Start with thesis prep

I have learned quite a few hard, humbling and empowering lessons on my incomplete journey to professional doctorateness thus far. At this junction of my studies, it is pertinent to reflect on these lessons as they will drive my energy and commitment in the coming two years.

Self-criticism and personal re-invention is paramount in this journey: In the beginning of my Prof Doc studies, I tend to fall back on my professional development comfort zone, studying and writing about the importance of professionalization and professional development in the intelligence analysis profession. But I realised soon that the existing literature is little more than academic navel gazing of scholars that are not in agreement on what exactly intelligence analysis is, whether it is a profession or not and whether those doing the same function outside the traditional national security domain, can be seen as “intelligence analysts”. I realised that there is not much I can bring to this debate and the fact that I bring an “African perspective” will not have any impact on the debate nor the profession. Very little of the academia’s opinions really influence the realities analysts face in their jobs.

I recognised that I would have to look at the issue from a totally different angle if I want to make a contribution to the body of knowledge and the profession of intelligence analysis. I started to look for this “angle” in a frantic search across the literature - but I realised that the search itself drained my energy and I will not be able to recognise it if I came across it. I had to slow down, reprioritise and force myself to affirm that this is “only” my Doctorate – it is not my life. I needed to open myself to whatever new things this journey brings me and conserve my energy for those that are worthwhile to pursuit.

A researcher does not choose a research topic, it chooses you! Going through the literature, I realised that there is a total absence of the voice of intelligence analysts themselves. Everyone had an opinion about them, what they do, what they should do, how they can improve… but their own voices were silent! Those few articles that included ethnographic or repertory grid studies into the functions of analysts were the only ones that really “spoke to me”. At that stage, I knew that I had to get the analysts talking, but I did not know how - the intelligence field is notorious for its inaccessibility and its secrecy. But then, in January 2017, sitting in my Airbnb flat in Cottage Grove in Portsmouth looking at the rain and googling versions of “professional”, I found how I could give the analysts a voice! The search term suggestion of “professional identity” came up. It interested me and I did a quick glance of the terminology and how it is applied. I then realized that I have actually no idea about what professionalism means if I do not take into account the sociological aspect of how people identify themselves in their working context. The interaction between their different individual identities and their professional identity opened up my understanding of what might be missing in the debate about professionalism in intelligence analysis: the voice of intelligence analysts themselves on how they perceive themselves, what their challenges and motivations are in the workplace and how they see the future of the profession. This left me with the glaring realisation that professionalisation is not in the first place how others see you, but how you see yourself and how you identify with others fulfilling the same role you are.

I let the terminology and basic theory grow on me and then used some aspects of “professional identity” in my research assignment to test whether this topic might be useful for further investigation in my thesis. The results of my web survey among intelligence analysts in sub-Saharan Africa confirmed that I might have the unique angle I was looking for. The findings as discussed in my Publication and Dissemination assignment indicated that their individual professional identity is strong despite them not belonging to a professional body, not being “certified”, not having sufficient development opportunities or facing extreme political and criminal interference in their jobs. My thesis research will therefor build further onto these findings and attempt to understand what constitutes these strong feelings of affinity and loyalty to a career, and maybe determine whether intelligence analysts across the globe share the same professional identity. In the end, their voices matter, not mine!

Research ideas remain exactly that unless they’re executable and viable. The pilot study taught me that even before I finalise the research question, I need to determine the viability of doing such research given the difficulty of getting access to government and law enforcement agencies. Nearly 70% of the respondents of my web survey were from the private sector and I realised that I have to tap into this goodwill for my thesis. This target group is much more accessible and willing to share their experiences, which has been confirmed by the positive responses of various international professional organisations to my upcoming research.

