![Sample our Politics & International Relations journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5947/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Politics-International-Relations.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
Explaining the potential value of intelligence analysis requires substantial engagement with the full range of potential approaches to defining ‘value’ in ethics/value theory. This paper explores a frequently neglected potential perspective: an ‘internalist’ approach that defines value in terms of something’s internal characteristics (and not its external consequences). Specifically, this essay develops and defends the explanatory power of internalist approaches in terms of their theoretical fit with established knowledge about value theory, their specificity and precision, and their explanatory scope and fruitfulness in generating potential new approaches to thinking about a range of other issues in intelligence studies.
Acknowledgements
The author wishes to thank his students and colleagues in the Intelligence Analysis Program at James Madison University, the editors of Intelligence and National Security, three anonymous referees, and (especially) Jules Gaspard and Giangiuseppe Pili for their advice and encouragement in developing this paper.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes
1. For 9/11, see (for example), ‘The 9/11 Commission Report’. For 7/7, see (for example) ‘Could 7/7 Have Been Prevented?’.
2. Johnson, ‘Sketches for a Theory of Strategic Intelligence,’ 33.
3. See (especially) Marrin, ‘Intelligence Analysis Theory’ and Johnson, ‘Sketches for a Theory of Strategic Intelligence’. Also consider related accounts including Gill, ‘Theories of Intelligence’; Phythian, ‘Intelligence Theory and Theories of International Relations’; Sims, ‘A Theory of Intelligence and International Politics’; Treverton et.al. Toward a Theory of Intelligence: Workshop Report; and Warner, ‘Intelligence as Risk Shifting’.
4. Office of the Director of National Intelligence, ‘Principles of Professional Ethics for the Intelligence Community.’
5. Lipton, ‘Precis of Inference to the Best Explanation, 2nd Edition,’ the book Inference to Best Explanation, and (original paper) ‘Inference to the Best Explanation.’
6. This approach was first proposed in print in Hendrickson, ‘Critical Thinking in Intelligence Analysis’; was further explored in Hendrickson ‘Critical Thinking’; but found its fullest exploration in Hendrickson Reasoning for Intelligence Analysts. Note that these sources typically refer to the approach under the ‘Multidimensional’ label, but the author would now prefer to refer to it as the ‘Intellectual Values’ approach.
7. See, for example, Epicurus (Originally ~280s BC), The Epicurus Reader: Selected Writings and Testimonia.
8. See, for example, Aristotle (Originally ~350 B.C.), Nichomachean Ethics.
9. See, for example, Thomas Aquinas (Originally 1271–1272), Commentary on the Nichomachean Ethics, Vol 1–2.
10. See, for example, Machiavelli (Originally 1532), The Prince.
11. See, for example, Mill (Originally 1861), Utilitarianism.
12. See, for example, Kant (Originally 1785), Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals.
13. See (Hendrickson Citation2018) (especially), and also perhaps 2014 and 2008.
14. For more on the personal dimension and the twelve virtues of ideal intelligence reasoning, see chapter 6 of (Hendrickson Citation2018).
15. For more on the procedural dimension and the twelve rules of ideal intelligence reasoning, see chapter 7 of (Hendrickson Citation2018).
16. For more on the problem-specific dimension and the twelve questions of ideal intelligence reasoning, see chapter 8 of (Hendrickson Citation2018).
17. Again, see chapters 5–8 of (Hendrickson Citation2018) for a much more detailed accounting of these concepts.
18. For more on those challenges, see (Hendrickson Citation2018), especially Chapters 1–3, and pp. 57–60.
19. See Office of the Director of National Intelligence. Intelligence Community Directive 203: Analytic Standards.
20. Note that ICD 203 does also say that objectivity also involves ‘awareness of their own assumptions and reasoning,’ being ‘alert to influence by existing analytic positions,’ and should ‘consider alternative perspectives and contrary information’ (cf. Ibid sections D6a and D6b). But, these are pretty thin as a ‘positive’ account of what objectivity would be. These are offered more as an account of what it means to avoid bias, than they are a positive account of what it means to be absent of bias. For that reason, this paper states that ICD 203 defines objectivity primarily (rather than exclusively) in negative terms.
21. Note that ICD 203 actually explicitly claims to be doing this (cf. Ibid, section D4.)
22. For what it is worth, that would be the author’s preferred approach. But, it is ultimately a matter for another occasion.
23. US Congress, IRTPA, Section 1017.
24. ODNI, ICD 203, Section D6e(4).
25. See CIA, A Tradecraft Primer: Structured Analytic Techniques for Improving Intelligence Analysis; DIA, Tradecraft Primer: Basic Structured Analytic Techniques; Canadian Defence, Aide Memoire on Intelligence Analysis Tradecraft; Defence Intelligence (UK), Quick Wins for Busy Analysts.
26. See Jones, The Thinker’s Toolkit; Heuer Jr., The Psychology of Intelligence Analysis; Moore, Critical Thinking and Intelligence Analysis; Pherson, Handbook of Analytic Tools and Techniques; Heuer Jr. and Pherson, Structured Analytic Techniques for Intelligence Analysis.
27. These criteria are implicit in (Hendrickson Citation2018), especially pp. 66–70.
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Noel Hendrickson
Dr Noel Hendrickson is Professor and a founding faculty member in the Intelligence Analysis Program at James Madison University. He is the author of ‘Reasoning for Intelligence Analysts: A Multidimensional Approach of Traits, Techniques, and Targets’ (Rowman and Littlefield, 2018)