Analysts learn by doing, and the best analysts learn from their mistakes. However, mistakes in intelligence work are dreaded, and one never wants to hear the words "intelligence failure." Intelligence failures are often disastrous, and lives may be lost. It is important, therefore, to constantly work at improving the mind and never accepting old habits of thinking. Methods of thought have evolved with respect to intelligence analysis, but they appear to have largely excluded geospatial analytics.
Dr. Rob Johnston in his work Analytic Culture in the US Intelligence Community: An Ethnographic Study 2005, finds no baseline standard analytic method for the Intelligence Community. He also finds the validation of data is questionable, and there is much more emphasis on avoiding error than in-depth analysis. Overall, his research suggests the need for serious study of analytic methods in the communities of practice.
It has also been my experience that there is no baseline standard analytic method for geospatial analysis. The most common practice is to develop a workflow. If the results are reviewed, it is usually conducted as a limited peer review on the basis of previous workflows. This likely produces a bias toward confirming earlier views.
While we discuss critical thinking, the validation of input geospatial data is questionable. Dr. Rob Johnston also points out that none of the analytic agencies knows much about the analytic techniques of the others, and there tends to be an over emphasis on writing and communication skills rather than on analytic methods.
At the end of this lesson, you will be able to:
The Course Roadmap is intended to help you understand where we are in the overall learning process and to place our dual case study and project focus into context.
The image above shows a basic outline of assignments for all lessons in the course. Students are currently on Lesson 2.
Lesson 2 is one week in length. (See the Calendar in Canvas for specific due dates.) To finish this lesson, you must complete the activities listed below. You may find it useful to print this page out first so that you can follow along with the directions.
Step | Activity | Access/Directions |
---|---|---|
1 | Read the Lesson Overview and Checklist. | You are in the Lesson 02 Checklist now. Click on the Previous Page to read the Overview. |
2 | Read the Lesson 02 online content. | You are in the Lesson 02 Checklist now. Click on the Next Page to read the lesson content. |
3 | Read Lesson 02 online content. Scan The Sensemaking Process and Leverage Points for Analyst Technology as Identified Through Cognitive Task Analysis [1] Scan Intelligence Analysis: Once Again [2] |
There are three different styles of reading that are referred to in the lessons:
|
4 | Participate in the Graded Discussion. | Post to the Lesson 2 Discussion Forum your team and an initial list of possible analytic questions relevant to the course project's general problem area [3]. To participate in the discussion, please go to the Lesson 2 Graded Discussion in Canvas. (That forum can be accessed at any time by going to the Canvas link on the menu bar and then selecting Lesson 2 Graded Discussion from the appropriate weekly module.) |
5 | Read Lesson Summary. | You are in the Lesson 2 online content now. |
If you have any questions now or at any point during this week, please feel free to post them to the GEOG 885 - General Discussion Forum. (That forum can be accessed at any time in Canvas by clicking on the Modules tab. The General Discussion forum is listed under the Orientation Section.)
Traditionally, analysts at all levels devote little attention to improving how they think. - Richards J. Heuer, Jr.
We often assume everyone has the ability to think in the geospatial domain. However, it has been long known that without specific prompting, people may be unaware of spatial patterns of an environment (Golledge, 1992 [4]). What does this mean? It means that:
Add to Golledge's observation the fact that all people observe the same information with inherent and different biases (see Heuer, Psychology of Intelligence Analysis [5]) and it is clear that geospatial intelligence analysis needs a safeguard. The safeguard is a teachable process that forces the geospatial analyst to address their cognitive limitations.
Geospatial Intelligence, with possibly one exception, currently has no accepted analytic methodology to address these shortcomings. Those in the domain frequently use the word "tradecraft" as a catchall to say that the profession has a shared and documented analytic method. When one really takes a hard look at the "tradecraft" outside the realm of image interpretation, what we find is a collection of high level suggestions and tips. This is unfortunate, since geospatial analysis is an integral part of rendering geospatial intelligence.
The lack of a method for the geospatial analyst to reference is significant. It is a human tendency when confronted with a complex issue and no mental framework to organize thoughts, to unconsciously discount much of the relevant information. We mentally simplify the task and likely oversimplify the results. Further, judging intuitively or consciously, our judgments are subject to unconscious biases, blind spots, and limitations of working memory. When time permits and judgments are important, such as with National Security decisions or actions involving the major investments of money, we should break down the complex problem with an established and accepted method that makes the judgment more manageable and more rigorous. The method puts us in control and decreases the probability of error. Moreover, using an analytic method trains the analyst for time-critical situations. It helps develop the right intuitions, so we can make better high-speed judgments.
The Structured Geospatial Analytical Method (SGAM) is offered to solve the problems mentioned above. The method is organized into two major loops:
The foraging loop recognizes that analysts tended to forage for data by beginning with a broad set of data and then proceeded to narrow that set down into successively smaller, higher-precision sets of data, before analyzing the information. The three foraging actions of exploring for new information, narrowing the set of items that has been collected, and exploiting items in the narrowed set tradeoff against one another under deadline or data overload constraints. It is important to note that much geospatial intelligence work never departs the foraging loop and simply consists of extracting information and repackaging it without much actual analysis. In a sense, this is the development of tactical intelligence. Tactical intelligence is the art and science of determining what the opposition is doing, or might do, to prevent the accomplishment of your mission. It is used to support immediate decision making related to operational planning and execution.
Sensemaking is the ability to make sense of an ambiguous situation; it is creating situational awareness and understanding in situations of high complexity or uncertainty in order to make decisions. It is "a motivated, continuous effort to understand connections (which can be among people, places, and events) in order to anticipate their trajectories and act effectively" (Klein, G., Moon, B. and Hoffman, R.F. 2006. Making sense of sensemaking. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 21(4), 70-73. ). In a sense, this is the development of strategic intelligence. Strategic intelligence (STRATINT) is information that is required for forming policy and plans at the national and international level. The information needed for strategic intelligence comes from Open Source material.
The below figure represents the Structured Geospatial Analytic Process derived from and incorporating aspects of both Heuer's ACH and Pirolli and Card's sensemaking process. This is a generalized view of the geospatial analysis process that fits within the larger intelligence process. The rectangular boxes represent analytic activities. The arrows represent the flow from one activity to the next. The activities are arranged by degree of effort and degree of information structure. The overall analytic method has back loops. One set of activities focuses around finding information and another set of activities focuses on making sense of the information.
The diagram summarizes how an analyst comes up with new information. The data flow shows the transformation of information as it flows from raw information to reportable results through the following steps:
Basically, the data flow represents the converting of raw information into a form where expertise can apply, and then out to another form suited for communication. Information processing can be driven by bottom-up processes (from data to theory) or top-down (from theory to data). The bottom-up process is as described in steps 1 through 6. The top-down process is slightly different in that it follows the sequence of:
The next several lessons will address the detailed aspects of each step within the process.
A number of "ingredients" (concepts) have been used in the development of the Structured Geospatial Analysis Method "stew." It is difficult to understand how to apply the method without understanding the ingredients and their associated qualities. The following is a brief discussion of each ingredient for your general reference:
In a large saucepan, brown the intelligence analytic method; add the geospatial analytic method and sauté for 3 to 5 minutes longer. Add reasoning and spatial thinking; bring to a boil. Reduce heat to low, cover, and simmer for 1 to 1 1/2 hours. Add geospatial reasoning; simmer for about 30 to 40 minutes longer, or until tender. Add drained critical thinking; continue cooking for 5 to 10 minutes.
In a small bowl or cup, combine additional spatial thinking and geospatial reasoning with cold water until smooth. Add the mixture to the simmering broth, a little at a time, until the stew is thickened. Taste and add salt and pepper. Serve with hot buttered presentations.
There is a great deal of confusion about what critical thinking is and its relationship to an analytical method. Much of the confusion is because there are many definitions of critical thinking. According to Cohen and Salas (Marvin S. Cohen and Eduardo Salas, Critical Thinking: Challenges, Possibilities, and Purpose, March 2002), definitions in the literature suggest that a common core meaning exists, and one might define critical thinking as:
The deliberate evaluation of intellectual products in terms of an appropriate standard of adequacy.
Related to this definition is a theme of early philosophers, such as Descartes, Locke, Berkeley, and Hume, of the importance of challenging inherited and customary beliefs. In other words, to adopt not only a first-person but also a second-person critical point of view. This imperative of doubting one’s own accepted beliefs is critical thinking. The early philosophers agreed on two things about critical thinking:
Initially, evidence was regarded as sufficient only if it guaranteed the truth of a conclusion. Today, theorists acknowledge uncertainty about matters of fact and even about logic. The purpose of critical thinking is therefore now seen as to ensure a high probability of truth.
More recently, in 2002, Robert H. Ennis, Retired Director, Illinois Critical Thinking Project, wrote that "Critical thinking is here assumed to be reasonable reflective thinking focused on deciding what to believe or do. This rough overall definition is, we believe, in accord with the way the term is generally used these days. Under this interpretation, critical thinking is relevant not only to the formation and checking of beliefs, but also to deciding upon and evaluating actions. It involves creative activities such as formulating hypotheses, plans, and counterexamples; planning experiments; and seeing alternatives. Furthermore, critical thinking is reflective -- and reasonable. The negative, harping, complaining characteristic that is sometimes labeled by the word, "critical", is not involved."
In his piece, Super-Streamlined Conception of Critical Thinking, Robert H. Ennis, points out that a critical thinker:
Richard Paul has further defined it as:
Critical thinking is that mode of thinking – about any subject, content or problem – in which the thinker improves the quality of his or her thinking by skillfully taking charge of the structures inherent in thinking and imposing intellectual standards upon them. (Paul, Fisher and Nosich, 1993, p.4)
Alec Fisher, Critical Thinking: An Introduction, Cambridge University Press, points out that, "This definition draws attention to a feature of critical thinking on which teachers and researchers in the field seem to be largely agreed, that the only way to develop one's critical thinking ability is through 'thinking about one's thinking' (often called 'metacognition'), and consciously aiming to improve it by reference to some model of good thinking in that domain."
The essence is that critical thinking in geospatial intelligence is exemplified by asking questions about alternative possibilities in order to achieve some objective analysis, rendering a high probability of the selected alternative being true.
To paraphrase William Millwood (Moore, p. 3 [6]), creating geospatial analysis requires transformations resulting from an intellectual endeavor that sorts the significant from the insignificant, assessing them severally and jointly, and arriving at a conclusion by the exercise of reasoned judgment. This endeavor when dealing with geospatial problems is geospatial reasoning, or an operation in which present facts suggest other facts. Geospatial reasoning creates an objective connection between our present geospatial beliefs and the evidence for believing something else.
Spatial thinking includes processes that support exploration and understanding. An expert spatial thinker visualizes relations, imagines transformations from one scale to another, mentally rotates an object to look at its other sides, creates a new viewing angle or perspective, and remembers images in places and spaces. Spatial thinking also allows us to externalize these operations by creating representations such as a map.
Spatial thinking begins with the ability to use space as a framework. An object can be specified relative to the observer, to the environment, to its own intrinsic structure, or to other objects in the environment. Each instance requires the adoption of specific spatial frames of reference or context. The process of interpretation begins with data which is generally context-free numbers, text, or symbols. Information is derived from data by implying some degree of selection, organization, and preparation for a purpose — in other words, the data is placed into a spatial context. For example, the elevation at a specific location is an example of data; however, the elevation only has meaning when placed in context of sea level. The spatial context is critical because it is the space the data is in that ultimately determines its interpretation. There are three spatial contexts within which we can make the data-to-information transition; these include life spaces, physical spaces, and intellectual spaces. In all cases, space provides an interpretive context that gives meaning to the data.
