Author: H/TDS

The Institute’s Intelligence Academy in Vienna engages with and supports other education providers. As a part of its non-profit and professional obligations to the Institute the Intelligence Academy co-operates with the academic/research community, allows library access to scholars, provides research assistance, security, anonymity and a variety of other consultancy services.

Consultancy

Supported by a global network of highly trained intelligence professionals with decades of experience, the Intelligence Academy boasts a formidable capability across the full spectrum of Intelligence activity. Whatever the nature of consultancy, from developing innovative technology, conducting training, managing single operations or building an ongoing Intelligence capability, all solutions are bespoke.

The Intelligence Academy draws on a diverse pool of experts whose capabilities uniquely address specific intelligence tasks. Every representative of a commissioned group is chosen for their long experience, access to highly sensitive information and ability to solve multi-dimensional problems in complex environments. However, what is unique to the Intelligence Academy is that this highly qualified team consists entirely of professional registrants that adhere to the highest ethical principles, professional standards and are subject to intrusive oversight.

Professional registration enables subject matter experts to approach requirements in a way that minimises mission creep and optimises results. All the while avoiding ethical and moral hazards that have plagued even the largest of the worlds intelligence agencies. The Intelligence Academy is unique in its innovative, pan-European, multi-sector approach to capability development, offering safety to client reputation as well as their conventional security. The capabilities developed are as equally applicable to undercover journalism in eastern Europe as military intelligence in the west.

Due to its positioning, one of the more unique services the Intelligence Academy offers is facilitating advanced security vetting. Moving well beyond background checks, vetting involves the application of covert methodology and technology normally reserved for government but now applied on an international scale. Vetting decisions are made by competent authorities based on investigative profiling and risk analysis with the aim of protecting individuals, organisations and states from international security threats.

The Intelligence Academy brings advanced tools, techniques and expertise to environments that require the highest levels of confidentiality and discretion. Their unique role in European Intelligence enables them to address budgeting challenges, innovation gaps, recruitment and procurement shortfalls and other strategic demands in the interests of European security.

Although activities within this area remain classified and its clients protected, there has been no contemporary threat to European security that the Intelligence Academy has not consulted upon. There are few security areas of government in Europe that the Intelligence Academy has not been at least indirectly involved with. Leveraging its expertise as a significant force for change, if not a covert one.

Academic Membership & Library

It shouldn’t come as a surprise that the Institute’s Intelligence Academy in Vienna supports its own candidates. As an an approved provider, all Intelligence Academy candidates automatically qualify for academic membership for the duration of their enrolment. However, the Intelligence Academy doesn’t only offer support to its own candidates, but scholars throughout Europe as well. In fact the same unofficial academic membership package is available to any student of Intelligence and Surveillance for the duration of their enrolment in any accredited Intelligence degree at a recognised university. This also includes students enroled on the courses of approved training providers too.

The membership does not confer official status or access to the benefits of professional registration. However, to a limited degree the membership affords a number of non-preferential privileges such as:

• Assistance with insurance for exercises or assessments: If undertaking training and readiness exercises with the Intelligence Academy in order to augment studies with professional development, the Institute will provide guidance on obtaining the necessary insurance and legal assistance.
• Expert advice and interviews for research purposes: When producing a thesis or dissertation, original sources can be difficult to locate. Securing their consent and cooperation can be even more complicated. However, the Institute is in an ideal position to arrange interviews with registrants in support of their research.
• Access to student-only events and networking opportunities: The Intelligence Academy can arrange networking events across Europe to help connect students with similar research and professional interests.
• Proof-reading and academic advisory services: The Intelligence Academy offers academic advisory services to student members. Documents must be supplied and feedback is provided electronically.
• Professional advice in securing your first intelligence role: If you are seeking a career in government, academia, the private sector and more, the directing staff can provide useful insights into the recruitment and selection preferences of various European organisations.
• Access to library resources: Preferential access to library resources is afforded to registrants. However, with sufficient notice and a specific query our staff may be able to assist you with literary sources for your research.

The aforementioned Academy Library is a modest but unique collection of intelligence reference material illustrating importance of the development of intelligence across multiple sectors. An ever-growing collection of volumes particularly dedicated to the development of theoretical approaches to human intelligence practice. The collection contains a range of intelligence texts, including:

• Intelligence and security history and institutions.
• Reference texts and journals including the International Journal of Intelligence and Counter-Intelligence.
• Human intelligence and surveillance theory and practice.
• Military history of the troubles in Northern Ireland from 1969 to 2007.
• Police and military intelligence operations theory.
• Language and culture.
• Intelligence analytic tradecraft.

Naturally the reference library is available to registrants and authorised personnel, but also within the scope of the academic membership. Any scholar may make general enquiries into suitable texts by making a request to a member of the Intelligence Academy’s faculty. With the exception of volumes subject to copyright restrictions, copies and citations of the relevant material is sent to the lender by e-mail or by post. Borrowers have to pay for postage and make a copyright declaration, but the fee is nominal.

Research Assistance

In secret studies, finding sources for academic research can be incredibly difficult. Especially those with current knowledge. However, the Institute’s position as a regulating body makes its Intelligence Academy uniquely positioned to make a meaningful contribution to academic research. Specifically by arranging contacts or interviews with sources who possess a current knowledge of Human Intelligence practice.

Because of the nature of certification, registrants must be engaged in ongoing Intelligence practice in order to remain on the register. Specialists must be engaged in ongoing covert operations specifically within the human or signals/cyber domain. The Institute has contributed towards both historical and contemporary academic research in this field and will continue to do so in support of the profession. Offering students and researchers secure and compartmentalised access to the most sensitive parts of strategic policy making.

The Institute also offers research assistance to scholars by providing limited access to its founding research. A capability study on the development of European Human Intelligence training from the end of the second world war to the present day. A study which ultimately resulted in the development of the competence framework for European Intelligence. Students and researchers alike should remember that the development of research and the framework are ongoing as the demands the industry places on professionals constantly change.

The Intelligence Academy also represents the sole point of contact for external academic partners seeking research support. It’s staff teach at universities throughout the region, support intelligence research, distribute best practice to practioners and use other platforms to advocate for the professionalisation of the industry. All while providing assistace and support to increase the capabilities of intelligence professionals.

Secure & Anonymous Access

The Institute entrance exam is designed to assess the competency framework for general or specialist registration under strict examination conditions. Previously, the exam was undertaken on-site for these reasons. However, this represented a point of contention for professionals in sensitive posts whose anonymity and security are serious considerations.

Currently the Intelligence Academy handles the anonymisation of the examination and online invigilation using the same methods it employs to protect candidates during training. A valuable service that has increased confidence over the years and the Intelligence Academy now shares with education providers throughout Europe.

The general exam itself is also provided in a way that other education providers and secret intelligence training schools can deliver internally. The general exam consist of three parts corresponding to the three core competency domains. The specialist exam consists of seven parts corresponding to each of the competency domains for human-domain specialists. As long as they are covered in a way consistent with common assessment standards the examination can be considered valid.

