An Assessment of the Utility of Academic Research to Intelligence Professionals in Canada: A Case study in Knowledge Mobilization

Abstract

Over the years, scholars in the field of terrorism research have suggested that there is a disconnect between the academic community (AC) and the intelligence community (IC) that is preventing information-sharing that might help to advance knowledge in the field. It has been suggested that closer relations between these two communities might address some of the problems that each community faces. While the AC may experience some difficulty gathering primary data in the field of terrorism, the IC may be lacking sufficient resources to thoroughly analyze all of the data that they hold. Therefore, it is thought that combining skills and knowledge might benefit both communities while also improving research on terrorism and potentially preventing intelligence failures. Knowledge Mobilization (KMb) theory also tells us that advancing knowledge in a field requires both research (explicit knowledge) and the experience of practitioners (tacit knowledge) that informs if and how research may be applied to practice. As a basic measure of the researcher - practitioner relationship, KMb studies have examined the use of academic research by practitioners in different fields. These studies have identified common factors that affect the researcher - practitioner relationship and lead to some level of disconnect between these communities in most fields of study. When it comes to information-sharing with intelligence organizations, there are additional factors that uniquely impair the development of co-operation between the AC and the IC. While much has been speculated about a disconnect between the AC and the IC, and the factors involved, the research literature lacks empirical data capturing the perspective of members of the IC. To address this deficiency, this study uses the methods and findings of KMb research to gather input directly from current and former members of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) about their use of academic material (AM) on terrorism and the potential for future collaboration with the AC. Through questionnaires, interviews, and a focus group, forty-two intelligence professionals revealed that their use of AM is limited, because of a general sense that the research is largely not relevant to their work. Determining the relevance of AM to IC work involved factors in the organization and the AM itself, as identified by KMb studies. However, respondents also identified misperceptions and a lack of trust that add to the disconnect between the AC and the IC. The majority of respondents supported the idea of closer AC - IC relations but there was considerable skepticism about whether it was possible given each community's concerns about the other. While this study examines a number of information-sharing strategies that could be implemented to improve the relationship between the AC and the IC, and makes recommendations for future action, in the end members of the IC suggested that efforts could start at the level of individual relationships, rather than waiting for larger organizational change in the IC.