Author Biography

Dr. Matthew Crosston is the Miller Chair for Industrial and International Security and Director of the International Security and Intelligence Studies (ISIS) program at Bellevue University. Crosston has authored two well-received books, several book chapters and nearly a dozen peer-reviewed articles in venues like the Journal of Military and Strategic Affairs, Comparative Strategy, Strategic Studies Quarterly, International Politics, Journal of Conflict Transformation and Security, Journal of Global Analysis, and Democracy and Security. His research agenda continues to address counter-terrorism, intelligence analysis, failed democratization, and cyber war/ethics. Crosston has spoken out across the globe promoting interaction between intelligence agencies that share common interests but lack connectivity, as well as fostering improved collaboration between the academic and intelligence communities. Crosston was named the 2013 Outstanding Instructor by the International Association for Intelligence Education (IAFIE). He has a BA from Colgate, MA from the University of London, and PhD from Brown.



Subject Area Keywords

Intelligence analysis, Intelligence studies/education


More than a decade removed from 9/11 many across the academic and intelligence communities profess the importance for greater collaboration and cooperation. This mutual diffusion of knowledge, methods, and research would ideally produce both a stronger Intelligence Studies discipline and new talented cadres for both communities. The emphasis is not just logical because of the continued relevance of traditional threats, but is also common sense when considering new challenges represented by emerging threat issues and an oncoming demographic crisis: the fast-approaching retirement of the baby boom generation means a new generation of scholars and practitioners is rising now. Developing that new talent, however, has not been nearly as collaborative, cooperative, or smooth as it could be. This analysis examines the problems preventing real engagement and sincere knowledge diffusion between the academic and intelligence communities. These problems go beyond platitudes about confidential materials and top secret clearances, but hint at underlying prejudices on both sides that only exacerbate attitudinal bias. If not overcome this problem threatens to undermine both the capabilities of future Intelligence Community practitioners and the quality of academic community scholars within Intelligence Studies.