https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1393-8933
![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
The article argues that “research-in-support” of intelligence represents a hybrid between intelligence and social science research, approaching issues relevant to decision makers, but addressing them with the instruments of social science research. First, the two concepts are delineated and their differences drawn out. Then, the possible ways in which the relationship between research and intelligence have been conceptualized are critiqued. Further, the paper presents and exemplifies the idea of “research-in-support” of intelligence and argues for its usefulness in improving the way intelligence organizations function.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes
1. One such definition, taken from the Merriam-Webster dictionary could be: studious inquiry or examination especially : investigation or experimentation aimed at the discovery and interpretation of facts, revision of accepted theories or laws in the light of new facts, or practical application of such new or revised theories or laws.
2. Wheaton and Beerbower, “Towards a New Definition of Intelligence.”
3. Sims, “Decision Advantage and the Nature of Intelligence Analysis.”
4. Breakspear, “A New Definition of Intelligence.”
5. Sims, “Decision advantage and the nature of intelligence analysis”.
6. Gill and Phythian, Intelligence in an insecure world.
7. Sims, “Decision Advantage and the Nature of Intelligence Analysis.”
8. Tang, “How do we know? What Intelligence Analysis Can Learn from the Sociology of Science.”
9. Vrist Rønn and Høffding, “The epistemic status of intelligence: An epistemological contribution to the understanding of intelligence.”
10. Heuer, Quantitative approaches to political intelligence: The CIA experience.
11. Heuer, Quantitative approaches to political intelligence: The CIA experience, Jerome Clauser, An introduction to intelligence research and analysis. No. 3. (Toronto: Scarecrow Press, 2008), 25.
12. Clauser, An introduction to intelligence research and analysis, 19.
13. Durbin, “Bridging the Gap: The Scholar-Practitioner Divide in Intelligence.”
14. Phythian, “Intelligence analysis and social science methods: exploring the potential for and possible limits of mutual learning.”
15. Gearon, “The university-security-intelligence nexus: Four domains.”
16. Ibid.
17. Phythian, “Framing the Challenges and Opportunities of Intelligence Studies Research.”
18. Ibid.
19. Marrin, “Homeland security and the analysis of foreign intelligence.”
20. Marrin, “Homeland security and the analysis of foreign intelligence.”
21. Marrin, “Understanding and improving intelligence analysis by learning from other disciplines.”
22. Walsh “Improving strategic intelligence analytical practice through qualitative social research.”
23. Ibid.
24. Dahl “Getting beyond analysis by anecdote: improving intelligence analysis through the use of case studies.”
25. Aldrich, “Strategic culture as a constraint: intelligence analysis, memory and organizational learning in the social sciences and history.”
26. Coulthart, “What’s the Problem? Frameworks and Methods from Policy Analysis for Analyzing Complex Problems.”
27. Ibid.
28. Phythian, “Intelligence Analysis and Social Science Methods.”
29. Gentry, ‘The “professionalization” of intelligence analysis: A skeptical perspective.’
30. Bruce, “Making Analysis more reliable.”
31. Svendsen, ‘Introducing RESINT: A Missing and Undervalued “INT” in all-source intelligence efforts.’
32. Svendsen, “Introducing RESINT.”
33. Ibid, 779.
34. Ibid, 783.
35. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, “A Decadal Survey of the Social and Behavioral Sciences: A Research Agenda for Advancing Intelligence Analysis.”
36. Ibid, ch 4–8.
37. Marrin, Improving intelligence analysis: Bridging the gap between scholarship and practice. Routledge.
38. Nolan, Information sharing and collaboration in the United States Intelligence community: an ethnographic study of the National Counterterrorism Center”; Nolan, “A sociological approach to intelligence studies.”
39. Johnston, Analytic culture in the US intelligence community: An ethnographic study .
40. Cross, “A European transgovernmental intelligence network and the role of IntCen”.
41. Ibid, 389.
42. Bitton. “In law we trust: the Israeli case of overseeing intelligence.”
43. Whitesmith, “Experimental Research in Reducing the Risk of Cognitive Bias in Intelligence Analysis.”
44. Ibid, 6.
45. Ibid, 10.
46. Durbin “Bridging the Gap: The Scholar-Practitioner Divide in Intelligence”.
47. Treverton, Approaches to“Outreach” for Intelligence. Försvarshögskolan;Treverton, Bridging the Divide between Scientific and Intelligence Analysis.
48. Ibid: Arcos, Drumhiller and Phythian “Bridging the Divide.”
49. Arcos, Drumhiller and Phythian “Bridging the Divide”, 256.
50. The European Centre of Excellence for Countering Hybrid Threats, Nuclear energy and the current security environment in the era of hybrid threats.
51. Grigas, Verner and Petit, Assessing Energy Dependency in the Age of Hybrid Threats.
52. Sørensen, The ice dragon – Chinese interests in the Arctic.
53. Treverton, et al. Addressing Hybrid Threats
54. Randolph, Mort Ranta and Cannon, “Strategies for Combating the Scourge of Digital Disinformation.”
55. Pop and Grigoraș, “Towards a bifurcated future in the US-China relationship: What is in it for the EU?”
56. European Commission, Horizon 2020 - Work Programme 2018–2020, Secure societies- Protecting freedom and security of Europe and its citizens, https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/wp/2018–2020/main/h2020-wp1820-security_en.pdf, Accessed 17.02.2020; European Commission (Citation2018), Internal Security Fund – Police Call for proposals document Call for proposals on preventing and countering violent radicalisation - ISFP-2018-AG-CT-RAD, https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/other_eu_prog/home/wp/isfp-call-fiche-2018-ag-ct-rad_en.pdf, Accessed 17 February 2020.
57. Armourproject.eu.
59. Arcos, “Understanding the relationships between academia and national security intelligence in the European context.”
60. NATO Science and Technology Organization, https://www.sto.nato.int/publications/Pages/results.aspx?k=ALLintelligence%20scope%3A%22Search%20All%20STO%20Reports%22), Accessed 2 November 2021.
61. Dickson and Hiltunen (eds.) “Hybrid CoE Research Report 4 : Security and hybrid threats in the Arctic: Challenges and vulnerabilities of securing the Transatlantic Arctic.”
62. Portela, Sanctions, conflict and democratic backsliding, EU ISS, 1.06.2022. https://www.iss.europa.eu/content/sanctions-conflict-and-democratic-backsliding#_lessons_for_and_from_the_sanctions_on_russia, 6.07.2022.
63. Dreikhausen, “Taliban in or out?”
64. https://www.newstrategycenter.ro/flanks/ Accessed 27 October 2022.
65. Mrachek and Brookes “The U.S. Response to War on Ukraine Needs Work.”
66. Grzegorz Kuczyński, “Kaliningrad Energy Standoff Looms As Lithuania Banned Transit.”
67. Gearon “The university-security-intelligence nexus: Four domains”, 33.
68. Ibid, 38.
69. ”ESSENTIAL project-Fellows.”https://www.essentialresearch.eu/k-department/fellows/, Accessed 6 July 2022.
70. Coulthart, “From laboratory to the WMD commission.”
71. Randolph Pherson and Heuer, Structured analytic techniques for intelligence analysis.
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Valentin Stoian
Valentin Stoian is a researcher in the “Mihai Viteazul” National Intelligence Academy’s Institute for Intelligence studies. He holds a B.A. in political science from the university of Bucharest and an M.A. and PhD in political science from the Central European University, Budapest.