covered such ground as the obstacles to field evaluation of behavioral science tools and methods, the importance of field evaluation, and various lessons learned from experience with field evaluation in other areas.

It is important to be specific about the nature of this report, which documents the information presented in the workshop presentations and discussions. Its purpose is to lay out the key ideas that emerged from the workshop and should be viewed as an initial step in examining the research and applying it in specific policy circumstances. The report is confined to the material presented by the workshop speakers and participants. Neither the workshop nor this summary is intended as a comprehensive review of what is known about the topic, although it is a general reflection of the literature. The presentations and discussions were limited by the time available for the workshop. A more comprehensive review and synthesis of relevant research knowledge will have to wait for further development.

This report was prepared by a rapporteur and does not represent findings or recommendations that can be attributed to the planning committee. Indeed, the report summarizes views expressed by workshop participants, and the committee is responsible only for its overall quality and accuracy as a record of what transpired at the workshop. Also, the workshop was not designed to generate consensus conclusions or recommendations but focused instead on the identification of ideas, themes, and considerations that contribute to understanding the current state of field evaluation of behavioral and cognitive sciences–based methods and tools for use in the areas of intelligence and counterintelligence.

To fully appreciate the workshop, the reader needs two important bits of context. The first is the relationship between the behavioral sciences and the intelligence community and, in particular, what the intelligence community has to gain from establishing a close relationship with the community of behavioral scientists. The second is the current urgency to improve the performance and capabilities of the intelligence community.


In one of the workshop presentations, David Mandel, a senior defense scientist at Defence Research and Development Canada (DRDC), discussed the ways in which the behavioral sciences can benefit intelligence analysis and why it is important for the intelligence community to build a partnership with the behavioral sciences community.

First, however, Mandel offered a working definition of behavioral science: it is science aimed at understanding human behavior in a broad

The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement