Author(s): Bob DE GRAAFF
Publication name: Romanian Intelligence Studies Review
Publisher name: Mihai Viteazul National Intelligence Academy
Publication type: Journal article
Publication date: June 30, 2019
Pagination:
Issue/ Volume: 21/2019
DOI:
Abstract
Many in intelligence still follow Sherman Kent’s doctrine of intelligence as a
type of social science that should try to develop natural science-like laws which make
predictions possible. However, his positivist and realist approach is outdated in the
academic world. It would be fruitful for both intelligence and intelligence studies to
leave Kent’s positivist legacy behind. Constructivism offers much more profitable
prospects, especially for intelligence studies, whose academic status is endangered by
clinging to an outdated positivism. Meanwhile intelligence, which has often used Kent’s
ideas as an ideology to fend off intelligence consumers, should do better to no longer
pretend to come close to a science. Instead, using Aristoteles division in episteme
(science), techne (tradecraft) and phronesis (practical wisdom), intelligence analysis
should be seen as practical wisdom (phronesis) for practical decision-making. This
would allow intelligence to embrace cognitive diversity in order to proffer different kinds
of policy support. Leaning toward constructivism would help intelligence to become
more action-oriented instead of information-oriented under the doom of positivism.
Following the diverging paths of episteme for intelligence studies and phronesis for
intelligence analysis, both should play their own autonomous roles, which would still
leave meetings between the two useful.
Keywords: Intelligence analysis – positivism – constructivism – Sherman Kent –
phronesis.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic License.