ABSTRACT
Over the last twenty years Intelligence Studies (IS) has developed significantly to represent a distinctive branch of Political Science/Political Studies. As all distinct areas of enquiry must, it has developed its own foundational literature within which the specific concepts that underpin its study have been articulated, debated and refined. The model at the core of IS is the intelligence ‘cycle’ – a common thread running through all social science approaches to the study of intelligence as well as post-1945 intelligence training manuals. However, there is a growing acceptance that it neither accurately reflects the intelligence process nor accommodates important elements of or related to it, for example covert action, counterintelligence and oversight. There is a strong argument for conceptual parsimony so long as this can clearly and fairly accurately describe the core process on which it focuses. However, it is increasingly clear that the cycle concept looks dated in respect of technological and other developments in intelligence. For example, while the idea was originally conceived with respect to foreign intelligence, variations have been developed in other areas, such as the UK national intelligence model for law enforcement, and business models for the assessment of ‘risk’. Changing threats and targets and the information revolution have all contributed to a sense that the classic model requires at least a major re-fit, if not actually discarding. This chapter analyses these developments and concludes by suggesting an alternative way of presenting the intelligence process that addresses the shortcomings of the cycle model.
