It is sometimes claimed that there is a gap between academic intelligence research and intelligence practice; that despite significant similarities between the two, there are fundamental differences that create a divide. The similarities are primarily methodological, the research process and the intelligence process are essentially the same, and concepts such as triangulation are accepted and important – while the major differences concern transparency and driving forces; in academia, openness is fundamental, while secrecy in intelligence practice is both necessary and part of the culture. The existence and significance of these differences are open to debate, but regardless of whether they are real or constructed, they have influenced how research is conducted, or not conducted, and how practice uses, or does not use, research to support operational activities. The full potential has simply not been realized in the same way as in other disciplines; compare with medicine, where research and clinical practice go hand in hand.
Academia-practice collaboration also varies between different countries; in the US and in the UK, there is a well-established organized collaboration, but in the Nordic and Baltic countries this is not as developed; although some collaboration does take place, it is more on an ad hoc basis. For example, there is academic intelligence education based on research at the universities of Jyväskylä and Lund as well as at the defense colleges and police academies in the region. At these, as well as at in-house research institutes, such as the research department at the Norwegian Intelligence School in Oslo, academic research is conducted that is at least partly relevant to practice. However, this is a fragmented field with a random relevance to practice rather than a response to real needs in the practice. Contributing to the fragmentation has been the need for an interdisciplinary approach to achieve intelligence relevance, something that requires coordination within academia, more than when a single scientific field is sufficient. In addition, the closed culture of the field has made it difficult for individual researchers to know how they could contribute to practice relevance. Nor have there been any structures on which to base cooperation, with the exception of the defense and police academies and various individual initiatives, such as the Intelligent Intelligence collaboration platform in Sweden and the Scandinavian Intelligence Hub network in Denmark.
Today the solution described above is obviously no longer sufficient. To meet societal challenges, there must be a better match between academic research and intelligence practice—the gap must be reduced, and a different more collaborative mindset must be created. It is likely that ways forward can begin to be built by both academia and practice working together to find relatively simple solutions to what may be perceived as a contradiction; for example, increased transparency while maintaining the need for confidentiality can be achieved through dual publication, where different types of reports for academia and practice based on the same results are created. Practice can also make it easier for individual researchers to find relevance, perhaps in the form of crash courses for researchers, where the practice and the challenges are presented.
For a small scientific field in a relatively small region such as the Nordic-Baltic region, more than just a change in mindset is required – a structure must be built. This both involves finding a research infrastructure that can handle sensitive information and some form of organizational structure – a joint research environment where researchers and practitioners from the various Nordic-Baltic countries can meet. One possibility is to look at the existing and previously mentioned collaboration initiatives in Sweden and Denmark; the former with a national focus, the latter with a Scandinavian. Could these serve as a role model for a larger Nordic-Baltic initiative? In order to make such a initiative effective, in addition to traditional joint research applications to, for example, the EU’s Horizon program, it is likely that a division of labour will be necessary: Perhaps the path to success lies in carefully coordinating the contributions of different universities, with one taking primary responsibility for a practice relevant sub-area of intelligence research and another university for another. In the joint environment, ongoing research can then be discussed and results disseminated, and of course multinational research groups can play an important role.
Exactly how a joint Nordic-Baltic initiative should be created is open to discussion but given the security policy situation and the importance of intelligence activities for society, the most important thing is not to find a perfect solution from the outset, but to get the work started now.
Tobbe Petterson
PhD in Intelligence Analysis, Head of Innovation
Swedish Armed Forces Intelligence and Security Centre & Lund University
Sweden
