Global Security and Intelligence Studies • Volume 2, Number 2 • Fall/Winter 2017

Teaching Intelligence Analysis:

An Academic and Practitioner Discussion
Richard J. Kilroy, Jr.
Assistant Professor, Politics, Coastal Carolina University
Conway, South Carolina, USA

Abstract
For many years, there has been an ongoing debate over intelligence
analysis: is it an art or science?; tradecraft or training?; creative or
critical thinking? As a result, academics and practitioners often dif-
fer in their views of how to teach intelligence analysis. On May 23,
2017, at this year’s International Associate for Intelligence Education
(IAFIE) Conference in Charles Town, West Virginia, a roundtable
composed of faculty members from five universities in the United
States shared their views on how they approach the teaching of in-
telligence analysis within their specific academic departments and
disciplines. These include graduate and undergraduate degree pro-
grams; intelligence-specific majors or minors; multidisciplinary
programs; traditional liberal arts programs; and professional school
programs. They also come from diverse backgrounds as academics,
scholars, practitioners, or all of the above. This article summarizes
the views shared by the roundtable participants regarding how they
approach teaching intelligence analysis, to include pedagogy; meth-
odology; learning outcomes; assessment methods; course content;
use of analytical tools and structured analytical techniques; and sim-
ulations and exercises.

Keywords: Intelligence, Analysis, Pedagogy, Methodology, Teaching

Resumen
Por muchos años ha habido un debate acerca del análisis de inteligen-
cia: ¿Es un arte o es ciencia?; ¿oficio o entrenamiento?; ¿pensamiento
creativo o pensamiento crítico? Como resultado, los académicos y
los profesionales a menudo difieren en su visión de cómo enseñar
el análisis de inteligencia. El 23 de mayo de 2017, en la conferencia

71 doi: 10.18278/gsis.2.2.5
 Global Security and Intelligence Studies

de International Associate for Intelligence Education (IAFIE) en

Charles Town, Virginia Occidental, una mesa redonda compuesta de
diferentes miembros de cinco universidades en los Estados Unidos
compartieron sus puntos de vista acerca de los métodos con que se
enseña el análisis de inteligencia dentro de sus departamentos y dis-
ciplinas específicos. Estos incluyen programas de pregrado y posgra-
do; especializaciones académicas en inteligencia; programas multi-
disciplinarios; programas tradicionales de Liberal Arts; y programas
de escuela profesional. También provienen de diferentes disciplinas
como académicos, investigadores, profesionales o todo lo ya mencio-
nado. Este artículo resume los puntos de vista que comparten todos
los participantes de la mesa redonda en relación con la enseñanza del
análisis de inteligencia, para incluir la pedagogía; metodología; resul-
tados del aprendizaje; métodos de evaluación; contenido del curso;
uso de herramientas analíticas y técnicas analíticas estructurales; y
simulacros y ejercicios.

Palabras clave: inteligencia, análisis, pedagogía, metodología, ense-

ñanza

摘要
多年来，关于情报分析的辩论一直都在进行：情报分析是一种
艺术还是科学？是谍报技术还是训练？是创新性思维还是批
判性思维？辩论结果则是，大学教师和从业人员时常在如何进
行情报分析教学一事上持有不同观点。2017年5月23日，美国
西弗吉尼亚查尔斯镇举办了国际情报教育协会（ International
Associate for Intelligence Education，简称IAFIE）会议，该圆桌
会议由5所大学的教师参加，他们分享了各自如何在其特定的
学术部门和学科下进行情报分析教学。分享的观点包括研究
生和本科生学位课程、以情报为主修或辅修的课程、跨学科课
程、传统自由艺术课程、以及专业学校课程。与会人员同时也
是来自不同背景的大学教师、学者和从业人员。本文对圆桌会
议参与者关于如何进行情报分析教学分享的观点进行了总结，
从而将教学法、方法论、学习成果、评估方法、课程内容、
分析工具的使用、结构化分析技术（structured analytical tech-
niques）的使用、模拟法以及练习包括在内。