As delivered by the Intelligence Academy the examinations are both closed-book, multiple choice and consist of 10 questions per section. Each question presents five possible answers, only one of which will be correct. It is Intelligence Academy policy to allow approximately 90 seconds per multiple choice question in exams with a minimum examination time of 15 minutes and a maximum length of 3 hours. The general exam lasts 30 minutes, while the specialist exam lasts 1 hour and 30 minutes.

This is no small undertaking for any candidate and security concerns can only make an already stressful time worse. Therefore, the Intelligence Academy is justifiably proud of its secure and anonymous implementation.

The Institute measures education providers, trainers and courses against hundreds of criteria in order to establish if they and their product meets professional standards. The ultimate judge of professional tradecraft training is if the supplier and the course carries approved qualification, licensed institution or professional registration qualification. However, in the absence of these a potential student can examine the resources, capabilities and characteristics of a provider and their offer to identify and separate the professional from the amateur.

Professional development is critical to maintaining a current knowledge of best practice. However, it can be very difficult to decide which to choose with so many providers publicly available. For busy professionals finding the right criteria to search by can be resource intensive on its own. Then a potential student has to find and narrow the pool of providers and courses. For this reason, and because of the risks inherent to tradecraft training, the Institute has presented some important criteria for selecting professional tradecraft training that should help steer potential students away from riskier providers and towards reputable professionals.

Through the Looking Glass

Tradecraft exists across every intelligence discipline from analysis to signals intelligence. Generally, it simply refers to the tools, tactics and techniques used to accomplish specific operational tasks within that discipline. When the Institute receives requests for bespoke tradecraft training it most often pertains to a combination of clandestine operational techniques used by human intelligence operators. However, tradecraft is of no use when taught in isolation. It is part of a wider skill set and spans a variety of specialities that take months or even years to learn in their entirety.

Therefore, the only benefit such a field tradecraft training course could offer would be as a refresher course for fully trained human intelligence professionals or as part of a wider programme of training and education. The Institute’s intensive training programme takes approximately 20 weeks in total over ten courses and two concluding exercises and this regularly incorporates night exercises, 12-hour days, blended learning, pre- and post- training professional development and more. Courses that teach tradecraft and all its pre-requisite skills in an attendance programme are possible but students should expect a duration of no less than six months.

Covert training places an individual at risk. It changes the way that they view society and the way society views them. It brings them into a world where they become aware of and useful to actors in international conflicts and issues of social importance. In short just undergoing training in this field will change a students life, and not necessarily for the better.

They may attract the attention of criminal elements and foreign powers, certain careers will no longer be available to them, law-enforcement and the judicial system will treat them with suspicion and socially, they will find reactions such as disbelief, fear, awe or hostility commonplace. Curiosity, power, self-defence or other personal reasons are a poor motivation and will inevitably leave the trainee feeling fearful, isolated, powerless, alone and wishing they had never opened Pandora’s box. Training can change a persons life, so it is important that it is undertaken for the right reasons and in full knowledge of the costs to their personal and professional life.

Professional Training

Once an individual has decided that training is right for them and that they can put it to good use in the public interest, the issue of how to identify professional training presents itself. For that reason the following features of professional tradecraft training have been highlighted regarding potential training providers, their faculty and their course.

Tradecraft courses should demand extensive previous or concurrent intelligence training, the difficulty level of the course and the target audience should all be clearly and specifically communicated as pre-requisites to entry. If not, students will struggle to place the training in any meaningful context, or learn advanced skills built on pre-requisite knowledge they do not possess.

The content of the course must deliver on human intelligence objectives. A list of broad topics covered should not be acceptable. Professional courses will have a list of specific learning objectives they intend to deliver on over the programme. Although they may be called different things, learning objectives should appear as brief statements that describe what students can be expected to learn, the language will differ between providers and courses but the general aim communicated should always be the same.

“All warfare is based on deception. There is no place where espionage is not used.”
Sun Tzu, General & Philosopher

Learning objectives are central to proficiency-based learning, linked directly to job performance and should be present in any professionally-oriented course. If learning objectives are absent or unclear this is a significant indicator that the course has not been developed by a proficient educator, does not relate to professional standards and as a result will not prepare its students for the workplace.

Given that tradecraft appears in a broader spectrum of skills and knowledge, any course exclusively dedicated to tradecraft should teach, expect as a pre-requisite, or demand in concurrent training or education knowledge and skill in: intelligence theory and methodology, investigation, interviewing, research and analysis, covert collection, counterintelligence, security and protection, surveillance and covert operations. These are typically covered in national intelligence, military, law-enforcement, investigative and undercover journalism and independent private sector training courses. Although academic programmes have been known to cover some elements in depth.

Learning objectives on such a tradecraft course could include the following:

• Apply operational security and other security practices employed in high-risk, fast-paced intelligence and covert operations environments (3 days).
• Understand surveillance and surveillance detection concepts, planning, methodology and common covert tactics employed at the tactical level (3 days).
• Understand technical intelligence assets that can be deployed in support of covert operations, deploy and detect technical surveillance (2 days).
• Understand best practice, professional standards and historical cases of success and failure in covert operations (4 days).
• Conduct pre-deployment, tactical, contingency and compromise planning based on threat and risk assessments (2 days).
• Deter, disrupt and neutralise targets and operations where traditional methods have proven inefficient or unsuccessful (1 day).
• Conduct high-speed pursuit, vehicular evasion, extraction and evacuation (3 days).
• Provide primary and secondary trauma care or intervention (5 days).
• Develop and maintain technical surveillance devices, penetrate computer systems and employ covert photography (5 days).
• Plan and conduct interviews, interrogation, debrief and elicitation and employ counter-interrogation tactics (3 days).
• Conduct reconnaissance, static, foot and mobile surveillance techniques, plan and conduct covert entry and search of persons, vehicles, premises and areas (5 days).
• Understand the psychology and methodology of agent identification, screening, recruitment and handling, processing walk-ins, defectors and using informants in undercover, counterintelligence, technical and special operations (5 days).
• Plan and conduct covert infiltration, investigations, and exfiltration from hostile environments (3 days).
• Develop problem-solving, interpersonal and communication skills, apply deception, deception detection, conflict management and de-escalation techniques (2 days).
• Plan and utilise techniques in escape and evasion and demonstrate survival, navigation, fieldcraft and combat tactics (5 days).
• Provide security, self-defence, restraint and tradecraft training and other short-term support to persons under cover (3 days).
• Provide covert support to external operations, establish and utilise covert communications and infrastructure (2 days).
• Create and use credible and realistic cover and legends, plan short and long-term undercover operations, use disguise, camouflage and concealment techniques (5 days).
• Penetrate target groups and identify unknown subjects of interest and their activities. Provide current, actionable and sustainable intelligence and evidence on targets and their activities (2 days).

