Is Developing Intelligence Analysts: Pragmatic Tool Kit Approach

As long as intelligence analysis continues to be tradecraft, it will remain a mystery. The quality of any tradecraft depends on the innate cognitive capabilities of the individual and the good fortune one has in finding a mentor who has discovered, through many years of trial and error, unique methods that seem to be effective. This process of trial and error is, in general, similar to any scientific process, except that the lessons learned in tradecraft, unlike those of other disciplines, often occur without being captured, tested, or validated.1
Dr. Robert Johnston, The Center for the Study of Intelligence
Analytic Culture in the U.S. Intelligence Community

On February 16, 2011, United States intelligence officials presented to the Senate
either a non-scientific enterprise? or an activity amenable to scientific rationalization.? 13 Some within the IC see a fundamental identity struggle, at the heart is the divisive question of ?whether intelligence analysis is art or science.? 14 Doctor Michael W. Collier acknowledges this issue and briefly surveys the ?art versus science? debate in his essay, ?Developing Intelligence Analysts: Pragmatic Tool Kit Approach?. The debate between both camps is framed as positivists, which promote application the scientific method, versus interpretists, which rely on qualitative research designs.15 And although each party has points to be considered, there are weaknesses with both approaches. Specifically, with respect to the interpretists? approach, the reliance on non-scientific means is both a necessity and its greatest liability. Dougherty and Pfaltzgraff , in their academic text Contending Theories of International Relations (5th Ed.), acknowledge the limitations within the social sciences when it comes to scientific
That does not necessarily mean that the intelligence analysis process lacks a formal process or is absent scientific