关键词：情报，分析，教学法，方法论，教学

72
 Teaching Intelligence Analysis: An Academic and Practitioner Discussion

Introduction

Tale as old as time

Tune as old as song
Bitter sweet and strange
Finding you can change
Learning you were wrong

(Ashman and Menken 1991)

T
his may be a song lyric from a Disney movie, but it could also be an appro-
priate description of how academics and practitioners often differ in their
views of intelligence analysis: Art or science? Tradecraft or training? Cre-
ative or critical thinking? Beauty or beast?
On May 23, 2017, at this year’s International Association for Intelligence
Education (IAFIE) Conference in Charles Town, WV, a roundtable composed of
faculty members from five universities in the United States shared their views on
how they approach the teaching of intelligence analysis within their specific ac-
ademic departments and disciplines. These include graduate and undergraduate
degree programs; intelligence-specific majors or minors; multidisciplinary pro-
grams; traditional liberal arts programs; and professional school programs. They
also come from diverse backgrounds as academics, scholars, practitioners, or all
of the above.

Roundtable Participants

D
r. Stephen Coulthart, Assistant Professor of National Security Studies
at the University of Texas, El Paso (UTEP), teaches intelligence analysis
courses in support of two degree programs: a Master of Science in Intel-
ligence and National Security and a Minor in Intelligence and National Securi-
ty. UTEP’s graduate program is certified by the International Association for In-
telligence Education. UTEP also offers an open source certificate, the first in the
country that offers curriculum not found in many civilian institutions, such as:
social media intelligence; commercial imagery; and geospatial intelligence. At the
undergraduate level UTEP offers an online Bachelor of Arts in Security Studies.
Dr. Stephen Marrin, Associate Professor of Intelligence Analysis at James
Madison University (JMU) in Harrisonburg, VA, is the Program Director for the
undergraduate Bachelor of Science in Intelligence Analysis (IA) degree program. It
is administered as part of the multidisciplinary Department of Integrated Science
73
 Global Security and Intelligence Studies

and Technology (ISAT). The JMU Intelligence Analysis program is undergraduate

only, with about 250 students in the major. There are two primary concentrations:
national security and competitive intelligence, with law enforcement possible if
the students minor in criminal justice. JMU’s technical specialties include cyber
intelligence (linked to computer science), and geospatial intelligence (linked to
geographic sciences). It may be best to think of JMU’s program more as an “anal-
ysis” major, which sets its graduates up well for a wide variety of different kinds of
jobs to include—but not limited to—intelligence analysis.
Sarah Miller Beebe, Adjunct Faculty, Johns Hopkins University (JHU),
teaches intelligence analysis courses in the Krieger School of Arts and Sciences,
Advanced Academic Programs and Graduate Degree Programs at JHU’s Wash-
ington, D.C. campus. The course is offered as part of the five-course Intelligence
Certificate. The Certificate may also be combined with four graduate degree pro-
grams: Master of Arts in Global Studies; Master of Arts in Government; Master
of Science in Government Analytics; or Master of Arts in Public Management.
The majority of students who pursue the Certificate do so in the context of their
Master’s degree. JHU views this Intelligence Certificate as being something along
the lines of a public policy program for current or future intelligence officers, to
help them understand the full contours of the profession, how it works across
its breadth, and relates to the U.S. Government writ large. The program provides
students with an understanding of the ways in which the United States practices
intelligence; the purposes to which it puts intelligence; the limits upon intelli-
gence, be they practical, legal, ethical, or cultural; and the important debates in
the field. The faculty members are scholars and practitioners with many years of
experience in the field.
Dr. Brian Simpkins is the Associate Director of the Blue Grass State Intel-
ligence Community Center of Academic Excellence (BGS IC CAE), at Eastern
Kentucky University (EKU) in Richmond, KY. Brian Simpkins is also a part-time
faculty member within the EKU Homeland Security Degree Program. The EKU
Intelligence Studies Program is part of the Bachelor of Science in Homeland Se-
curity offered through the College of Justice and Safety. The Intelligence Studies
Program started with a required intelligence process course for Homeland Secu-
rity majors and then expanded to an interdisciplinary undergraduate Certificate
in Intelligence Studies, requiring four courses to include intelligence history;
intelligence process; counterintelligence; and intelligence analysis. It is paired
with students completing four courses in a concentration, including intelligence
collection and analysis; threat specialization; regional analysis (plus two lan-
guage courses); security operations, and science and technology. EKU also offers
a graduate Certificate in Intelligence and National Security with four courses in
foundations of homeland security; terrorism and intelligence; intelligence anal-
ysis; and international relations. The undergraduate and graduate certificates are
74
 Teaching Intelligence Analysis: An Academic and Practitioner Discussion

standalone in which a student can obtain the certificate without having to enroll
or complete a formal degree. Starting in fall 2017, EKU will also offer a Minor in
Cybersecurity and Intelligence pairing three intelligence courses in intelligence
process; counterintelligence; and intelligence analysis; with four forensic comput-
ing courses.
Dr. Richard J. Kilroy, Jr., Assistant Professor of Politics at Coastal Caro-
lina University (CCU) in Conway, SC, teaches intelligence analysis courses in
support of CCU’s Bachelor of Arts in Intelligence and National Security Stud-
ies (INTEL) degree program. The undergraduate intelligence degree program is
administered within the Department of Politics at CCU, and as such, follows a
traditional liberal arts curriculum. INTEL majors at CCU complete the Univer-
sity core curriculum, which includes foreign language; sciences; arts; politics;
history; English; and math courses. Since students elect to be an INTEL major
upon enrollment, they take courses during their core curriculum required for
the major, to include anthropology; communications; geography; philosophy;
and statistics. Foundational intelligence courses required for the major include
Introduction to Intelligence Studies; Intelligence Communications; Intelligence
Analysis; Intelligence Operations; Intelligence Research and Writing; and either
Homeland Security or National Security. Students complete the program with a
Capstone Course, which involves a major research paper. Students in other dis-
ciplines can also pursue a Minor in Intelligence and National Security Studies.
Other minors available to INTEL majors include Geospatial Information Sys-
tems (GIS); Criminology; Global Studies; and Computer Science.

Discussion

T
he format of the roundtable discussion posed a series of questions on teach-
ing Intelligence Analysis to each of the participants. The following is a sum-
mary of the responses from each of the faculty members.

1. What courses do you currently offer in Intelligence Analysis?

S
tephen Coulthart stated that several courses are offered at UTEP, including
Introduction to Intelligence Analysis; Intelligence Collection and Analysis;
and Introduction to Intelligence and National Security course. Graduate-lev-
el courses are reading intensive, so students are expected to be familiar with most of
the significant literature in the field of intelligence studies.
Brian Simpkins shared that EKU offers three upper level undergraduate
courses which focus on intelligence analysis: HLS 321W Critical Problem Analy-
sis (an undergraduate critical thinking course required for all Homeland Security
majors); HLS 401 Intelligence Process; and HLS 403 Intelligence Analysis. At the
75
 Global Security and Intelligence Studies

graduate level, EKU offers HLS 825 Intelligence Analysis.

Sarah Miller Beebe explained that students pursuing JHU’s Certificate in
Intelligence are required to take one course in each of five areas: Introductory
Courses; Theory; Operations; Law and Ethics; and Applications. The analysis
course falls under the Operations requirement. It is also an elective in the various
MA programs as well.
Since JMU’s program is all about analysis, Stephen Marrin shared that there
are 14 required courses in the Intelligence Analysis degree program: four courses
focus on methods, how to think, counterfactuals, etc.; four courses focus on tech-
nology applications, such as data science, data mining, and visualization; and a
number of others provide broad contextualization of the analytic function, as well
as a senior Capstone course. In the Capstone course students conduct a self-initi-
ated research plan, choose a topic and develop a research question, more along the
lines of a senior thesis or self-initiated analytic product rather than one that was
requested.
At CCU, Richard Kilroy explained that Intelligence Analysis is taught initially
within the INTEL 200 Introduction to Intelligence Studies course, which students
take in their freshman or sophomore year. Students later take INTEL 310 Intelli-
gence Analysis as part of the major’s foundational curriculum. Students can also take
elective courses, such as POLI 399 Applied Intelligence Analysis and INTEL 337
Law Enforcement Intelligence, which teach intelligence analysis within the context
of specific geopolitical regions, or disciplines.

2. Are your courses limited to Intelligence Studies majors only and what
prerequisites are required for taking intelligence analysis courses?

S
tephen Coulthart reiterated that at UTEP, only Intelligence Studies majors
can take Intelligence Analysis courses. For Introduction to Intelligence Anal-
ysis and Intelligence Collection and Analysis, students need to take the In-
troduction to Intelligence and National Security course. This course provides a
very broad overview of the field, to include the basic context of the intelligence
community, the intelligence cycle, etc.
Brian Simpkins said that at EKU, any major may take the intelligence certif-
icates or the new minor. The undergraduate certificate in particular was designed
to be multidisciplinary to attract majors from across the campus. EKU is an In-
telligence Community Center of Academic Excellence (IC CAE) and the IC CAE
program office desires the multidisciplinary approach. EKU has been informed
by the IC CAE program office that the IC desires graduates with degrees from a
number of traditional academic disciplines, especially STEM degrees, who know
something about intelligence and analysis. This is how the EKU Intelligence Stud-
ies Program was structured to provide students basic knowledge about intelli-
76
 Teaching Intelligence Analysis: An Academic and Practitioner Discussion

gence and analysis paired with their traditional degree. There are no required un-
dergraduate prerequisites for courses in intelligence analysis. It is recommended,
however, that the student has taken the basic undergraduate research methods
course in their major before enrolling in HLS 403 Intelligence Analysis.
Sarah Miller Beebe explained that intelligence analysis is fundamentally
about understanding and communicating to decision makers what is known, not
known, and surmised, as it can best be determined. Therefore, students in JHU’s
graduate degree programs will read seminal texts on intelligence analysis, discuss
the complex cognitive, psychological, organizational, ethical, and legal issues sur-
rounding intelligence analysis now and in the past, and apply analytic method-
ologies to real world problems. As a prerequisite for taking Intelligence Analysis,
graduate students are expected to have completed one of the following: AS 470.620
Introduction to Intelligence in the Five Eyes Community; AS 470.711.51 Intelli-
gence: From Secrets to Policy; or AS.470.748.51 The Art and Practice of Intelli-
gence (or gain permission of instructor).
Stephen Marrin stated that at JMU, most courses in the IA program are
limited to Intelligence Analysis majors, but he will take additional students who
request to be added in. Since he is a Political Scientist by academic discipline in the
multidisciplinary ISAT Department, Marrin noted that political science students
who take IA courses seem to enjoy them and do well. As for prerequisite cours-
es, the only requirement for students pursuing the BA in Intelligence Analysis is
Statistics. For courses which Marrin teaches, functionally there are no prerequi-
sites, since most are pitched as mid- to upper-level political science courses. Other
courses in the Intelligence Analysis major do have prerequisites.
At CCU, due to the large number of students enrolled in the Intelligence
and National Security Studies degree program (currently 350), Richard Kilroy ex-
plained that the Major Core required courses, such as Intelligence Analysis, are
limited to INTEL majors or minors. To take the prerequisite course for all Major
Core INTEL courses (INTEL 200 Introduction to Intelligence Studies), students
are required to have taken POLI 201 American Government. Students must pass
INTEL 200 with a grade of C or better if they are already a declared INTEL major.
If they are an INTEL pre-major (determined by High School GPA and SAT/ACT
test scores at admission), they must achieve a grade of B or better to become an
INTEL major.