On enquiring about the learning objectives with the provider, it should be clear that they were devised from a capability study and an analysis of industry requirements. Learning objectives should link explicitly to occupational and professional standards. The classes provided in the schedule should also clearly link in subject matter to the learning objectives.

The duration of any such training would also depend upon the number of learning objectives fulfilled in a training course. In order to provide some idea as to a reasonable timescale, an estimate as to the minimum time required to reasonably deliver on each learning objective has been listed in brackets next to the objective above. The entirety of the content listed above could not reasonably be expected to be delivered in less than 12 weeks at 5 days per week. If a course listing such learning objectives is also advertised as having a duration less than the cumulative time of that allocated to the learning objectives above, justification should be sought from the provider.

“Once you’ve lived the inside-out world of espionage, you never shed it. It’s a mentality, a double standard of existence.”
John Le Carre, Author

However, it does not necessarily follow that a course is of poor quality if it delivers those learning objectives in less time. The estimate assumed a day attendance of approximately 6 guided learning hours per day with no supplementary learning or practice. There may be mitigating factors in the delivery of shorter courses or they may have used alternate methods in order to achieve reductions in time. For example, blended learning, intensive/extended learning, additional work or exercises, pre-learning and pre-requisite training not covered in the statement of duration would all reduce the delivery time.

Training should be completed in a structured systematic manner clearly designed to deliver learning objectives in a logical order. Delivery should be partly classroom based and partly delivered through exercise in approximately a 50-50 ratio using the latest technology in use within the profession. In doing so the course gives students the opportunity to practice existing skills and improve performance whilst filling skill gaps in new areas expanding underdeveloped knowledge.

Delivery of the course across a number of classes should be flexible, offering a variety of teaching methods such as lectures, seminars, exercises, practicals, workshops, e-learning, reading, research, physicals, assignments, mentoring, webinars, coaching, etc. Learning should be blended, a mixture of independent study or practice and guided learning. If a course is not flexible, inappropriate delivery methods may be used to instil the learning in students. Delivery methods should be discussed at length in a course handbook which every student should have access to. The course handbook should discuss the curriculum, its purpose, methodology, delivery and assessment methods in depth.

The course curriculum will have been scientifically developed based upon market research and the occupational requirements of practitioners and organisations from across the sector. Curriculum developers will have academic experience and qualifications in research. Across the faculty it should be understood that modern intelligence is a discipline that spans a multitude of sectors and is used by almost everybody to some degree, and is no longer exclusive to government. The syllabus should reflect this, demonstrating building current, cross-sector, transferrable knowledge and skills in a legal and ethical way.

A potential student should expect to encounter a diverse variety of qualified and experienced educators from different backgrounds in the faculty. Faculty should be at various stages of their professional careers and should not be mostly retired. The provider should be located in a cosmopolitan city with extensive business links to decision-making centres of the clients they represent. Successful intelligence enterprises will also be decentralised and international, having a presence across the world.

Suppliers will exhibit corporate social responsibility either in a specific policy or through their mission, values and actions. Courses will be oriented towards addressing social issues and trainees will be required to submit to extensive background checks and sign several waivers, non-disclosure agreements and other contracts prior to enrolment. Intellectual property and any information that could be potentially harmful will be protected using special measures similar to that for protecting classified material of equivalent sensitivity. Professional trainers will treat the knowledge and skill they transfer with respect and be acutely aware of the potential for civil liability and criminal culpability if they are negligent of who they train and why.

As an example, the Institute has a comparably open policy on its covert training and deliberately tries to lower barriers to entry. However, background checks, vetting, waivers, contracts and training in law and ethics are just some of the expectations of those entering onto covert programmes.

Within intelligence as a discipline, a provider’s motives for delivering training should be socially oriented, providing a service that will benefit society or help others accomplish that aim. They may be incorporated as a non-profit, social enterprise or even a charity. But even private for-profit enterprises should present a significant social obligation and orientation in their work.

Yesterday’s Men

As mentioned previously, not all training is professionally-oriented. Some training publicly available is unfit for purpose, dangerous, unethical or even criminal. If we are to ask how to identify training that is professional, it is also fair to ask how to identify that which is not. However, although professionalism has a distinct appearance, incompetence, negligence and malpractice come to us in infinite variety. However, after close examination of these providers, it became apparent that some of their characteristics appeared together more often than they do apart. Therefore, it has been possible to group these common characteristics together into a number of archetypes.

“There are some who become spies for money, or out of vanity and megalomania, or out of ambition, or out of a desire for thrills. But the malady of our time is of those who become spies out of idealism.”
Max Lerner, Journalist & Educator

To be trained by mercenaries or amateurs is a detrimental entry on any resume and will do an individual’s career much more harm than good. Therefore, the following four archetypes have been presented, representing common providers that incur the highest professional and personal risk for their students and as a result should be treated with extreme caution:

The “reluctant lotus eater” represents an individual or small network of individuals with an extensive work history but little or no professional education or current training. Professional development has been neglected and in recent years professional experience is also lacking. These individuals are by far the most common and the most dangerous. They most often appear as retired practitioners running small, unprofitable, training or consultancy businesses on a part-time basis. They function through independent funding only, such as misappropriated grants/contracts from their previous employer or by making contributions from their own pension. However, they will not present commercial viability by filling a market gap with a meaningful product or service. The trainer’s motivation is entirely personal and they are most often having difficulty retiring. They are trying to instil the illusion of relevance both to themselves and their old colleagues by maintaining any kind of professional contact with their old workplace and profession.

This is incredibly dangerous for a number of reasons, only some of which can be covered in this article. Firstly, as the purpose of the enterprise is to draw attention, so it does just that, both friendly and hostile. Secondly, training will be incomplete, outdated and irrelevant as courses are mostly duplicated from distant memories of military, police or intelligence programmes trainers experienced in their previous roles rather than the research and analysis of occupational requirements. They will also be of poor quality as trainers will likely not have experience or qualifications as educators. However, most importantly, the courses will most likely train individuals in methods that have subsequently fallen out of common use as they are ineffective, unethical or even illegal. As a result, this places the trainer and trainee at great personal, ethical and legal risk.

They can easily be identified through their extreme and narrow views. Specifically, a bias in favour of an organisation or group of organisations. For example, only accepting trainees from specific national government, law-enforcement, allied military, private-security, etc. This bias should match the background of the supplier and the supplier will probably express the attitude or belief that these are the only true practitioners of intelligence. They will also display an intense dislike, or even hatred, of professional accreditation or qualification as this forces them to confront the uncomfortable fact that their experience is both outdated and insufficient to deliver the skills and knowledge they claim.

The “lord of the ivory tower” is the polar opposite of the reluctant lotus eater. It represents an individual or small group of individuals with an impressive academic and/or training record but little or no professional experience. Their professional history will clearly be linked to an academic track with a history of research projects, publications and professional education and training. However, their employment history would not have been in intelligence or if it has been it would have been some time ago. No effort would have been made to engage in regular intelligence work outside of academia. They appear in universities, think tanks, research centres and similar institutions around the globe. Research is the motivating factor behind their work and so they have little interest in teaching or even learning how. If they are delivering courses they are most likely being compelled to do so by their organisation as a part of their wider role and have managed to survive as poor lecturers by excelling in other areas the organisation assigns a higher value to.