Learning to think spatially is to consider objects in terms of their context. This is to say, the object's location in life space, physical space, or intellectual space, to question why objects are located where they are, and to visualize relationships between and among these objects. The key skills of spatial thinking include the ability to:
Golledge’s First-Order Primitives constitute a broad list of cognitive schemes for geospatial analysis (R. G. Golledge "Do People Understand Spatial Concepts: The case of First-Order Primitives", Theories and Models of Spatio-Temporal Reasoning in Geographic Space. Pisa: Springer-Verlag, 1992). The schemas are:
The three well-known reasoning processes trace the development of analytic beliefs along different paths. Inductive reasoning reveals “that something is probably true,” deductive reasoning demonstrates “that something is necessarily true.” It is generally accepted within the intelligence community that both are limited: inductive reasoning leads to multiple, equally likely solutions and deductive reasoning is subject to deception. Therefore, a third aid to judgment, abductive reasoning, showing “that something is plausibly true,” is used to offset the limitations of the others. While analysts who employ all three guides to sound judgment stand to be the most persuasive, fallacious reasoning or mischaracterization of rules, cases, or results in any of the three can affect reasoning using the others.
It’s not too far of a stretch to say that people who are drawn to the discipline of geospatial intelligence have minds accustomed to assembling information into three-dimensional mental schemas. We construct schemas in our mind, rotate them, and view them from many angles. Furthermore, the experienced geospatial professional imagines spatial schemas influenced in the fourth dimension, time. We mentally replay time series of the schema. So easy is the geospatial professional’s ability to assemble multi-dimensional models that the expert does it with incomplete data. We mentally fill in gaps, making an intuitive leap toward a working schema with barely enough data to perceive even the most rudimentary spatial patterns. This is a sophisticated form of geospatial reasoning. Expertise increases with experience, because as we come across additional schemas, our mind continuously expands to accommodate them. This might be called spatial awareness. Being a visual-spatial learner, instead of feeling daunted by the abundance and complexity of data, we find pleasure in recognizing the patterns. Are we crazy? No, this is what is called a visual-spatial mind. Some also call these people right brain thinkers.
The concept of right brain and left brain thinking developed from the research of psychobiologist Roger W. Sperry. Sperry discovered that the human brain has two different ways of thinking. The right brain is visual and processes information in an intuitive and simultaneous way, looking first at the whole picture then the details. The left brain is verbal and processes information in an analytical and sequential way, looking first at the pieces then putting them together to get the whole. Some individuals are more whole-brained and equally adept at both modes.
The qualities of the Visual-Spatial person are well documented but not well known (See the Visual-Spatial Resource homepage [7]). Visual-spatial thinkers are individuals who think in pictures rather than in words. They have a different brain organization than sequential thinkers. They are whole-part thinkers who think in terms of the big picture first before they examine the details. They are non-sequential, which means that they do not think and learn in a step-by-step manner. They arrive at correct solutions without taking steps. They may have difficulty with easy tasks, but show a unique ability with difficult, complex tasks. They are systems thinkers who can orchestrate large amounts of information from different domains, but they often miss the details.
Sarah Andrews [8] likens some contrasting thought processes to a cog railway. Data must be in a set sequence in order to process it through a workflow. In order to answer a given question, the thinker needs information fed to him in order. He will apply a standardized method towards arriving at a pragmatic answer, check his results, and move on to the next question. In order to move comfortably through this routine, he requires that a rigid set of rules be in place. This is compared with the geospatial analyst who grabs information in whatever order, and instead of crunching down a straight-line, formulaic route toward an answer, makes an intuitive, mental leap toward the simultaneous perception of a group of possible answers. The answers may overlap, but none are perfect. In response to this ambiguity, the geospatial analyst develops a risk assessment, chooses the best-working answer from this group, and proceeds to improve the estimate by gathering further data. Unlike the engineer, whose formulaic approach requires that the unquestioned authority of the formula exists in order to proceed, the geospatial intelligence professional questions all authority, be it in the form of a human or acquired data.