3. What pedagogical style do you use in teaching Intelligence Analysis?

What course content do you include? What learning outcomes do you have
for your students?
77
 Global Security and Intelligence Studies

S
tephen Coulthart shared that at UTEP, with undergraduates in his Intelli-
gence Collection and Analysis course, he curates a classroom environment
that is as interactive as possible. This is done to help keep students engaged.
For example, he uses an exercise on HUMINT collection from Lahneman and Ar-
cos (2014). In terms of content, he focuses on learning about intelligence analysis
for 75 percent of the course (e.g., theory and substantive knowledge of intelligence
agencies) and 25 percent on analytical skills (e.g., Bottom Line Up Front briefing
and writing). The course content comes from two books. For the content on intelli-
gence collection, he uses Lowenthal and Clark (2015) and for intelligence analysis
content he uses Fingar (2011). In terms of intelligence analysis content, Coulthart
expects that students walk away from the course being able to discuss and define
intelligence analysis and how it fits into U.S. national security as well as identify
the key issues and debates in intelligence analysis. To test for this knowledge he
uses mostly multiple choice along with some short answers (one in class and one
out of class). Coulthart’s approach toward graduate intelligence analysis educa-
tion is quite different from undergraduates. It is informed by Schon (1990), which
stresses the importance of providing aspiring professionals with environments
where they can fail, adopt, and succeed repeatedly. In developing his syllabus for
the course, he drew inspiration from art studios where students are given difficult
tasks and allowed to “fumble” through them. Coulthart sees his role in this course
less as an instructor imparting knowledge and more as a coach/resource person
helping students make sense of each task. In terms of learning outcomes he ex-
pects that students will possess a basic understanding of the context of intelligence
analysis (e.g., historical and organizational) and basic intelligence analysis profi-
ciencies (e.g., searching, validating, organizing, analyzing, and communicating).
Brian Simpkins explained that at EKU, each of the courses which cover intel-
ligence analysis employ different pedagogies determined by the expected learning
outcomes. For example, HLS 321W Critical Process, on-campus, utilizes a lecture
and lab format—each week has a lecture on the assigned topic and students then
are provided exercises or team simulations where they must use the material cov-
ered in the lecture as they work on a major research project. The online version of
HLS 321W is a self-study course where the students do the same simulations and
exercises as on-campus students and also develop a major research project. The
course utilizes Elder and Paul’s (2016) framework from the Thinker’s Guide to An-
alytic Thinking. The last four to five weeks of HLS 401 Intelligence Process, which
focuses on intelligence analysis, employs a team-based learning format on-cam-
pus, and online a self-study format. HLS 403 Intelligence Analysis employs a sem-
inar format with extensive case study work done individually and in teams. The
online course is more self-study, but still employs student team projects. HLS 825
Intelligence Analysis is only taught online and is done in a self-study format with
significant case study work done by individual students and an individual student
threat analysis project. Intelligence analysis courses utilize a number of techniques
78
 Teaching Intelligence Analysis: An Academic and Practitioner Discussion