Academic self-knowledge is priceless! On a more scholarly reflective note, the research module forced me to interrogate my philosophical paradigm that impacts on how I conduct research. It was really liberating to be able to place myself in the pragmatic paradigm with a close second preference to interpretivism. I now understand how my values and life experience formed not only my personality, but also my academic paradigm. In the period of self-reflection on how I would attempt my thesis research, I thought that I would only focus on interpretative hermeneutics and use interviews for my thesis as I really enjoyed the process of content analysis in writing my journal article. The analyst in me looked at the data from different angles, playing devil’s advocate and acted out being Cassandra and Pollyanna to make sure that I extract as much meaning as possible from their voices.

However, something was still missing from my thesis proposal: I realised that my pragmatic side would want to know whether any of these findings could be generalised or applied to more than just the sample few analysts I would research as part of an interpretative phenomenological analysis. I experienced a big learning moment in the last few days when I realised that I have to trust my pragmatist paradigm and embrace mixed methods methodology. For my own sake of keeping the momentum and energy until the end of my journey, I have to exploit the confidence I gained in the successful web survey so that it can carry me through the coming days of self-doubt. But, I am also sure that the inclusion of an international web survey in the research would provide valuable data and benefit the profession as analysts would reflect on their profession and its future.

I look forward to the next phase of this amazing journey toward professional doctorateness, and am certain that the reflective part of my final thesis will mirror how far I have come on the road of mindfulness and self-awareness.

Reflecting on 1st major research study

An exploratory study into the professional development needs of intelligence analysts in sub-Saharan Africa

This assignment was a steep learning curve with various learning moments which I would be able to apply in the further phases of my study, as well as in my personal life. It is not far-fetched to say that I suffered from severe cognitive dissonance, and even some academic depression for quite a few months, which was enhanced by a medical emergency that left me unable to get my mind refocused for about two months.

This already started at the study school when I realised that this section of the doctorate would throw quite a few curveballs at me. The first of these curveballs was when I realised that there is quite a logic jump between the outcome of Assignment 1 and my proposed thesis topic. I reflected and challenged my assumptions on the topic and had to critically examine my assumptions on how I saw my studies enfolding in the next few years. This process led me to delve deeper into the different aspects related to professional identity and professional development. This helped me to change the focus of my research so that it is unique but also valuable for the improvement of the professional practice.

The second major curveball was when I realised that I will have to let go of my disinclination towards quantitative methods as certain aspects in my research problem need to be quantified. I embraced this realisation, and decided that I would need to learn as much as I can about the use of quantitative research methods. I actually look forward to the quantitative analysis of my findings in the next phase!

The third curveball was when I had to go through the process of determining my own philosophical paradigm. I have to admit - I even struggle to pronounce epistemological, ontological and axiological and walked for quite a few days in the house practicing the words! It was really liberating to be able to place myself in the pragmatic paradigm with a second preference to interpretivism. I now understand how my values and life experience formed not only my personality, but also my academic paradigm.

The fourth curveball was when the targeted security agencies here in South Africa did not reply to my requests for assistance in conducting the survey among their analysts. I reflected on the impact of this on my research outcome, and learnt some valuable lessons for the next phase in my research. The main lesson here was that my research has no priority in the bigger scheme of things for those agencies and that I will have to improve my influencing and lobbying skills dramatically if I want to include some of their analysts in my next phase!

The last curveball was when I realized that I had to expand my initial sampling strategy as the ethics committee might have had serious concerns with my convenience sample. They could have stated that I’m abusing my access to an email list of people who knew me, and who are at least sympathetic to training, if not outright passionate about it. This issue created an opportunity for me to develop a four-pronged sampling strategy that not only provides sufficient validity to my sample, but also revealed new participants who are eager to participate in the next phases of my study.

