National Academies Press: OpenBook
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. A Decadal Survey of the Social and Behavioral Sciences: A Research Agenda for Advancing Intelligence Analysis. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25335.
×
Page R1
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. A Decadal Survey of the Social and Behavioral Sciences: A Research Agenda for Advancing Intelligence Analysis. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25335.
×
Page R2
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. A Decadal Survey of the Social and Behavioral Sciences: A Research Agenda for Advancing Intelligence Analysis. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25335.
×
Page R3
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. A Decadal Survey of the Social and Behavioral Sciences: A Research Agenda for Advancing Intelligence Analysis. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25335.
×
Page R4
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. A Decadal Survey of the Social and Behavioral Sciences: A Research Agenda for Advancing Intelligence Analysis. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25335.
×
Page R5
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. A Decadal Survey of the Social and Behavioral Sciences: A Research Agenda for Advancing Intelligence Analysis. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25335.
×
Page R6
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. A Decadal Survey of the Social and Behavioral Sciences: A Research Agenda for Advancing Intelligence Analysis. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25335.
×
Page R7
Page viii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. A Decadal Survey of the Social and Behavioral Sciences: A Research Agenda for Advancing Intelligence Analysis. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25335.
×
Page R8
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. A Decadal Survey of the Social and Behavioral Sciences: A Research Agenda for Advancing Intelligence Analysis. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25335.
×
Page R9
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. A Decadal Survey of the Social and Behavioral Sciences: A Research Agenda for Advancing Intelligence Analysis. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25335.
×
Page R10
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. A Decadal Survey of the Social and Behavioral Sciences: A Research Agenda for Advancing Intelligence Analysis. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25335.
×
Page R11
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. A Decadal Survey of the Social and Behavioral Sciences: A Research Agenda for Advancing Intelligence Analysis. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25335.
×
Page R12

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Prepublication Copy Uncorrected Proofs A DECADAL SURVEY OF THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES: A RESEARCH AGENDA FOR ADVANCING INTELLIGENCE ANALYSIS Committee on a Decadal Survey of Social and Behavioral Sciences for Applications to National Security Board on Behavioral, Cognitive, and Sensory Sciences Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education A Consensus Study Report of

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 This activity was supported by contracts between the National Academy of Sciences and The Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Contract No. 2014-14041100003-009. Support for the work of the Board on Behavioral, Cognitive, and Sensory Sciences is provided primarily by a grant from the National Science Foundation (Award No. BCS- 1729167). Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of any organization or agency that provided support for the project. International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-XXXXX-X International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-XXXXX-X Digital Object Identifier: https://doi.org/10.17226/25335 Additional copies of this publication are available for sale from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Keck 360, Washington, DC 20001; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313; http://www.nap.edu. Copyright 2019 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America Suggested citation: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. A Decadal Survey of the Social and Behavioral Sciences: A Research Agenda for Advancing Intelligence Analysis. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: https://doi.org/10.17226/25335. Prepublication Copy - Uncorrected Proofs

The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, nongovernmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering. Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., is president. The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president. The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions. The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine. Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.nationalacademies.org. Prepublication Copy - Uncorrected Proofs

Consensus Study Reports published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine document the evidence-based consensus on the study’s statement of task by an authoring committee of experts. Reports typically include findings, conclusions, and recommendations based on information gathered by the committee and the committee’s deliberations. Each report has been subjected to a rigorous and independent peer-review process and it represents the position of the National Academies on the statement of task. Proceedings published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine chronicle the presentations and discussions at a workshop, symposium, or other event convened by the National Academies. The statements and opinions contained in proceedings are those of the participants and are not endorsed by other participants, the planning committee, or the National Academies. For information about other products and activities of the National Academies, please visit www.nationalacademies.org/about/whatwedo. Prepublication Copy - Uncorrected Proofs