from Heuer and Pherson (2014), to include Analysis of Competing Hypotheses

(ACH); What If Analysis; Red Teaming; and Indicators Analysis. The course also
uses Clark (2016), based on formal modeling and case studies.
Sarah Miller Beebe shared her teaching pedagogy at JHU, which includes
learning objectives, multiple learning methods, and assessment types. The gradu-
ate intelligence analysis course she teaches is designed to ensure that it fits within
the curriculum, includes clearly defined terminal learning objectives and multiple,
relevant assessment methods. There is a strong critical thinking and metacogni-
tive underpinning to the course. She structures her teaching as a seminar to guide
graduate students through the 14-week course. It is literature-based with learning
objectives for every class meeting and opportunities throughout the semester to
bridge theory and practice. She employs readings from a number of sources, to
include George and Bruce (2014), Heuer and Pherson (2014), Beebe and Pherson
(2014), Clark (2016), National Research Council (2011), DNI (2015), and CIA
(2009). She also recommends that students read historical literature such as Kent
(1949).
Stephen Marrin reiterated that since JMU’s program is all about analysis, the
faculty members in the program employ a variety of pedagogical styles in teaching
different courses. For his knowledge-based courses, he recognizes the challenge in
teaching undergraduates that they do not often read the assigned materials. There-
fore, he assigns papers that have the following as a requirement: answer a question
by referencing key content from each of the assigned readings into a holistic, syn-
thetic evaluation of the course content. This provides a platform for the students
to develop their evaluative and argumentative skills (the core skills of the strategic
intelligence analyst). Marrin also has students prepare strategic intelligence assess-
ments in a capstone course. Students in this course can choose a client for whom
they will present their paper as the consumer of the product, or they can produce
it as a self-initiated product. Since this is a two semester course process, students
must pick a topic, choose a research question, identify methods to employ, and
then implement the research design by learning in a trial and error way (like riding
a bike), where they continually revise their research design and ultimate product.
Marrin stated that his goals as a political scientist teaching social context in an
intelligence analysis program are to (1) give students knowledge about aspects
of intelligence, intelligence analysis, and national security decision making; (2)
be diagnostic and give the students a chance to decide if national security intelli-
gence analysis (or intelligence, or analysis, or national security) is the right path
for them; and (3) be preparatory, or as Rob Johnson (2005) referred to it, a kind of
“sociological acculturation” ... a preparation for what it takes to do analysis well.
Marrin said that JMU’s Intelligence Analysis program is very much like the new
pre-med degree programs, which go beyond science education to now include a
multidisciplinary approach which includes a social context (e.g., including courses

79
 Global Security and Intelligence Studies

in philosophy, psychology, and sociology), with the goal being a solid knowledge
foundation for those who choose to go to medical school after graduation. He says
the JMU intelligence analysis program has many similarities with this pre-med
approach to undergraduate education (Marrin 2009).
At CCU, Richard Kilroy explained that multiple faculty teach INTEL 310
Intelligence Analysis and each brings in their own pedagogy to enhance learning.
In the Introductory course, INTEL 200, however, where students are first exposed
to Intelligence Analysis, all faculty use Jensen, McElreath, and Graves (2012). In
his INTEL 310 classes, Kilroy begins by discussing critical thinking using litera-
ture such as Heuer (1999); Moore (2007); and Facione (2015). The course then fo-
cuses on teaching Structured Analytical Techniques (SAT), using Heuer and Pher-
son’s (2014) text, along with Beebe and Pherson (2014). Students work in teams
assigned to specific case studies, which then must “teach” the other students in the
class about the case study, guide them through the use of the appropriate SAT, and
then demonstrate an understanding of the SAT by explaining their outcome. As a
culmination of the course, students also work in teams to analyze a contemporary
security situation by developing four scenarios for the possibility of a Third Inti-
fada in the Middle East, using adversarial collaboration and structured debate to
argue their most likely outcome. In addition to the written papers, the assessment
instruments for the course include a midterm which is more objective (multiple
choice, true/false, short answer) assessing Bloom’s lower cognitive skills and a final
exam (all essay questions) assessing Bloom’s higher cognitive skills (Bloom 1956).

Questions from the Audience

A
t the conclusion of the discussion, the roundtable participants took ques-
tions from the audience.
One question focused on teaching students the importance of get-
ting a security clearance and how to do that. Stephen Coulthart mentioned that
at UTEP, they cover this in their new student orientation, given the prevalence of
social media today and how public students are with their personal lives. Brian
Simpkins stated that at EKU, students are taught how to be smart about getting a
clearance in their JSO 100 course. They learn about background checks, medical
issues, financial disclosures (paying rent on time, etc.). Further, the BGS IC CAE
and homeland security student groups often bring in guest speakers who discuss
the security clearance process. Richard Kilroy said that at CCU, in their National
Security Club, students are taught about filling out an SF 86 (starting now to gather
information needed from parents, employers, etc.).
Another question was: is it alright for students to fail? Stephen Marrin ar-
gued that yes it is, since it is acceptable to try something and learn from experi-
ences. In the capstone project he does not grade solely on the quality of the final

