Advertisement

British Politics

, Volume 13, Issue 3, pp 374–391 | Cite as

Impactful scholarship in intelligence: a public policy challenge

  • Robert Dover
  • Michael S. Goodman
Original Article

Abstract

This paper primarily concerns the potential impact academia can have on the government’s analytical functions and the necessary conditions and hindrances in making such an impact. In doing so, it addresses several important agendas for researchers engaged in the arts, humanities and social sciences aiming to generate ‘research impact’ and policy relevance. Narrowly, this research evaluates the generation of impact with the UK’s government’s central machinery for analysis. It makes this evaluation from primary data derived from several iterations of a research council-funded project, collectively known as ‘Lessons Learned’. The paper also presents an analysis of the business of ‘impact’ and why these activities present enduring challenges to individual scholars, universities and end-users.

Keywords

Intelligence Research impact Analysis REF 

References

  1. Andrew, C. 2010. The Defence of the Realm: The Authorised History of MI5. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  2. Bastow, S., J. Tinkler, and P. Dunleavy. 2014. The Impact of Social Sciences: How Academics and Their Research Make a Difference. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boaz, A., S. Fitzpatrick, and B. Shaw. 2009. Assessing the Impact of Research on Policy: A Literature Review. Science and Public Policy 36 (4): 255–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Butler, F.E.R.B.B. 2004. Review of Intelligence on Weapons of Mass Destruction. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  5. Cabinet Office (2015) The Cross-Government Trial Advice Panel. HMSO: London. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/451336/the_Cross-Government_Trial_Advice_Panel.pdf. Accessed 6 Nov 2015.
  6. Campbell, R., and S. Childs. 2013. The Impact Imperative: Here Come the Women. Political Studies Review 11 (2): 182–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chubb, J., and R. Watermeyer. 2016. Artifice or Integrity in the Marketization of Research Impact: Investigating the Moral Economy or (Pathways to) Impact Statements Within Research Funding Proposals in the UK and Australia. Studies in Higher Education.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2016.1144182.Google Scholar
  8. Denicolo, P. 2013. Achieving Impact in Research. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  9. Department of Defense, Defense Technical Information Centre. 2013. Joint Publication 2-0, Joint Intelligence. Washington, DC: Joint Chiefs of Staff.Google Scholar
  10. Dover, R., and M. Goodman. 2011. Learning Lessons from the Secret Past. Washington: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Dover, R., M. Goodman, and M. White. 2017. Chapter 25: Two Worlds, One Common Pursuit: Why Greater Engagement with the Academic Community Could Benefit the UK’s National Security. In The Palgrave Handbook of Security, Risk and Intelligence, ed. R. Dover, H. Dylan, and M. Goodman. London: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Flinders, M. 2013. The Tyranny of Relevance and the Art of Translation. Political Studies Review 11 (3): 149–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Goodman, M., and D. Omand. 2008. What Analysts Need to Understand: The Kings Intelligence Studies Programme. Studies in Intelligence 52 (4): 57–65.Google Scholar
  14. Goodman, M. 2015a. Writing the Official History of the Joint Intelligence Committee. Partnership for Conflict, Crime and Security Research. http://www.paccsresearch.org.uk/blog/writing-the-official-history-of-the-joint-intelligence-committee. Accessed 7 Nov 2016.
  15. Goodman, M. 2015b. The Official History of the Joint Intelligence Committee: 1. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. Grant, J. 2015. The Nature, Scale and Beneficiaries of Research Impact. http://www.kcl.ac.uk/sspp/policy-institute/publications/Analysis-of-REF-impact.pdf. Accessed 16 Jan 2017.
  17. Grant, J., P.B. Brutscher, S. Kirk, L. Butler, and S. Wooding. 2010. Capturing Research Impacts: A Review of International Practice. Cambridge: RAND Europe.Google Scholar
  18. Greenhalgh, T., J. Raferty, S. Hanney, and M. Glover. 2016. Research Impact: A Narrative Review. BMC Medicine 14: 78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Head, S. 2011. The Grim Threat to British Universities. New York Review of Books 58 (1): 58–61.Google Scholar
  20. HEFCE. 2014. REF2014 Assessment Criteria. http://www.ref.ac.uk/panels/assessmentcriteriaandleveldefinitions/. Accessed 7 Nov 2016.
  21. Heuer, R., and R. Pherson. 2010. Structured Analytic Techniques for Intelligence Analysis. New York: CQ Press.Google Scholar
  22. Jeffery, K. 2011. MI6: The History of the Secret Intelligence Service 1909-1949. London: Bloomsbury Books.Google Scholar
  23. Jervis, R. 2010. Why Intelligence Fails: Lessons from the Iranian Revolution and the Iraq War. New York: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  24. John, P. 2013. Political Science, Impact, Evidence. Political Studies Review 11 (3): 168–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Johnston, R. 2005. Analytic Culture in the US Intelligence Community: An Ethnographic Study. CIA: Langley.Google Scholar
  26. Kent, S. 1949. Strategic Intelligence for American World Policy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Lancaster University. 2015. National Centre for Research and Evidence on Security Threats. http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/security-lancaster/news-and-events/news/2015/national-centre-for-research-and-evidence-on-security-threats/. Accessed 5 Nov 2015.
  28. Matthews, D. 2016. Academics Shun Engagement with Business. Times Higher Educational Supplement (London).Google Scholar
  29. Mhurchu, N., N. McLeod, S. Collins, and G. Siles-Brugge. 2017. The Present and Future of the Research Excellence Framework Impact Agenda in the UK Academy: A Reflection from Politics and International Studies. Political Studies Review 15 (1): 60–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. National Crime Agency. Special Officer Scheme. http://www.nationalcrimeagency.gov.uk/careers/specials. Accessed 7 Nov 2016.
  31. Stern, N. 2016. Research Excellence Framework Review: Building on Success and Learning from Experience. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  32. Stoker, G. 2013. Designing Politics: A Neglected Justification for Political Science. Political Studies Review 11 (3): 174–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. UK Government. 2015. The What Works Network. London: HMSO. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/what-works-network. Accessed 6 Nov 2015.
  34. UK Government. 2015. Open Government Blog. https://openpolicy.blog.gov.uk/tools-and-techniques/. Accessed 6 Nov 2015.
  35. UK Government. 2016. Horizon Scanning Programme Team. https://www.gov.uk/government/groups/horizon-scanning-programme-team. Accessed 7 Nov 2016.

Copyright information

© Macmillan Publishers Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of LeicesterLeicesterUK
  2. 2.King’s CollegeLondonUK

Personalised recommendations