Analytic objectivity and science: evaluating the US Intelligence Community’s approach to applied epistemology

Bibliography

• Adams, S. A. War of Numbers: An Intelligence Memoir. Hanover, NH: Steerforth, 1994.
   Google Scholar
• Betts, R. K. “American Strategic Intelligence: Politics, Priorities, and Direction.” In Intelligence Policy and National Security, edited by R. L. Pfaltzgraff Jr and U. Ra’anan, 245–267. London: The Macmillan Press, 1981.
   Google Scholar
• Bimber, B. “A Theory of the Politicization of Expertise.” The Politics of Expertise in Congress: The Rise and Fall of the Office of Technology Assessment. SUNY Press, New York, 1996.
   Google Scholar
• Boatner, H. L. “The Evaluation of Intelligence.” Studies in Intelligence 28/2 (1984): 67.
   Google Scholar
• Chang, W., E. Berdini, D. R. Mandel, and P. E. Tetlock. “Restructuring Structured Analytic Techniques in Intelligence.” Intelligence and National Security 33, no. 3, (April 16, 2018): 337–356. doi:10.1080/02684527.2017.1400230.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coates, J. F. “What Is a Public Policy Issue?” In Judgement and Decision in Public Policy Formulation, edited by K. R. Hammond, 33–69. Boulder, CO: American Association for the Advancement of Science, Westview Press, 1976.
   Google Scholar
• Davis, J. “Improving CIA Analytic Performance: Analysts and the Policymaking Process.” CIA/Sherman Kent Center for Intelligence Analysis Occasional Papers 1, no. 2 (2002): 1–9.
   Google Scholar
• Davis, J. “Intelligence Analysts and Policymakers: Benefits and Dangers of Tensions in the Relationship.” Intelligence and National Security 21, no. 6 (2006): 999–1021. doi:10.1080/02684520601046325.
   Google Scholar
• Fingar, T. “Intelligence and Grand Strategy.” Orbis 56, no. 1 (2012): 118–134. doi:10.1016/j.orbis.2011.10.006.
   Google Scholar
• Ford, H. P. Estimative Intelligence: The Purposes and Problems of National Intelligence Estimating. Lanham, New York: University Press of America, 1993.
   Google Scholar
• Gates, R. M “Guarding Against Politicization.” Studies in Intelligence 36, no. 5 (1992): 5–13.
   Google Scholar
• Gates, R. M. “The CIA and American Foreign Policy.” Foreign Affairs 66, no. 2 (1987–1988): 215–230. doi:10.2307/20043370.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gill, P., and M. Phythian. “Issues in the Theorisation of Intelligence.” Paper Presented at the International Studies Association Conference, Montreal, 2004.
   Google Scholar
• Hastedt, G. P. “The New Context of Intelligence Estimating: Politicization or Publicizing?” In Intelligence and Intelligence Policy in a Democratic Society, edited by S. J. Cimbala, 47–67. Dobbs Ferry, NY: Transnational Publishers, Inc, 1987.
   Google Scholar
• Henig, J. “Politicization of Evidence: Lessons for an Informed Democracy.” Educational Policy 23, no. 1 (2009): 137–160. doi:10.1177/0895904808328525.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Herman, M. “Threat Assessments and the Legitimation of Policy?” Intelligence and National Security 18, no. 3 (2003): 174–178. doi:10.1080/02684520412331306980. Autumn.
   Google Scholar
• Heuer, R. Psychology of Intelligence Analysis. Washington, DC: Center for the Study of Intelligence, 1999.
   Google Scholar
• Heuer, R. J., Jr. “Limits of Intelligence Analysis.” Orbis 49 ( Winter 2005): 75–94. doi:10.1016/j.orbis.2004.10.007.
   Google Scholar
• Hilsman, R. “Intelligence and Policy-Making in Foreign Affairs.” World Politics 5, no. 1 (1952): 1–45. doi:10.2307/2009086.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hilsman, R. Strategic Intelligence and National Decisions. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1956.