Their training will likely be entirely classroom based and will probably concentrate exclusively on theory delivered by unenthusiastic lecturers whose background may not match the material. Although an awareness and knowledge will be conferred, it is highly unlikely students will develop the required skills to perform the role in practice. Although they may conduct background checks, these will not be any stricter than the criteria imposed by a university. Criteria for entry will mainly be academic and although they may enquire as to a students reason for attending, they will not differentiate between personal and social motivations.

The largest risk surrounding this archetype is that they are largely ignorant of the special operational security measures regarding intelligence personnel. Students may find themselves sitting in a classroom with intelligence officers from hostile intelligence services. Their personal details, professional affiliations, work history and home addresses may be stored insecurely or worse distributed on digital e-learning platforms. Lecturers may openly discuss the nature of their work on unsecured lines, un-encrypted e-mail, by text message or on social media placing the student, their family and future employment at risk.

“You get so used to lying that after a while it’s hard to remember what the truth is.”
Phillip Agee, Intelligence Officer & Author

They can be most commonly identified by their laissez-faire attitude to matters of operational security. Intelligence professionals are respectful of security, even when they have become accustomed to it. However, this archetype doesn’t even acknowledge that operational security is an issue that affects them in their work, at least not beyond the most abstract theoretical explanation of it to their students. Also, as lecturing is seen as a distraction from their real work rather than their main duty, a student may find them cold, distant, uninterested, difficult to arrange meetings with and unresponsive to communications.

The “toy soldier” is rarer but does sometimes occur. It represents an individual or group of individuals whose skills lie close to but outside the sphere of intelligence. They may possess extensive training, education and experience in law-enforcement, counter-terrorism, the military, diplomacy, etc. but not in intelligence itself. Courses will be advertised as intelligence training, but will appear to lack the necessary learning objectives. Instead, the trainers expertise will be prominently represented throughout the learning objectives and the course as a whole will be presented under the guise of intelligence training. The trainer is most probably looking to make a course appear more exciting and interesting by attempting to tap into the mystery and hollywood drama of espionage.

This archetype can be found almost anywhere as they are otherwise highly proficient individuals, just not in the sphere of intelligence. They comfortably exist within their profession and appear as experts in that field. However, they are prone to emerge at conferences, events, reports and in the field of training as well, mainly due to customers or organisers failing to conduct adequate due diligence on their providers or representatives. Unfortunately, the student’s association with them is more likely to benefit the provider’s resume than the students. As with the lord of the ivory tower, the biggest risk is that of operational security. Not having any experience or training in intelligence, the provider is likely to be completely unaware of those concerns.

They can be easily identified as proceeding from a false assumption, that their discipline falls within the sphere of intelligence. Questioning them on some of the most fundamental theories of covert intelligence that any career officer would know, quickly strips away any veneer of competency. It is unlikely that an exclusive expert in counter-terrorism is going to have knowledge of any depth in the source recruitment cycle, the principles of elicitation or surveillance detection route planning. They will avoid these topics at all costs, most likely trying to touch on them briefly before re-directing the conversation back to their area of expertise.

The “tin pot spymaster” represents an individual or small group of individuals with extremely limited resources. They would not have fully committed to the venture or may be economising to the extent that it is harming their business and the services they supply. They will seek low-rents in remote locations and as such are likely to be disconnected and isolated from the industry. Essential technologies and equipment will be missing. Training will suffer as they may not have invested in radio-nets, technical surveillance equipment, weapons, ammunition, licenses, software, pyrotechnics, computer systems, cameras, etc. There may be a shortage of staff resulting in some subjects being inadequately covered and courses may appear unusually cheap compared to market prices.

The primary motivation of the tin pot spymaster is acquisitive. They may be involved in a number of other related intelligence activities, such as self-publishing, conferences or private investigations, each heavily leveraged for profit and sacrificing quality for quantity at every stage. They will not discriminate in those they train or why they train them. Their services will be broadly oriented to catch as many potential customers as possible but not specific enough to meet any of their individual needs. Flexible learning approaches will not be adopted, and as a result any knowledge may not be efficiently or effectively conferred, skills may not be developed and learning not reinforced.

This archetype can be found in any number of small private training companies or as sole-traders. Although these providers may seem appealing based on the cost, students should be aware that participating in these programmes will result in knowledge gaps, underdeveloped skills and an ignorance of contemporary technologies. In short students will find themselves unable to perform the role as a result. However, they can be easily identified as they rapidly accrue a poor reputation in the profession, will find it very difficult to supply favourable references and will have almost no repeat customers.

Other Factors

Although this overview may provide a good indication of the type of provider a student is considering, compliance still falls short of the standards for institutional, professional and course accreditation and this is ultimately the standard that customers should look for.

However, there are two other more intangible factors that presented themselves as worthy of due consideration. Firstly, if the organisation adopts a collaborative approach with the student, their organisation and other educators to building skills and knowledge in training. By combining ideas and building off each other’s techniques, better practices are developed. Training should acknowledge that learning has been undertaken before the trainee arrives and will continue after they leave. Development plans and points of contact should be shared so training can be integrated into workplace learning, future and historical professional learning and the students own independent learning and vice versa.

Secondly, diversity is important. Not only culturally, experiencing different geographical approaches and perspectives. But professionally, experiencing different approaches and perspectives from sectors, industries and even professions other than the student’s own. With a variety in demographics, students are exposed to a wider breadth of ideas and opinions that allow them to learn more and take more than the subject matter back to their employer.

When taking all these elements into account, narrowing down the plethora of professional development opportunities should be far easier and allow a trainee to find the perfect learning opportunity to benefit them and their organisation.

The highest rated course based on value for money, quality of teaching, reputation, student satisfaction and compliance with industry professional standards was the International Masters in Security, Intelligence and Strategic Studies from Charles University in Prague. As a part of the Erasmus programme this course is delivered jointly with the University of Glasgow and Dublin City University. All considered, the programme was thought expensive considering the benefits gained and other market offerings, but it excelled in both teaching quality and compliance with professional standards, achieving the highest ratings possible in those criteria.

At the Institute we try to inform the public by helping them make the best decisions in their intelligence careers, and that often begins with their choice of professional education. There are a lot of options for students and their choice of university can limit or advance professional goals and opportunities. Therefore, the Institute presents its recommendations for professional intelligence education in the following assessment.