80
 Teaching Intelligence Analysis: An Academic and Practitioner Discussion

project, but also on the degree to which the students engage with the learning
experience as well as a reflective essay at the end of the process. This reflective
essay, modeled on a paper the graduate students at Brunel University’s MA in In-
telligence and Security Studies write at the end of the Brunel Analytic Simulation
Exercise (BASE), allows students to reflect on the process, have good conversa-
tions on failure and recovery, and understand how lessons learned help prevent
future failures.
One question addressed whether students are exposed to courses in philos-
ophy and logic at the different schools. Stephen Coulthart said that undergraduate
UTEP students do take these courses as part of the Liberal Arts core curriculum.
For graduate courses, students learn methods of argumentation. Stephen Marrin
stated that at JMU students do learn critical thinking skills in their methods cours-
es which were developed and taught by Noel Hendrickson based on his background
in philosophy (Hendrickson 2008). Richard Kilroy shared that at CCU, Intelligence
majors are required to take PHIL 110, Introduction to Logic, as part of their Intelli-
gence Foundation curriculum.
A student from the University of Mississippi provided a brief overview of
the Intelligence Studies program at Ole Miss, which does not offer an Intelligence
major, but rather a minor in Intelligence to compliment other majors. Students take
six courses in Intelligence Studies, to include Analytics I and II, where they must
score a B or higher. In these courses they learn Structured Analytical Techniques,
how to brief and write effectively, using estimative language in the intelligence
community. Ole Miss also requires students to have had an internship during their
undergraduate studies, which provides a career-oriented sense of purpose to the
program of study.
A lecturer at Edith Cowan University in Perth, Australia asked about how
faculty in the United States develop assessment tasks for intelligence analysis
courses. Stephen Coulthart stated that in his graduate intelligence analysis course,
they have four modules in their course which include the context of intelligence
analysis (e.g., socio-organizational issues); setting analysis (e.g., requirement anal-
ysis); methods of analysis (e.g., forecasting and hypothesis testing); and analyt-
ical communication (e.g., writing and briefing). He also stated that his research
informs his teaching and helps determine methods of assessment. For example,
his doctoral thesis at the University of Pittsburgh focused on the effectiveness of
Structured Analytical Techniques in intelligence analysis. New information has
been discovered on the use of SATs, in regards to what works and what does not
(Coulthart 2017). Sarah Miller Beebe uses multiple assessment instruments in her
graduate courses at JHU which demonstrate logic and reasoning as they read the
intelligence analysis literature. Students produce short reaction papers, complete
analytic problem sets, provide oral briefings, and produce an annotated bibliog-
raphy and longer paper on a topic relating to intelligence analysis. Throughout
81
 Global Security and Intelligence Studies

the semester-long seminar they engage in give-and-take discussions focused on

class-generated key questions that align with the learning objectives for each week.
Beebe used the example of solving a math problem, where students not only study
the literature, including theory and methods (like SATs), but also “show the work”
of their analysis—a process that helps them bridge theory and practice and ob-
serve their own intellectual progress. Richard Kilroy shared that at CCU, there are
assessments within courses tied to the learning objectives, but there are also pro-
gram assessments required by the university. For Intelligence Studies, there is not
a formal test, such as a major field exam like other majors (Political Science, for ex-
ample). He suggested that maybe this is something that IAFIE could help develop.

Conclusion

S
ince the roundtable was limited to 70 minutes, there were more topics that
were left for another discussion, as well as questions that did not get asked.
In the end, the roundtable left the “tale as old as time” of whether intelligence
analysis is an art or science open to further dialog (Landon-Murray and Coulthart
2016). The good news is that academics and practitioners are talking to each oth-
er, and in many schools, teaching together. This ultimately benefits students who
desire to pursue careers as intelligence analysts by having faculty members who
bring diverse experiences throughout the intelligence community as practitioners,
along with academics and scholars who bring new research into analytical meth-
odologies, new pedagogies, and new insights into teaching intelligence analysis.

Acknowledgements

I wish to thank Dr. Larry Valero, UTEP, for his support in adding this roundtable
discussion to the IAFIE conference.