   Google Scholar
• Holmes, B. 2016. “Pathos, Where Art Thou? Intelligence Analysis and Ethical Persuasion.” War on the Rocks, September 7.
   Google Scholar
• Hoppe, R. “Rethinking the Science-Policy Nexus: From Knowledge Utilization and Science Technology Studies to Types of Boundary Arrangements.” Poiesis & Praxis : International Journal of Ethics of Science and Technology Assessment 3 (2005): 199–215. doi:10.1007/s10202-005-0074-0.
   Google Scholar
• Horowitz, R. “A Framework for Understanding Intelligence.” International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence 8, no. 4 (1995): 389–409. doi:10.1080/08850609508435295.
   Google Scholar
• Hughes, T. L. The Fate of Facts in a World of Men: Foreign Policy and Intelligence-Making. Foreign Policy Association, New York, 1976.
   Google Scholar
• Kaplan, A. The Conduct of Inquiry: Methodology for Behavioral Science, 127–128. New York: Transaction Publishers, 1998.
   Google Scholar
• Katz, B. M. Foreign Intelligence: Research and Analysis in the Office of Strategic Services 1942–1945. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1989.
   Google Scholar
• Kendall, W. “The Function of Intelligence.” World Politics 1, no. 4 (1949): 542–552. doi:10.2307/2008837.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kent, S. Strategic Intelligence for American World Policy. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1951. ( second printing).
   Google Scholar
• Kerbel, J., and A. Olcott. “The Intelligence-Policy Nexus.” Studies in Intelligence 54, no. 4 (2010): 1–13.
   Google Scholar
• Knorr, K. 1964. “Foreign Intelligence and the Social Sciences.” Research Monograph No. 17. Center of International Studies, Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University, June 1.
   Google Scholar
• Lowenthal, M. M. Intelligence: From Secrets to Policy. 5th ed. Washington DC: SAGE/CQ Press, 2012.
   Google Scholar
• MacEachin, D. “The Tradecraft of Analysis.” In US Intelligence at the Crossroads: Agendas for Reform, edited by R. Godson, E. R. May, and G. Schmitt, 63–74. Washington, DC: Brassey’s, 1995.
   Google Scholar
• Marchio, J. 2018. “Personal Correspondence with the Author.” August 13.
   Google Scholar
• Marchio, J. “Analytic Tradecraft and the Intelligence Community: Enduring Value, Intermittent Emphasis.” Intelligence and National Security 29, no. 2 (2014): 159–183. doi:10.1080/02684527.2012.746415.
   Google Scholar
• Marengo, L., D. Moor, R. Ober, and D. Wood. “National Estimates: An Assessment of the Product and the Process.” Studies in Intelligence 21, no. Spring (1977): 29–71.
   Google Scholar
• Marrin, S. “At Arm‘s Length or at the Elbow?: Explaining the Distance between Analysts and Decisionmakers.” International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence 20, no. 3 (2007): 401–414. doi:10.1080/08850600701249733.
   Google Scholar
• Marrin, S. “Intelligence Analysis and Decisionmaking: Methodological Challenges.” In Intelligence Theory: Key Questions and Debates, edited by P. Gill, S. Marrin, and M. Phythian, 131–150. Abingdon: Routledge, 2008.
   Google Scholar
• Marrin, S. Improving Intelligence Analysis: Bridging the Gap between Scholarship & Practice. Routledge, London, 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Marrin, S. “Rethinking Analytic Politicization.” Intelligence and National Security 28, no. 1 (2013): 32–54. doi:10.1080/02684527.2012.749064.
   Google Scholar
• Marrin, S., and P. H. J. Davies. “National Assessment by the National Security Council Staff 1968–80: An American Experiment in a British Style of Analysis?” Intelligence and National Security 24, no. 5, Oct. (2009): 644–673. doi:10.1080/02684520903209407.
   Google Scholar
• Megill, T. “Introduction: Four Senses of Objectivity.” In Rethinking Objectivity, edited by A. Megill, 1–20. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1994.
   Google Scholar
• Moore, M. H. “Social Science and Policy Analysis: Some Fundamental Differences.” In Ethics, the Social Sciences, and Policy Analysis, edited by D. Callahan and B. Jennings, 271–291. New York: Plenum Publishing, 1983.
   Google Scholar
• Novick, P. That Noble Dream: The “Objectivity Question” and the American Historical Profession. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1988.
   Google Scholar
• Pielke, R. A. “When Scientists Politicize Science.” Regulation9, no. 1 ( Spring 2006): 28–34.
   Google Scholar
• Pielke, R. A. “Science and Politics: Accepting a Dysfunctional Union.” Harvard International Review30, no. 2 ( Summer 2008): 36–41.
   Google Scholar
• Platt, W. Strategic Intelligence Production: Basic Principles. USA: Praeger, 1957.
   Google Scholar
• Ransom, H. H. The Intelligence Establishment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1970.
   Google Scholar
• Scowcroft, B. “The Value of Intelligence Analysis.” Presentation at a Workshop organized by the Committee on Behavioral and Social Science Research to Improve Intelligence Analysis for National Security, Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences, May 15, 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Sims, J. E. “A Theory of Intelligence and International Politics.” In National Intelligence Systems: Current Research and Future Prospects, edited by G. F. Treverton and W. Agrell, 58–92. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Stanford University Encyclopedia on Philosophy. “Scientific Objectivity.” Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford University. 2014. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-objectivity/
   Google Scholar
• Treverton G. F., S. G. Jones, S. Boraz, and P. Lipscy. Toward a Theory of Intelligence. Santa Monica, CA:  RAND Corporation, National Security Research Division, Workshop Report,  2006.
   Google Scholar
• US Central Intelligence Agency. 1977. “Report of a Seminar on Bias in Intelligence Analysis.” CIA/Center for the Study of Intelligence. Central Intelligence Agency.
   Google Scholar
• US Director of Central Intelligence. 1976. Review of National Intelligence. Vol. 2. No. 1, August.
   Google Scholar
• US Office of the Director of National Intelligence. 2006. “Report on the Progress of the Director of National Intelligence in Implementing the “Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004”.” May.
   Google Scholar
• US Office of the Director of National Intelligence. 2007. “Intelligence Community Directive 203.” Washington, DC.
   Google Scholar
• US Office of the Director of National Intelligence. 2008. “Analytic Transformation: Unleashing the Potential of a Community of Analysts.”
   Google Scholar
• US Office of the Director of National Intelligence. 2014. “Principles of Professional Ethics for the Intelligence Community.” The National Intelligence Strategy of the United States of America.
   Google Scholar
• US Office of the Director of National Intelligence. 2015. “Intelligence Community Directive 203.” Washington, DC.
   Google Scholar
• US Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence and The MITRE Corporation. Analytic Objectivity Symposium Registration Website, September 2016. Accessed January 3, 2020. https://register.mitre.org/analytic-objectivity-symposium/
   Google Scholar
• Vogel, K. M. “Expert Knowledge in Intelligence Assessments: Bird Flu and Bioterrorism.” International Security 38, no. 3 ( Winter 2013–14): 39–71. doi:10.1162/ISEC_a_00150.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Webster’s Dictionary.
   Google Scholar
• Weiss, C. “Communicating Uncertainty in Intelligence and Other Professions.” International Journal of Intelligence and CounterIntelligence 21, no. 1 (2008): 57–85. doi:10.1080/08850600701649312.
   Google Scholar
• Wippl, J. W., and D. D’Andrea. “The Qualities that Make a Great Collection Management Officer.” International Journal of Intelligence and CounterIntelligence 27, no. 4 (2014): 806–814. doi:10.1080/08850607.2014.924821.
   Google Scholar
• Wirtz, J. J. “Intelligence to Please? the Order of Battle Controversy during the Vietnam War.” Political Science Quarterly 106 ( Summer 1991): 239–263. doi:10.2307/2152228.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Woodard, N. “Tasting the Forbidden Fruit: Unlocking the Potential of Positive Politicization.” Intelligence and National Security 28, no. 1 (2013): 91–108. doi:10.1080/02684527.2012.749066.
   Google Scholar