Thread by @Grant_Forks

To day I am attending a workshop on the intelligence profession hosted by the International Studies Association (#ISA2023)

I’m assuming there will be interesting content so I’m going to live tweet this (assuming I can get a spot with an outlet)

Mute or follow as you prefer.

Conversation starts with how to get your work on the IC radar.

They (the IC) perceive that it is really hard to work with academics because of pushback on collaboration with the IC.

E-mail helps be discrete, but conferences are the best way to connect academics and the IC.

There is a huge push for data analytics. The engineers like the idea of predictive algorithms, but the analyst are skeptical. But there is a more foundational problem of do we even have the data to do the analytics that would be helpful--enter academics.

Academics who want to push research to the IC really need a contact (e-mailing a paper does not work).

Schmoozing at foresight workshop is the way to build these contacts (apparently).

But here is the rub...they reach out...

Chicken and egg, the IC is in a bubble.

I've encountered this before where the IC thinks it needs to reach out, so it goes to the professors who teach at DC schools (and Ivies).

So you really only get opportunities to connect, if you are in a very small bubble that is already connected.

One of the ways that the IC is trying to get around this is webinars, which apparently are better.

Example was that webinars are a way to connect with junior scholars...from Harvard and Georgetown

Seems to be consensus amongst the IC people that professional associations like ISA and IAFIE and IALEIA are really the way to connect. The point was made that if an IC person shows up at these events, they want to connect and build the next generation.

LinkedIn apparently is not good building connections between the IC and academia.

IC tells people to exist online, but not to post much.

Academics worried about poping off and complicating their ability to engage with the IC.

The popping off concern was dismissed because "the juice is not worth the squeeze"

Except for foreign contacts!!! That can delay clearance, particularly when there is continuing contact. Social media is problematic because it creates the impression of continuing relationship.

Question was asked: does the IC want data or analysis? (and how to balance the ethics around data)

Answer: both! Really like data (and analysis) that points to an emerging trend. Best to tell the IC what it does not already know.

Commentary: this didn't get at the question.

The question was about understanding an negotiating what an academic-IC relationship looks like, with a subtext of I don't want to get into something I'm not comfortable with.

The answer assumed you want to have maximum impact and didn't really connect with the ethical piece.

Another academic followed up on the ethics piece--protect sources and the challenge of building rapport

Answer: the IC gets the need to protect sources and methods. So it is ok to protect your sources. Know your data and know how to talk about it in a way that protects sources.

Back to how to connect to IC -- do a target analysis. Work your networks in a systematic way, figure out your approach, get your 1 page summary of research ready to go.

Don't pre-censor yourself! Make the approach.

pivoting now to "what does the IC want from academics" and the 6 competencies of an intel analysis (different from attributes)

Attributes include flexibility, adaptability, self-management, empathy, loyalty, integrity.

Group discussion identified integrity and adaptability as the "most important" although my group make a good case for self-management.

In terms of competencies of an analyst there are 6 which are basically do you have the foundations (expertise/skills) so that you can work with information (and people) in a way that is effective.

Discussion of collaboration (defined as "the ability to be vulnerable"). The point is that no one is good at everything, and you need to admit and acknowledge your limits.

Apparently this is a problem among analysts...

A bit of conversation on communication:

Outlines = good for organized writing

Product generation model = bad
Client support products = better

Verbal briefings are important...but workshops seem to be big - see the process, discuss and learn as the judgment is being developed.

Figure out who your (actual) client is and write to them.

Less useful = this happened today.
More useful = here is how to frame and think about this problem.

Try to anticipate what people need to know.

You may need to distill everything in an analysis into a single paragraph!

In writing to for clients "what is the piece of data a client can bring into a meeting that will make them look good" i.e. that others can bring. This makes you valuable.

If a client that seems well informed...talk with the secretary to figure out where the client gets data!

Writing in the IC is 1) a huge part of the job, 2) writing is thinking on paper, 3) you get good by doing it a lot, 4) timeliness is big--products get written, overnight monitoring of events, and if something big happens analyst gets pulled out of bed to do a re-write.

Recommended the AIMS method for writing:
A - Audience
I - Issue/intelligence question
M - Message
S - Story

Proposed typology with Data/Theory on one dimension and Reactive/Proactive on the other.

From lower left to upper right: descriptive, explanatory, evaluative, foresight

Observation is that if intelligence is going to be made pubic...it is better to do either foresight (pure theory) or descriptive (pure data). Anything in the middle can appear to be biased/partisan/propagandizing.

In terms of finding your message.

One issue/message per product. If you have multiple messages, write multiple products.

If you don't know you message, grab a buddy and sit down and talk it out. Dialog will sharpen the message quickly.

The academics are pushing back on the idea that "descriptive" is pure data. They are highlighting that there are so many ways to frame, organize, juxtapose data and that reality is socially constructed.

response...yeah...shuffle feet..let's talk about misinformation.

Actually there is a good point in this response.

You can't persuade anyone of anything with data...but people respond to the information they are given...so flood the zone and crowd out the bad information.

But that really hammers home the original academic point.

Circling back to an AIMS organized elevator speech to sell yourself to an IC contact. Follow up with a 1 pager (organized with BLUF - bottom line up front) and then highlight that you can provide more.

Writing is how the IC assesses critical thinking capacity.

Turning now to the nuts and bolts of getting a job in the IC for folks with advanced degrees.

Have a portfolio rather than cv when you are passing along your info to an IC contact.

Short cover letter (what makes you special, but not in the resume).

Get your stuff proof read...

Recruiters get hundreds of applications a week. Typos are death. Headers, footers, subtitles, captions are prime typo zones.

Resume should be 2 pages max...so not a CV.

Have a separate publications page, don't try to force them into the resume.

Languages are only useful if at a high level (or mission critical - Russian, Mandarin, Farsi, Korean)

Highlight relevant coursework/skills

Short (4 page) writing sample...make it relevant to the job

Descending now into horror stories what people did wrong.

Now we are moving into "odd things can happen"

Serendipity is a big part of a lot of these kind of "how to get a job" sessions. Stories about the person who had the perfect combination of skills at just the right moment... Of course, serendipity is not randomly distributed.

In terms of academic perpetration--few hired at the undergrad level. Masters seem good. Ph.D.s are disliked because they are too specialized...so Ph.Ds need to show that "they are as good as a masters student" In practice this means, showing you are adaptable.

Now ragging on a person who wanted to be addressed as "Dr. so and so"

Holding up a person with an MBA and a masters of divinity as having the diverse training that is desirable.

Apparently the culture at the CIA is first named basis and dismissive view of Ph.Ds.

Apparently they can't find anyone who knows anything about space--this is a huge opportunity for the U of North Dakota

Also data analytics and STEM seems to be a shortfall.

Also Structured Analytic Technique training is a good foot in the door...but almost no one teaches these.

On to security clearances

A resource I wasn't aware of (but not surprising): clearancejobs.com

Step 1 - fill out a massive form (getting a revision, will be simplified/targeted, and available in 2+ years)

Mental health treatment no longer viewed negatively/deal breaker

Marijuana is kind of in a weird space in terms of clearance. Still a bit murky, but the bottom line is that as a federal employee--you cannot use marijuana.

Step 2 - Form processed (decentralized system which means not always consistent application of policies)

We are running out of time, so they are bouncing around.

Homework is an editing exercise, which will be fun.

So this ended on an anticlimactic note. Hope the three or four folks that followed along found it useful (and sorry for all the typos and half formed sentences. I’m clearly not IC material)

@threadreaderapp unroll