COMMITTEE ON A DECADAL SURVEY OF SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES FOR APPLICATIONS TO NATIONAL SECURITY PAUL R. SACKETT (Chair), Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota GARY G. BERNTSON, Department of Psychology, The Ohio State University KATHLEEN M. CARLEY, School of Computer Science, Institute for Software Research International, Carnegie Mellon University NOSHIR S. CONTRACTOR, McCormick School of Engineering and Applied Science, School of Communications, and the Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University NANCY J. COOKE, The Polytechnic School, Ira A. Fulton Schools of Engineering, Arizona State University BARBARA ANNE DOSHER (NAS), Department of Cognitive Science, University of California, Irvine JEFFREY C. JOHNSON, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida SALLIE KELLER, Social and Decision Analytics Division, Biocomplexity Institute, University of Virginia DAVID MATSUMOTO, Department of Psychology, College of Science and Engineering, San Francisco State University CARMEN MEDINA, MedinAnalytics, LLC FRAN P. MOORE, The Financial Systemic Analysis and Resilience Center JONATHAN D. MORENO (NAM), Perelman School of Medicine, Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, University of Pennsylvania JOY ROHDE, Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy, University of Michigan JEFFREY W. TALIAFERRO, Department of Political Science, Tufts University GREGORY F. TREVERTON, Dornsife College of Letters, Arts, and Sciences, School of International Relations, University of Southern California JEREMY M. WOLFE, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Departments of Ophthalmology and Radiology, Harvard Medical School SUJEETA BHATT, Study Director ALEXANDRA BEATTY (from March 2017), Senior Program Officer JULIE ANNE SCHUCK, Program Officer ELIZABETH TOWNSEND (until March 2018), Research Associate RENÉE L. WILSON GAINES (until June 2018), Senior Program Assistant THELMA COX, Program Coordinator v Prepublication Copy - Uncorrected Proofs

BOARD ON BEHAVIORAL, COGNITIVE, AND SENSORY SCIENCES SUSAN T. FISKE (Chair), Department of Psychology and Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University JOHN BAUGH, Department of Arts & Sciences, Washington University in St. Louis LAURA L. CARSTENSEN, Department of Psychology, Stanford University JUDY DUBNO, Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Medical University of South Carolina JENNIFER EBERHARDT, Department of Psychology, Stanford University ROBERT L. GOLDSTONE, Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Indiana University DANIEL R. ILGEN, Department of Psychology, Michigan State University NANCY G. KANWISHER, Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology JANICE KIECOLT-GLASER, Department of Psychology, The Ohio State University College of Medicine BILL C. MAURER, School of Social Sciences, University of California, Irvine STEVEN E. PETERSEN, Department of Neurology and Neurological Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine DANA M. SMALL, Department of Psychiatry, Yale Medical School TIMOTHY J. STRAUMAN, Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, Duke University JEREMY M. WOLFE, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Departments of Ophthalmology and Radiology, Harvard Medical School BARBARA A. WANCHISEN, Director vi Prepublication Copy - Uncorrected Proofs

PREFACE The Intelligence Community (IC) is no stranger to the valuable contributions made by research in the social and behavioral sciences (SBS) to the work of intelligence analysis. Likewise, researchers in many SBS disciplines have benefited from opportunities to work with the IC and conduct research on countless topics related to intelligence. But in an age when both technologies and national security concerns are evolving at lightening speed, the IC has recognized the critical need to more systematically take advantage of cutting-edge research from diverse SBS fields. In this context, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) turned to the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine (the National Academies) to explore opportunities for research from the SBS disciplines to support the work of intelligence analysts and enhance national security. ODNI requested that The National Academies conduct a decadal survey that would support the IC in developing a 10-year agenda for SBS research with applications to intelligence analysis. The National Academies had developed the decadal survey model to serve other federal agencies—including the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the U.S. Geological Survey—by identifying research relevant to key policy objectives. This model had not previously been used to survey SBS fields or to serve an objective as broad as strengthening national security, so the process was an experiment for ODNI and the National Academies, as well as for the Committee on the Decadal Survey of Social and Behavioral Sciences for Applications to National Security. This report describes the results of the work of the intrepid committee—made up of experts with decades of experience in intelligence, scholars in diverse SBS fields, and several individuals with extensive experience in both worlds—that took on this challenge. This decadal survey was made possible by the generous sponsorship of ODNI and the invaluable insight and support of Dr. David Honey, former Director of Science and Technology and former Assistant Deputy Director of National Intelligence for Science and Technology. We also appreciate the tireless support of members of the ODNI staff, including Dr. Steven D. Thompson, Mr. Melvin L. Eulau, Dr. Kent Myers, and Mr. William “Bruno” Millonig. We are particularly thankful to Ms. Debra Stanislawski for her assistance with this report. We are grateful as well for the substantive core support for the Board on Behavioral, Cognitive, and Sensory Sciences received from the National Science Foundation’s Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences Directorate, which ensured necessary oversight on the project. Many individuals contributed their time and effort to this project. They are too numerous to list here, but we are extremely grateful for the contributions of those who served on the steering committees for the summit meeting and six workshops held during the course of the study, which provided us with vital insights about the work of the IC and many lines of SBS research; those who participated in our fact-finding meetings and public workshops; and those who took the time to prepare white papers in response to our vii Prepublication Copy - Uncorrected Proofs

requests and participate in other ways in our extensive information-gathering efforts (see Appendix B for a full listing of contributors). Thanks are also due to the project staff, including Alexandra Beatty, whose expertise in report organization and writing is unmatched; Julie Schuck, who was instrumental in all phases of the project; and Elizabeth Townsend, who provided able support through its early phases. Renée Wilson Gaines and Thelma Cox ably managed logistical and administrative matters. Rebecca Morgan and Jorge Mendoza-Torres of the National Academies Research Center conducted literature and data reviews and assisted with report references. This Consensus Study Report was reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in making each published report as sound as possible and to ensure that it meets the institutional standards for quality, objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We thank the following individuals for their review of this report: Matthew W. Brashears, Department of Sociology, University of South Carolina; Roger Z. George, Department of Politics, Occidental College; Loch K. Johnson, Department of International Affairs, University of Georgia; Sara B. Kiesler, Human-Computer Interaction Institute, Carnegie Mellon University; Stephen Marrin, Integrated Science and Technology/Intelligence Analysis, James Madison University; John E. McLaughlin, Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University; John Monahan, School of Law, University of Virginia; Frederick L. Oswald, Department of Psychology, Rice University; Peter Pirolli, Senior Research Scientist, Institute for Human and Machine Cognition; Andrew L. Ross, National Security Affairs Program, Texas A&M University; and Paul Slovic, President, Decision Research, and Department of Psychology, University of Oregon. Although the reviewers listed above provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations of this report nor did they see the final draft before its release. The review of this report was overseen by Cynthia Beall, Department of Anthropology, Case Western Reserve University, and Susan J. Curry, College of Public Health, The University of Iowa. They were responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with the standards of the National Academies and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content rests entirely with the authoring committee and the National Academies. Paul R. Sackett, Chair Sujeeta Bhatt, Study Director viii Prepublication Copy - Uncorrected Proofs

Committee on a Decadal Survey of Social and Behavioral Sciences for Applications to National Security Contents Summary 1 Introduction Purpose of This Study Applying the Decadal Process in a New Context Study Approach Information Gathering Assessment of Information Collected Identification of Opportunities for Strengthening National Security Guide to This Report References PART I: CONTEXT FOR THIS DECADAL STUDY 2 Two Communities The Universe of Intelligence and National Security The Security Infrastructure Types of Intelligence The Social and Behavioral Sciences Shared Challenges and Diverse Demands More Data and More Ways to Analyze It Interdisciplinary Collaborations Diverse Cultures, Audiences, and Demands References 3 Global Context for the Decadal Study U.S. Government Documents Assessment of the National Intelligence Council President’s National Security Policy U.S. Department of Defense Military Strategy National Intelligence Strategy Statements of International Organizations Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development World Economic Forum Persistent Themes and Emerging Threats References 4 The Work of the Intelligence Analyst ix Prepublication Copy - Uncorrected Proofs