This article is designed to assist potential students in judging degrees by meaningful criteria. Not holding a degree on this list does not mean the degree will not be accredited by the Institute. To a large extent, what a student gets out of a degree depends on what they put into it. If professional standards are not met by an institution or a qualification in its own right, a student may pursue certain electives, summer schools, additional training or independent study whilst at university that fills the gaps. How a student pursues their studies can, and has, resulted in degrees that would not normally meet minimum criteria being accredited on a case by case basis. What university a student chooses is not nearly as important as what they do when they are there. For this reason it is strongly advised that potential students seeking professionalisation contact the Institute at the earliest opportunity.

Methodology

Our methodology for formulating recommendations and rankings is based on value for money, quality, reputation, satisfaction and compliance. Only full-time European postgraduate courses in the English language from universities accepting students from the general public were examined and not all universities were considered. Data is drawn from a number of reliable sources including government databases, Institute records and student feedback.

Value for Money (VfM) compares an estimate of the total expenditure involved in attending the course with the benefit obtained from it in terms of the average income of graduates over the five years following graduation. Expenditure includes accommodation, fees and opportunity costs but not expenses common to all university programmes such as books, materials, internet access, etc. Data is gathered from the universities concerned and other official sources, the ratio of the costs against salary is subsequently multiplied to provide a 1 to 5 rating.

Satisfaction is a numerical representation of how satisfied students were with key aspects of their course and the course overall. Survey questions focused on experiential outcomes such as ‘Were you able to retain and apply information communicated in lectures?’ rather than professional outcomes such as ‘How well did this course prepare you for your future career as an intelligence officer?’ Satisfaction ratings are compiled from independent student satisfaction survey results from a range of students graduating from the relevant degrees. This is subsequently averaged to produce ratings on a scale of 1 to 5 for each course.

Unlike satisfaction, a measure of how much graduates felt that the course delivered on their expectations, quality is a measure of how effective and efficient the course was at delivering professional objectives. This measure drew on entrance examination results of recent intelligence graduates, calculating how well their studies prepared them for professional entry and the alignment of faculty expertise to content delivered. Exam results were collated with the percentage of lecturers research records that pertained to the subjects they taught. The final sum was then averaged to produce ratings on a scale of 1 to 5.

Examining data from industry journals, official publications and university rankings, can produce an effective measure of reputation on the required scale. Unfortunately, reputation is often subjective and a measure largely beyond the control of faculty as its largest influences are driven by the age of the institution and its size. However, appointment decisions within employing organisations are often made on subjective criteria such as the reputation of establishments, warranted or not. Therefore it is only fair to reflect this in an analysis of professional eligibility.

Compliance is the Institute’s estimate of the extent to which the university and its course comply with the minimum standards for intelligence education providers and accredited intelligence degrees. This estimate has not been made in cooperation with the university or at the behest of its students and so does not constitute accreditation. However, it stands to reason that institutions featuring prominently on this list would be highly likely to be successful should an application be made. Data is gathered from open sources and an independent assessment by accredited assessors who would normally make judgements on accreditation in the event of an application.

“…ideals for the university are those of genuine democracy and serious scholarship. These two, indeed, seem to go together.”
Woodrow Wilson, 28th President of the United States

In order to assemble a credible sample size data has been gathered over a number of years, indicating that ratings may not be reflective of current improvements incorporated into intelligence departments or institutions. An equal emphasis is placed on each criteria producing a final rating on a scale of 1 to 5, used to rate the course overall.

First Place

The highest rated course with a rating of 4.2 was the latest offering in the field from Charles University in Prague under the Department of Security Studies within the Institute of Political Studies. The International Masters in Security, Intelligence and Strategic Studies is an Erasmus Mundus Joint Master Degree (EMJMD) developed and delivered jointly with the University of Glasgow in Scotland and Dublin City University in Ireland. Although the course scored highest, it lost points on value for money, but excelled in teaching quality and compliance with professional standards, achieving the highest rating possible in those criteria.

Ranked in the upper 1.5 percent of universities worldwide and top in the Czech Republic, Charles has achieved incredible success since its establishment in 1348. The University of Glasgow, established in 1451 typically holds positions in the top 20 nationally and holds higher positions than Charles in the global rankings. Dublin City University is the newest and the smallest of the three, only achieving university status in 1989. However, Dublin City has been ranked 4th nationally but fails to attain high positions in global rankings, mainly due to its size.

The University of Glasgow would have tied for joint second place with a 4-star rating had its programme not been a collaboration with two others. Glasgow achieved its highest ratings in student satisfaction and value for money, while its lowest scores were in teaching quality and reputation. Dublin City achieved a 3.6 rating but mainly suffered due to reputation as it was more recently established as a university.

The joint Master’s focuses on developing trained intelligence and security strategists with an understanding of best practices who can bridge the gap between international organisations and expert communities in academia, government and the private sector. Theoretical and applied knowledge is combined to develop intelligence skill sets in co-operation with the programme’s partners across Europe, delivering a unique perspective on European intelligence.

As an interdisciplinary programme it combines traditional seminars, lectures, tutorials and assessments with vocational training in several security areas. Governmental and non-governmental perspectives are adopted throughout the 24 month programme to counter contemporary threats such as terrorism, civil war and conflict, mass migration, energy supply security, cyber security, emerging technological threats and transnational organised crime.

The course is structured to build core intelligence and academic skills in the first year before narrowing study to specialise in a concentrated theme in the second year. Finally, a flexible study period incorporates independent study (a dissertation) and the work-based placement in government, the private sector or academia. An optional training school is also provided by OTH Regensburg in Germany developing skills in strategic intelligence methodology and analytic tradecraft.

Graduating students typically enter intelligence posts in government, risk analysis in the private sector or continue their studies to the doctoral level.

Second Place

In joint second place with a 4-star rating came three 12-month courses from two UK universities. Kings College offered the Master of Arts in Intelligence and International Security, scoring highly in quality of teaching and value for money but falling short in professional standards compliance and student satisfaction. The University of Buckingham achieved the same rating with two of their courses; the Master of Arts in Law Enforcement Security and Intelligence and the Master of Arts in Security and Intelligence Studies. Both Buckingham’s courses scored highly in student satisfaction and professional standards but fell short on value for money and reputation. Although, it should be re-itterated that reputation is a subjective measure and their placement in reviews and league tables is in no way reflective considering the high quality of their programmes.

Kings College London was established as a university in 1829 and typically achieves rankings in the top 50 both nationally and globally. The University of Buckingham gained university status in 1983 and typically attains a rating in the top 25% nationally but generally does not appear in global league tables due to its non-profit status.

“I can only say that I view [education] as the most important subject which we as a people can be engaged in.”
Abraham Lincoln, 16th President of the United States

The programme at Kings concentrates on pure scholarship and has a broad focus on the context of intelligence and security, developing an awareness of intelligence issues and decision-making through case study, traditional lectures, vivas and examinations. The department openly admits that the course has no vocational focus. However, beyond the wider geo-strategic influences on intelligence, the programme does develop an understanding of contemporary intelligence processes, practices and common problems associated with collection and assessment.

The Master of Arts in Intelligence and International Security has three sections, beginning by introducing intelligence as a concept, then building on that foundation with a variety of optional modules and finally ending with a period of independent study. Students work with leading academics, serving and former intelligence officers and researchers. Graduates typically enter roles within the intelligence community in government or risk management and open-source intelligence in the private sector.

Buckingham’s Master of Arts in Law Enforcement Security and Intelligence aims to develop a strategic awareness of core issues in the field of intelligence amongst existing and aspiring intelligence professionals. Students learn from academics and practitioners alike studying practical modules on law enforcement intelligence and tradecraft and historical case studies on intelligence, international security and contemporary security threats and challenges within the law enforcement sector.

The Master of Arts in Security and Intelligence Studies from Buckingham aims to develop the same deep understanding of security and intelligence in western democracies with a strong focus on the UK. The course develops a solid understanding of security and intelligence operations, the operating environment and intelligence production. Benefiting from practitioner experience, students analyse case studies on contemporary threats to international security and intelligence history. They also undertake practical modules on terrorism, counter-terrorism and intelligence tradecraft and organisation. The course incorporates both the latest academic developments in the field and best practice guidance from government, professionalising intelligence by building skills in critical thinking, collaboration, analysis, evaluation, assessment and problem-solving.

Both Buckingham’s Master of Arts in Law Enforcement Security and Intelligence, and Master of Arts in Security and Intelligence Studies end with an analytical simulation exercise and a period of independent study. Contrary to the offering from King’s, Buckingham’s course is highly vocational and graduates typically continue or enter careers in intelligence organisations.

Third Place

Finally, in third place, with a joint rating of 3.8 came Brunel University and another course from the University of Buckingham. Brunel University excelled in student satisfaction but achieved its lowest ratings in reputation. As with Buckingham it is important to mention that this rating is not reflected in the otherwise high quality of their programmes.

Brunel University London gained university status in 1966 and has appeared in the top third of national rankings and has entered the top 400 globally. Brunel’s Master of Arts in Intelligence and Security Studies is oriented towards intelligence professionals and aims to develop staff in government, international agencies and the private sector with a strong grasp of intelligence and security issues who who excel in research and assessment. The course is taught over an academic year consisting of compulsory modules introducing intelligence concepts and methodology, studying intelligence history and analytic methodology in the first two terms. Students can also elect for optional modules intelligence analysis or counterintelligence. The course ends with a simulation exercise and a period of independent study in the final term.

Students learn from academics and practitioners alike and develop practical skills in the sphere of intelligence analysis and exploit opportunities for relevant work-based learning, professional support and volunteering. Graduates often secure positions in the intelligence community, police, armed forces and analytical positions throughout the private sector. Faculty specialise in analysis, covert action, military doctrine, imagery intelligence, cryptography, computer networking, economics and law but draw on a wider pool of expertise, including their close relationship with Her Majesty’s Government.

Buckingham’s Master of Arts in Security, Intelligence and Diplomacy failed to meet the same grade as other courses from the same institution as the the content failed to meet the same professional standards objectives due to the coverage of the material. The course is not primarily oriented at preparing students for intelligence positions. However, students do learn about the post-war development of intelligence, how intelligence, counterintelligence and tradecraft are used today together with foreign policy and diplomatic subjects.

“The goal of education is the advancement of knowledge and the dissemination of truth.”
John Fitzgerald Kennedy, 35th President of the United States

Over the course of the year; law, foreign policy and intelligence history is covered in the autumn, diplomacy, intelligence and tradecraft is covered in the winter term, contemporary intelligence and security issues in the spring, and finally the dissertation in the summer. Graduates develop a deep geopolitical understanding and often find themselves in foreign office or intelligence posts.

Critique

The theme that emerged throughout this analysis was that there were in fact two driving factors behind four of the five criteria that influenced a university’s position in the rankings. These two factors were course content and the selection of faculty to deliver that content. Universities choosing content with a vocational orientation that delivered on professional standards and choosing faculty with matching research interests to deliver that content invariable performed higher in all other criteria than those who did not. The courses were of higher quality, delivered more value for money, students were more satisfied and they were more compliant with professional standards. The only factor that was not dependant on these two was reputation, a subjective measure largely linked to the size and age of the institution, and largely out of the control of faculty leaders.

Upon examination of these top intelligence schools, the effects of these criteria became clear. Although it cannot be said that the Erasmus Master’s achieved these effects by design, the sheer volume of material in a Master’s twice the size of any other ensured hitting on required subject matter and securing access to scholars who were specialists in them. The only issue an extended programme presented was that unless Erasmus funding was secured, the programme became prohibitively expensive. Intelligence has never been a particularly highly paid profession and any intelligence officer seeking to independently fund themselves through this course would have to save up for the best part of a decade. No matter how good the programme is, and it is exceptional, this has to call into question the value for money a new or serving officer would obtain. However, in all other areas the Erasmus programme was a clear leader.

Buckingham’s presence in second place was achieved specifically because of its vocational orientation and a selection of faculty whose backgrounds and research interests were consistent with that. This enabled Buckingham to create a programme that could compete evenly with larger and more established universities like Kings. Favouring pure scholarship over vocational relevance ignores the obligation education has to the professions it claims to support. If a university is to deliver any degree regarding a profession, professional standards must feature prominently in that. It is no more appropriate for a graduate in Intelligence to have no skill or knowledge in tradecraft than a graduate in medicine to have never held a syringe.

Finally, although Brunel University’s offering suffered due to the age and size of the institution (as with Buckingham), Brunel also cost itself a position in second place due to its concentration on analysis. Covering the core content required of a professional education and specialising in a single field in the same qualification is always going to be difficult. Within 12 months it is impossible without sacrificing core content in favour of the speciality, and this seems exactly the trap Brunel and other Institutions lower down the rankings fell into to varying degrees.

Brunel produced a course that developed superior analytic expertise, perhaps more than any other institution. As with Kings, who developed a programme that specialised in the geopolitics of intelligence, essential professional skills were clearly sacrificed in the pursuit of deeper knowledge elsewhere. However, it should be noted that although there were professional gaps in the curriculum, ample opportunity for students to fill these gaps through extra-curricular activities were linked to the course. And, from our research, most students seem to have exploited these to great effect.

Other programmes appeared in the list. However, all those had curriculum gaps significantly larger than Brunel and Kings and seemed to deliver little additional specialisation or extra-curricular means of filling those gaps by means of compensation. Beyond the top three the quality and coverage of programmes deteriorated rapidly. Some towards the bottom of the list had deteriorated to such an extent that they clearly delivered on subject matter so departed from intelligence, that a potential student would have to question whether they were Intelligence degrees at all.

However, one thing is certain. An intelligence education, in whatever form it takes, no matter how good or bad, is better than no education at all. The student makes the degree, not the institution, the course or the faculty. A diligent student determined to become a professional will do so, regardless of their circumstances. However, the road may be harder and longer depending on the education choices they make. In this respect, the value of the Institute lies in making that road shorter and easier, whenever possible. Helping professionals at whatever point in their career or education they may find themselves to make the best choices for themselves.

The highest recognised level of expertise is held by the practitioner-expert. They develop a deep subject matter expertise in a specific niche, obtaining a university doctorate from a recognised intelligence studies centre, or the highest relevant qualification if doctorates are not available. They maintain and evidence that expertise is applicable and current, by continuing to publish research and regularly leading successful intelligence projects in various sectors. Finally, to avoid expert bias and ensure they can apply their expertise to an intelligence environment, they train and maintain professional registration with the Institute or another professional body.

As with many terms there are various definitions of an expert. The lowest qualification for expertise is most likely the legal requirement for an expert as having specific knowledge that is not commonly held or is difficult to explain to the layman. In this case almost everyone in the world can be considered expert in one discipline or another. On the other hand, the most commonly accepted definition appears in academic vernacular and pertains to a university doctor with a current and relevant research record. However, even this very strict definition presents some issues around expert bias and the applicability of that knowledge. In academia a doctor with a solid research record would be considered an expert regardless as to whether or not they could apply that expertise to effect change. The most comprehensive definition is that of the practitioner-expert, an individual with deep expertise in a specific niche that they also work in, applying that expertise in daily practice.

Qualification & Experience

An expert that is not capable of delivering expertise in a meaningful way is useless outside of the field of pure research. Also, the academic definition is largely ignorant of expertise that exists outside of the field of research. In certain intelligence disciplines, doctorates are not the highest or most relevant qualification that exists. For example, great technical minds are often required to assist covert entry teams to navigate the latest alarms, sensors and other anti-intrusion devices in innovative ways. The kind of expertise required is a granular knowledge and skill in covertly identifying and exploiting the vulnerabilities of modern security systems. No applied doctorate in that subject would ever pass a university ethics committee, and yet those skills do exist. In fact, they are found in applied engineering and the professional charter represents the highest applied qualification in that area.

For some subjects, learning is so implicit and outcomes are so subjective that formal qualifications associated with them are largely unimportant. Forgery, disguise, writing for release, briefing/de-briefing and elicitation are all examples of where expertise is of critical importance in intelligence and also where a history of prior success is often the only indicator of such skill and knowledge existing. Therefore, in the absence of relevant qualifications it is even more important to ensure the experience is both relevant to the area of expertise and that a history of success is present. Early experience of failure is nothing to fear, people learn from failure as much as success and so invariably fail before they begin to succeed. But uneventful experience free of failure or success is just the same as no experience at all.

“Practice does not make perfect. Only perfect practice makes perfect.”
Vince Lombardi, Head Coach – Green Bay Packers

Experience should be progressive within a discipline. A career should begin with early failure and see limited success gradually emerging with post-qualifying experience. Over the years failure rates should drop and finally a solid history of success should present itself as the benchmark. Success should be present across multiple industry sectors, environments and under varying conditions, indicating transferable skills. Throughout projects, experts should also be able to provide explicit evidence of the impact of their work and their ability to affect change in society through the application of their expertise.

Continuous Professional Development

Although professional bodies such as the Institute train and regulate professionals, specialists and a few of the aforementioned non-doctoral experts, universities remain largely self-regulating in their appointment of post-doctoral experts and once appointed there is almost no ongoing regulation. Therefore, many doctoral graduates who were certainly experts when they received their doctorate have lost those skills over time in the absence of ongoing research.

To ensure that experts are informed about, and proficient with the latest developments in their discipline They must engage in continuous professional development such as; undertaking professional training, conducting and publishing research in prestigious publications, reading journals, books and professional magazines, attending networking events, cross-training (training in intelligence and related professions other than the one currently employed in), giving and receiving feedback and reflection, attending conferences, studying at university or online, completing readiness exercises, teaching, being an accredited assessor or completing workshops. This kind of practice ensures that skills and knowledge do not grow stale or become obsolete over time.

It has been speculated that within as little as a year of leaving the intelligence community and loosing access to continuous professional development through an employer, most intelligence officer’s skills are obsolete. This stands to reason as it is an established fact that most technology employed by intelligence services is obsolete within 18 months. It is therefore of critical importance when seeking professional development that it is not received from ex-practitioners whose skill sets have perished over the years and are delivering programmes that are no longer current or applicable. The easiest way to ensure this is to insist on qualifications accredited or approved by an intelligence professional body and delivered by a registered professional or organisation.

But pursuing continuous professional development and maintaining skills and knowledge is not enough. Experts must show that they can continuously apply this expertise for the benefit of society at large. Leveraging their skills and knowledge to effect social change. It is no more acceptable to have an expert in the psychology of covert agent recruitment who has never recruited an agent, than it is to have an expert in a field of invasive medical surgery who has never performed an operation. In order to maintain expertise, it must be continuously applied in practice.

This experience must be specific to the area of expertise. It must also involve using that expertise to directly effect social change in a timely manner. And, the results of any application of expertise must be measurable. Measurable both in terms of strength of the link between the application of the expertise and the change, and the change itself. Intelligence experts should continuously engage in these types of projects in either an senior advisory or leadership role in order to have a strategic impact on the project itself.

Professional Registration

Although continuous academic accomplishment is an excellent representation of skill and knowledge, evidence of the ability to apply that skill in practice can only be evidenced through experience. However, not all experience is positive and the continuing development and experiential requirements of professional registration remain the most effective and reliable way of measuring continued professional achievement and development in practice.

An expert who is also a professional registered with a professional body, can evidence that they continuously develop through an objective third party. They can also evidence the applicability of their expertise in practice if their professional role explicitly cites the application of expertise in its requirements and they have cited this as a specialism or area of expanded development with the professional body.

“Wise men speak because they have something to say; fools because they have to say something.”
Plato, Philosopher

Professional membership also helps guides experts along the pathway to expertise. Beginning as amateurs, only occasionally engaging in intelligence practice and/or lacking the appropriate level or scope of training and education required. Every skilled practitioner, accomplished professional, dedicated specialist and expert begins as an amateur. It is the first step in a journey that will give an intelligence officer the tools to make a meaningful impact in the world. The next stage is that of the practitioner. Like the amateur this individual may or may not possess the appropriate level and scope of pre-requisite training and education required to perform the role of an intelligence officer. However, unlike the amateur this individual works predominantly in the field of intelligence. But at this stage they have not yet undertaken an independent professional membership and subjected themselves to peer assessment and industry standards.

Those who are continually and independently assessed by their peers and are subject to continuous competency, development and practical requirements, have entered the domain of the professional. These standards are set and continuously reviewed by professional bodies who communicate the latest industry developments throughout the profession. Those who possess professional membership continuously prove that they meet the training, education and practical requirements of their profession. Within the sphere of the professional resides the specialist. These are professionals who work exclusively in a field of study and occupation exclusive to the same within a profession. The Institute regulates the human-domain and recognises signals/cyber as specialisms within intelligence. However, it acknowledges that there are many more that it has not yet formally recognised or regulated.

