The what, why, who, and how of teaching intelligence: the Leicester approach

Abstract

This article uses our experience of teaching a postgraduate course in Intelligence Studies as a basis for discussion of core issues relating to contemporary intelligence education. After situating our understanding of Intelligence Studies in the context of wider debates about its nature and purpose, the article goes on to discuss key questions of how, who, and what we teach when we teach ‘intelligence’. It discusses the pedagogical benefits of a Distance Learning approach to teaching intelligence. It presents a picture of variegated demand arising from a dynamic and expanding professional sector and the continued appeal of studying the subject to non-professionals. It concludes that in providing ‘education’ rather than ‘training’ and taking a constructivist approach to learning as a shared journey, the ‘Leicester Approach’ can both improve the practice of intelligence and widen participation in key debates about intelligence.

Notes

1. http://www.afio.com/12_academic.htm.

2. Wirtz, “The American Approach to Intelligence Studies.”

3. For a discussion that compares US and UK approaches to teaching intelligence, see Glees, “Intelligence Studies, Universities and Security.”

4. Coulthart and Crosston, “Terra Incognita: Mapping American Intelligence.”

5. Ibid., 47.

6. Ibid., 62.

7. For a discussion of how far intelligence analysis has progressed towards the status of a discipline the US context, see Fisher et al., “Is Intelligence Analysis a Discipline?”

8. Marrin, “Improving Intelligence Studies as an Academic Discipline,” 266.

9. See, for example, Gill and Phythian, “What is Intelligence Studies?”; and Richards, “Intelligence Studies, Academia and Professionalization.”

10. Butler, Review of Intelligence. See also, Goodman, “Studying and Teaching About Intelligence.”

11. Scott and Jackson, “The Study of Intelligence in Theory and Practice,” 153.

12. To repeat the point about the importance of political culture, this reflected the extent to which secrecy has been a core feature of British political culture in general, and intelligence culture in particular. See, Moran, Classified.

13. Marrin, “Improving Intelligence Studies as an Academic Discipline,” 267; and Kent, “The Need for an Intelligence Literature” (this latter was the opening article in the first issue of Studies in Intelligence).

14. Swenson, “Meeting the Intelligence Community’s Continuing.”

15. Andrew and Dilks, The Missing Dimension.

16. On the historiography of intelligence history, see Moran and Murphy, Intelligence Studies in Britain and the US.

17. See, Johnson, A Season of Inquiry.

18. Treverton, Covert Action.

19. Ransom, “Review Essay,” 985.

20. Ransom, “Being Intelligent About Secret Intelligence Agencies.”

21. Ransom, “Review Essay,” 990–1.

22. Gill, Policing Politics. See chapter 1 “What Do We Know and How Do We Know It?” 9–47.

23. Stephen Marrin first suggested this parallel in “Intelligence Analysis Theory: Explaining.”

24. Putnam, “APSA Presidential Address,” 249.

25. Clearly, it is possible to provide bespoke CPD courses that focus on specific elements of ‘procedural’ or ‘domain’ knowledge outside of the MA framework or that address other specific professional requirements.

26. Dujmovic, “Colleges Must Be Intelligent.”

27. Ibid.

28. See, for example, Andrew, “Intelligence Analysis Needs to Look Backwards Before Looking Forward.”

29. McCombs and Whisler, The Learner-centered Classroom and School; Ramsden, Learning to Teach in Higher Education; and Jones and Brader-Araje, “The Impact of Constructivism on Education.”

30. Salmon, E-moderating, 32–53.

31. Ibid., 31.

32. Guo, “Optimal Video Length for Student Engagement.”

33. Richardson, “Students have 10 min Attention Span”; and Bunce et al., “How long Can Students Pay Attention.”

34. Prince, “Does Active Learning.”

35. Freeman et al., “Active learning Increases Student Performance.”

36. Woo and Reeves, “Meaningful Interaction in Web-based Learning,” 16.

37. C. Roland Christensen Centre for Teaching and Learning at the Harvard Business School, “Questions for Class Discussion.”

38. Higher Education Academy, “Flexible Learning in Higher Education.”

39. Roberts, “University Politics Seminars are a Breeding Ground for Chauvinism.”

40. U.S. Department of Defense Office of Inspector General, Unclassified Report of Investigation of Allegations, 137–8, 140–3.

41. Ibid., 133.

42. Gill and Phythian, “What Is Intelligence Studies?” 8. This is based on an updating of the categorisation proposed in Wesley Wark in the early 1990s, in the early stages of the development of Intelligence Studies. See, Wark, “Introduction: The Study of Espionage.”

43. Rudner, “Intelligence Studies in Higher Education,” 121–2.

44. Gill and Phythian, “What Is Intelligence Studies?” 7, 8.

45. Ibid., 9, 10; and Gill and Phythian, Intelligence in an Insecure World, Chs. 1–2.

46. For example, Handel, “The Study of Intelligence”; Phythian, “Intelligence Theory and Theories of International Relations”; Wirtz, “The Art of the Intelligence Autopsy”; and Caddell and Caddell, “Historical Case Studies in Intelligence Education.”

47. Putnam, “APSA Presidential Address,” 251.

48. Sheptycki, “Organisational Pathologies in Police Intelligence.”

49. What follows is based upon applications for admission, which include personal statements explaining why the applicant wants to take this particular course.

50. Lindley and Marchin, The Postgraduate Premium.

51. Survey of 64 students on the University of Leicester MA DL Intelligence and Security course with questionnaires sent to all students between December 2016 and March 2017.

52. David Strachan-Morris, Survey of MA DL Intelligence and Security Students, December 2016.

53. Zegart, “9/11 and the FBI: The Organisational Roots of Failure.”

54. Donald, “Private Security and Intelligence.”

55. The Security Institute, https://www.security-institute.org/Join/professional_membership_academic_pathway, accessed 13 March 2017.