Sensemaking What Analysts Do The Analyst’s Daily Activities Sustaining Activities Communicating Intelligence and Analysis to Others Illustrating Analytic Work Analytic Lens: Monitoring Terrorist Group Z Analytic Lens: Monitoring Weapons Proliferation Analytic Lens: Monitoring a Country Looking Forward References PART II: OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE IC 5 Sensemaking: Emerging Ways to Answer Intelligence Questions Approaches to Understanding Human and Social Processes The Study of Narrative The Study of Social Networks The Study of Complex Systems The Affective Sciences Applying Social and Behavioral Science Research to Sensemaking for Core Analytic Problems Understanding Power and Influence Understanding Threats and Opportunities Understanding Complexity Conclusions References 6 Integrating Social and Behavioral Sciences (SBS) Research to Enhance Security in Cyberspace What Is Social Cybersecurity Science? Drawing on Other Disciplines A Social Cybersecurity Approach to Studying a False Information Campaign Opportunities for the IC Example Application: Social Influence on Twitter Research Needed in the Coming Decade Social Cyberforensics: Identifying Who Is Conducting Social Cybersecurity Attacks Information Maneuvers: Identifying the Strategies Used to Conduct Such an Attack Intent Identification: Identifying the Perpetrator’s Motive Cross-Media Movement and Information Diffusion: Tracing the Attackers and the Impact of the Attack across Multiple Social Media Platforms x Prepublication Copy - Uncorrected Proofs

Real-Time Measurement of the Effectiveness of Information Campaigns: Quantifying the Effectiveness of the Attack At-Risk Groups: Identifying Who Is Most Susceptible to Such Attacks The Most Effective Responses: Mitigating These Attacks Conclusions References 7 Integrating the Social and Behavioral Sciences (SBS) into the Design of a Human–Machine Ecosystem A New Form of Analytic Work Research Domains Human Capacities Human–Machine Interaction Human–Technology Teaming Human–System Integration Conclusions A Research Program to Support Design and Development Ethical Considerations References 8 Strengthening the Analytic Workforce for Future Challenges Selecting Individuals to Succeed in Intelligence Analyst Roles Advances in Measurement Outcomes of Interest The Effectiveness and Utility of a Selection System Workforce Selection: Implications for the Intelligence Community Retaining Effective Analysts Dissatisfaction and the Desirability of Movement An Unfolding Model of Turnover Decisions Shifting the Focus from Who Leaves to Who Stays Social Influences in the Turnover Process Unmet Expectations and the Value of Realistic Job Previews Collective Turnover Retaining Effective Analysts: Implications for the Intelligence Community Developing Skills through Formal Training and Informal Learning Supporting the Analytic Workforce Conclusions References PART III: LOOKING FORWARD 9 Strengthening Ties between the Two Communities Lessons from Conducting the Decadal Survey Challenges and Benefits of a Broad Charge xi Prepublication Copy - Uncorrected Proofs

Challenges in Integrating Social and Behavioral Science (SBS) and Other Research Obstacles to Collaboration between Researchers and the Intelligence Community (IC) Building on Past Collaborations Working Together: A Brief History Lessons for Productive Collaboration Conclusions References 10 Capitalizing on Opportunities in Social and Behavioral Science (SBS) Research: A 10-Year Vision Intelligence Analysis in 10 Years Opportunities to Shape the Future of Intelligence Analysis Stronger Intelligence Assessments Tools and Technologies Optimally Designed for Human Use and Human– Machine Interaction Strengthened Readiness to Confront Evolving Security Threats Capitalizing on These Opportunities Research Opportunities Strengthening Ties between the IC and the Research Community Closing Thoughts References Appendix A Summary of Minerva, IARPA and DARPA, and MURI Research Programs Appendix B Summary of the Committee’s Information Gathering Appendix C Reproducibility and Validity Appendix D New Data, New Research Tools, New Ethical Questions Appendix E Biographical Sketches of Committee Members and Staff xii Prepublication Copy - Uncorrected Proofs

Next: Summary »
A Decadal Survey of the Social and Behavioral Sciences: A Research Agenda for Advancing Intelligence Analysis Get This Book
×
Buy Prepub | $84.00 Buy Paperback | $75.00
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

The primary function of the intelligence analyst is to make sense of information about the world, but the way analysts do that work will look profoundly different a decade from now. Technological changes will bring both new advances in conducting analysis and new risks related to technologically based activities and communications around the world. Because these changes are virtually inevitable, the Intelligence Community will need to make sustained collaboration with researchers in the social and behavioral sciences (SBS) a key priority if it is to adapt to these changes in the most productive ways.

A Decadal Survey Of The Social and Behavioral Sciences provides guidance for a 10-year research agenda. This report identifies key opportunities in SBS research for strengthening intelligence analysis and offers ideas for integrating the knowledge and perspectives of researchers from these fields into the planning and design of efforts to support intelligence analysis.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!