Amateurs and practitioners are defined by their absence of professionalisation and their intent to develop it, where as professionals and specialists are both exclusively recognised by professional bodies because of their practical implementation of the skill and knowledge demanded by their profession. But beyond regulation and institutions, at the forefront of professional knowledge and practice, the expert pushes forward the boundaries of human knowledge.

The Practitioner-Expert

Expertise cannot exist without professional practice. It is an essential component as the means by which an expert applies his knowledge and skill to affect change in the world. But expertise comes with its weaknesses as well as its strengths, foremost amongst these vulnerabilities is Expertise Bias. Simply put, expertise bias is a set of human cognitive pitfalls that occur in and around experts. Everyone is susceptible to them and we can only mitigate them in part. Firstly, by awareness of the issue and secondly through structured analytical techniques in our work.

Some common ways in which expertise bias manifests itself is; the tendency for non-experts to accept expert opinion as fact, for experts to take their achievements for granted thereby judging those who have not or cannot achieve the same level of expertise and for experts to personalise their expertise and apply it universally to issues outside their niche. In fact, contrary to the legal standard, expert opinion is just that, opinion. Experts can be and quite often are wrong, they are only human and they are as fallible as everyone else. Over time, experts also grow comfortable with their level of skill and come to view it as normal, when in fact it is anything but. Therefore, by logical extension, anyone who doesn’t possess their level of “normal” skill and knowledge is sub-normal. There is also a social and psychological tendency for experts to surround themselves with other experts re-enforcing these perceptions and making them more difficult to break.

“From the base of the mountain, the top seems unreachable. From the top of the mountain, it doesn’t seem like the climb was so hard after all.”
Tim Van Damme, Interface Designer – Dropbox

However, possibly most damaging to an experts position is the tendency to believe that because they have accrued this level of knowledge and skill it is a part of them. Therefore, by extension, if they (and not the knowledge and skill) are expert, their expert opinion can be applied to anything they might personally hold an opinion on. In fact expertise occurs in a niche and is rarely applicable outside of that niche. An expert in the culture and history of the BND is no more equipped to offer their opinion on the DGSE than anyone else. And, if the said expert was to try to apply their knowledge of the BND to the DGSE, it would only be a matter of time before they would embarrass themselves and potentially compromise their legitimate position as an expert in the BND.

Countering this bias may seem as simple a just “staying focused” but remember that these are cognitive pitfalls, inherent weaknesses of the human mind. It is built into our brain’s circuitry to think and act this way and if we try to engage in a constant battle with our own nature, we are setting ourselves up to fail. In such a battle we would have to win every fight for the rest of our lives, and just one mistake could cost us a reputation we have spent years building.

But there is a better way. To continue the analogy, rather than resisting the circuitry of our own brain, what if it was possible to re-program ourselves? Well, it is. Every time we go on a course and learn a new skill that is exactly what we are doing; reprogramming our minds to work in different ways to different stimuli. Training in structured analytic technique and using cross-training to maintain an awareness of the complexity and depth of intelligence disciplines outside our own are established methods of countering expert bias. An expert who continually trains in such a way is not only aware of their own expertise, but the limits of it and how to identify and stay within expert boundaries.

Maintaining the ability to apply expertise to an intelligence environment is also critical. It invariably involves the expert taking on the role of a professional or specialist as well as a scholar. An intelligence expert must not only be an accomplished and respected academic but an equally accomplished and respected intelligence officer capable of bringing the full weight of expertise to bear in operations. This application of theory in practice is invariably evidenced and achieved through ongoing professional registration and certification which requires the candidate to regularly prove just that and supports them in doing so.

This kind of objective third-party oversight combined with research and continued professional development is invaluable in providing current evidence of applied expertise throughout a professionals career. Without professional registration there would be no objective assessment of an experts ability to apply their expertise and no way to prove they had done so over time.

Standing Out

As with any profession, in intelligence there are amateurs, practitioners, professionals, specialists and practitioner-experts. Most individuals looked upon as experts actually fall into the middle three categories. Experts are rare, found in very specific niches with a narrow scope of highly detailed knowledge, and as experts are uniquely aware of the limits of their own knowledge it is even rarer for them to advertise themselves as such.

Anyone passing a cursory glance over applicants CVs or surfing online profiles with find the word expert dropped indiscriminately throughout. This is not to say those people are misrepresenting their skill or knowledge, or should stop using the word. The path to expertise is a long and incredible journey, and all who undertake it are worthy of respect, even more so in fields of great public service such as intelligence. There are also very broad definitions for what constitutes an expert, the broadest of which is in fact a legal term. However, expertise as most would define it has always been very different to the blanket coverage afforded under the law. But, such an abundance of alleged expertise can also seem intimidating to those who would wish to make a career as one. Will anyone be able to tell the difference? Will the same weight be given to others anecdotal opinions as my evidentiary analysis? Is it really worth the decades of work and study if any practitioner long in service can claim the same title?

Well, it can be worrying, but it is also the wrong way to think about it. Experts are at the top of their profession within their field. They don’t compete with others, they compete with themselves. People will know the difference as soon as they hear an expert speak. The differences in education, experience, training, professional recognition and achievements leap out from the pages of a CV. Reasoned evidentiary analysis always shames uninformed opinion, and the power that skill and knowledge commands is rare and special because it takes so long to develop. Dropping the word “expert” into a document or conversation only serves to highlight the differences between the two. Expertise isn’t a title, it is recognition of the highest levels of skill and knowledge built through decades of experience, study and professional achievement in a very specific field, at the expense of all else.

“Wisdom is its own reward, and if you scorn her, you hurt only yourself.”
Proverbs 9:12, The Living Bible

Experts are highly specialised. So highly specialised that the Institute cannot accredit doctorates. Despite the incredible depth of understanding required, those qualifications are of such limited scope they cannot hope to satisfy the broader professional requirements of registration, even as a specialist. The intelligence profession badly needs experts. So, the journey is a valued one, a great sacrifice and public service respected by all.

The Institute assists registrants who wish to develop as practitioner-experts with career planning, advice on university placements, support with research interests, mentoring, continuous professional development, and more. Any intelligence professional looking to develop as a practitioner-expert is advised to contact the Institute as soon as possible. Aspiring practitioners should begin their journey to expertise with training and professional registration.

It is also important to note that expertise is by no means required to achieve excellence in the intelligence profession. History is replete with intelligence officers with world-changing accomplishments, of which only a minuscule fraction could be considered experts. T.E. Lawrence, Gust Avrakotos and Nancy Wake made outstanding contributions that changed the face of world events and none of them were experts. At the Institute we believe that professionalisation should be the aspiration of every career practitioner, and that professionalisation has merits for all. However, expertise is only suitable for a select few. If every intelligence officer were an expert their agencies would collapse under the effort it takes to maintain them. It is important to every officer to know what expertise is and stay focused enough to identify it so they can exploit it. But it is also important that every intelligence officer is not an expert themselves.