References

Ashman, Howard, and Alen Menken. 1991. “Original Song Lyrics for Beauty
and the Beast.” MetroLyrics. [Link]
[Link]

Beebe, Sarah Miller, and Randy Pherson. 2014. Cases in Intelligence Analysis: Struc-
tured Analytic Techniques in Action. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: CQ Press.

Bloom, Benjamin S., ed. 1956. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook I:

The Cognitive Domain. New York: David McKay Co., Inc.

CIA. 2009. CIA Tradecraft Primer. [Link]

82
 Teaching Intelligence Analysis: An Academic and Practitioner Discussion

of-intelligence/csi-publications/books-and-monographs/TradecrafPrimer-apr09.
pdf

Clark, Robert. 2016. Intelligence Analysis: A Target-Centric Approach. 5th ed. Wash-
ington, DC: CQ Press.

Coulthart, Stephen. 2017. “An Evidence-Based Evaluation of 12 Core Structured

Analytic Techniques.” International Journal of Intelligence and Counter Intelligence
30 (2): 368–391. doi:10.1080/08850607.2016.1230706.

DNI. 2015. ICD 203 Analytical Standards. DNI Office of the Director of Intel-
ligence Analysis. [Link] 203 Analytic
[Link].

Elder, Linda, and Richard Paul. 2016. Thinker’s Guide to Analytic Thinking. To-
males, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking.

Facione, Peter. 2015. “Critical Thinking: What It Is and Why It Counts.”

Insight Assessment. [Link]
rep=rep1&type=pdf

Fingar, Thomas. 2011. Reducing Uncertainty: Intelligence Analysis and National Se-
curity. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford Security Studies.

George, Roger, and James Bruce, ed. 2014. Analyzing Intelligence: National Security
Practitioners’ Perspectives. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Hendrickson, Noel. 2008. “Critical Thinking in Intelligence Analysis.” In-

ternational Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence 21 (4): 679–693.
doi:10.1080/08850600802254749.

Heuer, Jr. Richards. 1999. Psychology of Intelligence Analysis. Washington, DC:

Center for the Study of Intelligence.

Heuer, Jr. Richards, and Randy Pherson. 2014. Structured Analytical Techniques for
Intelligence Analysis. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: CQ Press.

Jensen, Carl, David McElreath, and Melissa Graves. 2012. Introduction to Intelli-
gence Studies. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

Johnson, Rob. 2005. Analytic Culture in the U.S. Intelligence Community: An Eth-
nographic Study. Washington, DC: Center for the Study of Intelligence.
83
 Global Security and Intelligence Studies

Kent, Sherman. 1949. Strategic Intelligence for American World Policy. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press.

Lahneman, William, and Ruben Arcos. 2014. The Art of Intelligence: Simulations,
Exercises, and Games. New York: Rowan and Littlefield.

Landon-Murray, Michael, and Stephen Coulthart. 2016. “Academic Intelligence

Programs in the United States: Exploring the Training and Tradecraft Debate.”
Global Security and Intelligence Studies 2 (1): Article 3: 2–19. doi:10.18278/gsis.
2.1.2.

Lowenthal, Mark. 2016. Intelligence: From Secrets to Policy. 7th ed. Washington,
DC: CQ Press.

Lowenthal, Mark, and Robert Clark. 2015. The 5 Disciplines of Intelligence Collec-
tion. Washington, DC: CQ Press.

Marrin, Stephen. 2009. “Training and Educating U.S. Intelligence Analysts.” In-
ternational Journal of Intelligence and Counter Intelligence 22 (1): 131–146.
doi:10.1080/08850600802486986.

Moore, David. 2007. Critical Thinking and Intelligence Analysis. Washington, DC:
National Defense Intelligence College.

National Research Council. 2011. Intelligence Analysis for Tomorrow: Advances

from the Behavioral and Social Sciences. Committee on Behavioral and Social Sci-
ence Research to Improve Intelligence Analysis for National Security, Board on
Behavioral, Cognitive, and Sensory Sciences, Division of Behavioral and Social
Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Schon, Donald. 1990. Educating the Reflective Practitioner: Toward a New Design
for Teaching and Learning in the Professions. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

84