Stephen Marrin, 'Evaluating the Quality of Intelligence Analysis: By What (Mis) Measure?, Intelligence and National Security, 2716 (2012)

1. Detractions — evaluate the statements Marrin has made using the other papers below. Each point you make should be directly related to Marrin's paper, as this is a review. All references should be used as "X research disagrees with Marrin's claim that..." or Marrin's contention is not supported by X author". For example, he relies heavily on Betts - in which case is this article really offering anything new? Or is it a good thing that he agrees with earlier work by Betts? 2. Merits - Reference other authors backing up Marrin's assumptions and conclusions, e.g. "Marrin agrees with X's theory that...", "X claim is not consistent/not consistent with...". 3. Implications —What are the implications for the wider field of study. I would re-read the last paragraph of Marrin's paper where he makes claims about what the priorities of future intelligence evaluation should be - e.g. a reassessment of what intelligence analysis is, and a study of how to improve intelligence rather than studying failures. 4. How practical are these recommendations for future directions in the field of intelligence evaluation? 5. Do you agree, and does other research also suggest this? 6. What are the Implications of the paper on the field as a whole? 7. How practical are these recommendations for future directions in the field of intelligence evaluation? .