone through an internal training program that the intelligence school graduates placed outof.

Or at least thats one vision for how the future might eventually turn out.

PEANUT BUTTER AND CHOCOLATE?

In the meantime, I think it might not be a bad idea to use what I believe is a Reeces Peanut

Butter Cup approachIntelligence studies is one way to go; good on its own. Sort of like peanutbutter. And intelligence school is another way to go; also good on its own. Sort of like chocolate.

And each is fine on its own. But maybe there is another way to go.both intelligence studiesand intelligence school together. Like a Reeces Peanut Butter Cup. The combination of

intelligence studies and intelligence school in one place.

Of course, combining the two might be complicated. It would require the equivalent of a matrixmanagement approach to expertise in an academic context, which is something that might be

hard to accomplish What it would take would be faculty knowledgeable about intelligencestudies within their respective departments.history, political science, anthropology, criminal

justice, business and so on.who can teach intelligence studies courses in those disciplines tostudents who are enrolled in intelligence school programs. That way the educational institution

can meet the needs of both sets of students.the liberal arts students AND the pre-professionalstudentsusing appropriate knowledge, expertise and credentials as it does so. This way, a

graduate of an intelligence school might also be able to approximate depth of knowledge byleaning on the other strengths in the academic program.

If you are able to combine intelligence studies and intelligence school, you will be able to

centralize knowledge about the theory and practice of intelligence as a profession, and as suchcan provide this knowledge to government, other parts of academia, the news media, and


7/9

segments of society in a more structured way than has been done in the past. You will also beable to provides the optimal learning experience for those who want to learn more aboutor

enterthe intelligence profession because of the knowledge that resides in these departmentsin the form of knowledgeable professors, staffs, libraries and the other infrastructure. And

finally, the graduates of this kind of combined programeducated in the roles and

responsibilities of intelligence vis a vis other government functions, and trained in the requisiteskill set-- fill a need for generalist analysts that the intelligence community and its contractorsrequire.The benefit of this kind of combined program is that it would also be able to provide ready

knowledge and research capacity for the government to acquire on an as-needed basis. While it isimportant for the government to retain a classified library and research arm for security purposes,

much knowledge about intelligence community structures and processes is revealed in a largeand growing unclassified literature. Academicswhose knowledge is acquired by mastery of

this literaturecould be a wonderful resource for intelligence analysts and managers to tap forideas, policy suggestions, and research performed on a contract basis.

IMPLICATIONS FOR IAFIE AS AN ACCREDITING OR CERTIFYING BODYSo what Im saying here is that there are two kinds of intelligence education.intelligence

studies and intelligence school. And that complicates the role of IAFIE as a standards-setting,accrediting, or certifying body. What works in one context may not work in the other. And

complicating matters furtherIve been talking mostly about national security and the fit ofintelligence education to the needs of the national-level intelligence community. If you factor in

law enforcement intelligence and business intelligence, the discussions get much morecomplicated.So my bottom line assessment is that its too early for IAFIE to create and enforce standards or

certification processes. We dont know yet what should be required, what should berecommended, and what should be eliminated from either intelligence studies courses or

intelligence schools. Mostly that is because we have not yet linked the content of either approachin intelligence education to the knowledge, skills or abilities required for the appropriate

education or training of a proficient intelligence practitioner. And that might not even be anappropriate criterion to use to evaluate intelligence studies, which may have a less tangible but

no less important value.

Anyway, as Paul Cooke had pointed out previously through the IAFIE listserv, a credential isnothing more than a starting point, not the ending. Just because a report is drafted by a

"professional" doesn't mean the report is worth the paper it is printed on. In other words,credentialing should reflect the underlying quality of the professional product, or the quality of

the person producing the product. But credentialing in and of itself does not mean anything.My argument here is that rather than spend time trying to come up with some kind of formalarticulation of standards or ways that IAFIE could become an accrediting or certifying body, we

should first identify what it is that intelligence education programs accomplish, and then evaluatehow well they are meeting those goals. Before we can develop standards or certify practices, we


8/9

have to figure out what the purposes of the different kinds of intelligence education are, and howto evaluate them.

At this point going forward, we should spend our time focusing on the variety of possiblesubstantive issues that can be explored in either intelligence studies or intelligence school....and

talk about the best ways to teach this content to students. Experimentation in terms ofintelligence education is a good thing. Variety is good; essentially, let all flowers

bloom. Artificially restricting any aspect of intelligence education absent some sort of evidencethat demonstrates it is a better way isI believe--harmful at this stage in the development of the

field. But then--at the same time--begin the processs of evaluating the output of the variousinstitutions.....

And here, as a way to end this discussion but perhaps begin a new one, are a series of questions

that I think would be a productive way to engage the kinds of conversations that will be helpfulgoing forward:In terms of intelligence studies, at the undergraduate level, what is an appropriate introduction to

the literature in the field? And which literature? How much should we rely on textbooks tointroduce students to the field of intelligence? Or should we be introducing students directly to

the work of Sherman Kent, Roger Hilsman, Michael Handel, and other important contributors tothe intelligence scholarship? Some combination? Essentially, this is the trade off between a

textbook-based approach to familiarization of concept versus learning directly from the maincontributors themselves.

And at the graduate level, do you require a Masters thesis that examines one aspect of the

research questions prevalent in the intelligence literature? Or what about a comprehensive examas an option instead of the thesis? If you do have a comprehensive exam, is it a comprehensive

summary of idiosyncratic programmatic content? Or is it a comprehensive exam of the kind Itook for my PhD an exam to assess mastery of the literature in the field, as defined by the

scholars in that field? And if you do head in that direction, through what venue do you create anappropriate comprehensive exam reading list? ISA/Intelligence Studies Section? What about

IAFIE? Or an overlap between the two? How do you create an intelligence studiescomprehensive exam that means anything if you haven't engaged those scholars who are known

for their knowledge of intelligence studies?

In terms of intelligence school, rather than nursing at the undergraduate and medical doctor at thegraduate, should the emphasis be pre-med at the undergraduate level and medical doctor at the

graduate? In other words, should the undergraduate experience be best used to acquaint the

student with core knowledge that he or she should know if they enter the profession, but not tostart the process of developing practitioner proficiency? Or does the nurse/doctor differentiationwork?

Maybe a better model altogethernot medicine or lawis Georgetown s School of Foreign

Service . It has a very specific purpose; preparing its students for the foreign service. But youdont HAVE to graduate from Georgetown s School of Foreign Service to work for the State

Department. Although graduating from Georgetown can make entering the foreign service


9/9

easier, and perhaps one could make the case that its graduates are better prepared to enter theforeign service.

So maybe we shouldnt get wrapped around the axle in terms of thinking about professional

standards or certifications, but rather just keep things simple and oriented on developing

practitioner proficiency while at the same time trying to work with intelligence communityofficials to ensure that the content of intelligence schools is actually synched up with theentrance requirements into the field.

Finally--and perhaps worth much additional discussion--if a doctoral degree in intelligence is

created, what should it look like? Should it be a professional doctorate, like a JD or MD? Absentknowledge of graduate proficiency, would a professional doctorate mean anything to hiring

authorities? Or should the doctorate under consideration be a PhD...a Doctorate ofPhilosophy.an academic degree? If the latter, how do you justify its creation in terms of

unique value added vis a vis other bodies of knowledge or pre-existing academic disciplines?What makes an intell studies PhD different from any other PhD degree program? This is a key

question for distinguishing intelligence studies from other fields of knowledge. Is intelligencestudies unique enough to separate it from security studies or foreign policy analysis or

organizational theory or whatever the theoretical or disciplinary base is?

Marrin--Intelligence Studies Versus Intelligence School--2008

Documents

Transcript of Marrin--Intelligence Studies Versus Intelligence School--2008