Reflecting on writing my first journal article

This assignment was a challenge and eye-opener for me in many ways. I would first like to address those things I realized I could not do, did wrong or had to improve, after which I end with those reconfirming issues that should give me a bit of self-confidence on my journey to become a practicing academic – or least to give me something positive to cling to while I’m doing my thesis proposal…

My first struggle was to select a journal for my article – at first I thought “Why not go for gold and pretend that I’m writing for the Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence – the most prestigious peer-reviewed journal in my field?” I soon realized that it is folly to take such a simple approach: first, I’m not pretending – this is serious stuff and my chance to actually try and get published. Secondly, my data results were actually good and I have something to share with the world. Thirdly, I have spent months on my ART project, and will spend months on my journal article, it must be worthwhile all my blood and tears… So I had to change track and actually look for a journal that might be interested in what I had to say – applying primary research results in a wider context than the ivory towers of this intelligence and security world has previously done. I spent about three weeks researching all the security, intelligence, training and development, organizational development, sociology and education peer-reviewed journals, looking for a suitable home for my first foray into academic publishing. This investigation also forced me to reconsider the angle/s of my article. The data is such that I could really focus on three or four different aspects of my research and present my data in such a way that it would apply to any of the above disciplines. In the end, I had to ask myself: “What do you want to be known for? An intelligence or security specialist? An educationalist or sociologist in the intelligence/security environment? Or a security intelligence specialist that is passionate about improving the profession?” Of course, in the end I decided that my professional identity is the latter and that my chosen journal shares this identity.

My second challenge or mistake was that I allowed myself to be redirected or rather misdirected into a path that wasted a lot of my time and energy. I got so ensnared in the whole idea of professional identity, that my focus became blurred and I saw everything in my data results in this light. But when I started to write the article, I realized that my survey actually only touched on one small aspect of professional identity, and that my data does not support this one-sided focus. My presentation at the workshop reflected this singular focus, and although good for my thinking about my thesis topic, it gave the wrong impression about my article. The focus should be on the analysts’ perception of their profession and how they would like to develop further – professional identity is but one very small snapshot of the whole – apologies to myself… accepted... luckily I passed my presentation!

My third major learning was that I did not think about the end-result of some of the questions I asked in my survey in the ART assignment. Yes, it looked quite impressive in the survey, and I felt damn good about how I covered most of the issues I wanted the respondents’ to reply on. But I never took into consideration that those responses needed to be analyzed and commented on! As a result, I totally underestimated the richness of my data. It took me about two months to analyse, re-categorize and code the data, and when I started to write the article, I realized that I had too many loose strands, too many major points that each deserves a paper on their own! I had to decide not to include some of my findings as it introduces a whole new concept that actually deserves another paper. The lesson I learnt here was that I should start with the end in mind and narrow down my inquiry until there is nothing more to discover before I write up my questions.

My fourth learning is that I’m truly an interpretivist. I learnt that the data speak for itself, and my role is to “listen” and to make sure that I’m not missing a nuance or am deaf to the respondents’ voices. I forced myself to let go of my subjectivity and my cynicism, even my unconscious agenda of proving that the intelligence analysts in Africa don’t care about professional development. When I sat down with the data, and dug further, playing with different pivot tables, the data ‘screamed’ that they actually care – a lot! I started looking at the data from different angles, playing devil’s advocate, playing Cassandra and Pollyanna to make sure that I extract as much meaning as possible from their ‘voices’.

Some of the things I learnt about the process and about myself are more positive. I affirmed that it is worthwhile to stand on the shoulders of giants – learning how other people attempted the same kind of research, whether they succeeded or failed does not matter as those examples were signposts on my journey these last months.  

The biggest surprise was that I could actually learn the basics of statistics, albeit the bare basics! It afforded both my husband (science tutor) and my son (an engineering student) some input and insight into my research. Of course my son guided me to the best YouTube videos to understand ‘standard deviation’, ‘median vs average’ etc., but it created the opportunity for some good discussions.

The main obstacle I overcame was writer’s block. I learnt to free-write anything that came to mind, even when I don’t feel like studying. I learnt that I have some valuable insights in my sub-conscious that just needed a channel to emerge – and a word document without structure or sense or a notebook next to me while I’m reading or writing helps me to stay in touch with the scholar in me. In this way, I learnt to deal with my energy and attention levels in a way that would be beneficial for my journey toward doctorateness.