The two intelligence models presented in GEOG 885, structured analytic techniques and alternative competing hypotheses, are widely known and frequently used by intelligence professionals. They are, however, generic in nature. In 1970, American/Swiss Geographer and Cartographer Waldo Tobler made the following observation while studying urban development in Detroit, MI:
Think about this for a moment. A hunter gathers food for his/her family closer to home than farther away. There are a greater number of farms closer to the market town. A small snack food company maximizes the distribution of their products closer to the processing facility, with distribution decreasing further away from the source. IED laden terrorists place their lethal products closer to home base than further away. Thieves tend to steal closer to home base than further away. Earthquakes tend to inflict the most damage near the epicenter. Planets closer to the sun are hotter than those further away. The list, and applications, is endless.
Since then, Geographers have recognized the profoundness of Tobler’s observation, and commonly refer it to it as the “First Law of Geography." Now it’s not really a law, but is widely accepted as a general model to explain/understand geospatial patterns associated with natural and man-induced phenomena. And so, in GEOG 885, we’ll use Dr. Tobler’s law to help put a geospatial spin on the two general intelligence models while analyzing our two case studies.
Sherman Kent, who has been described as "the father of intelligence analysis”, is often acknowledged as first proposing an analytic method specifically for intelligence. The essence of Kent’s method was understanding the problem, data collection, hypotheses generation, data evaluation, more data collection, followed by hypotheses generation (Kent, S. 1949, Strategic intelligence for American world policy, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.).
Richards Heuer subsequently proposed an ordered eight step model of “an ideal” analytic process, emphasizing early deliberate generation of hypotheses prior to information acquisition (Heuer, R. 1981, "Strategies for analytical judgment", Studies in Intelligence, Summer, pp. 65-78.):
Heuer’s technique has become known as Analysis of Competing Hypothesis (ACH). The technique entails identifying possible hypotheses by brainstorming, listing evidence for and against each, analyzing the evidence and then refining hypotheses, trying to disprove hypotheses, analyzing the sensitivity of critical evidence, reporting conclusions with the relative likelihood of all hypotheses, and identifying milestones that indicate events are taking an unexpected course. The use of brainstorming is critical since the quality of the hypotheses is dependent on the existing knowledge and experience of the analysts, since hypotheses generation occurs before additional information acquisition augments the existing knowledge of the problem. ACH is widely cited in the intelligence literature as a means for improving analysis. The primary advantage of ACH is a consistent approach for rejection or validation of many potential conclusions (or hypothesis).
Heuer acknowledges how mental models, or mindsets, are essentially the re-representations of how analysts perceive information (Heuer, Richards J. Jr. & Center for the Study of Intelligence 1999, Psychology of intelligence analysis, Center for the Study of Intelligence, Central Intelligence Agency, Washington, DC.). Even though every analyst sees the same piece of information, it is interpreted differently due to a variety of factors (past experience, education, and cultural values to name merely a few). In essence, one's perceptions are morphed by a variety of factors that are completely out of the control of the analyst. Heuer sees mental models as potentially good and bad for the analyst. On the positive side, they tend to simplify information for the sake of comprehension, but they also obscure genuine clarity of interpretation.
ACH had evolved into an eight-step procedure based upon cognitive psychology, decision analysis, and the scientific method. It is believed to be particularly appropriate for establishing an audit trail to show what an analyst considered and how they arrived at their judgment. (Heuer, Richards J. Jr. & Center for the Study of Intelligence 1999, Psychology of intelligence analysis, Center for the Study of Intelligence, Central Intelligence Agency, Washington, DC.).
Heuer’s approach is the prevailing view of the analysis process. Figure 5 by the 2002 Joint Military Intelligence College (JMIC) illustrates the integration of the fundamentals of ACH into the intelligence process (Waltz, E. 2003, Toward a MAUI NITE intelligence analytic process model, Veridian Systems, Arlington, VA.).
Figure 5 is peculiarly significant since it shows the intelligence cycle steps of:
which incorporates the following analytic process steps within the analysis steps:
Since Heuer’s development of ACH, another model of the intelligence analysis process is proposed by Pirolli in 2006 which was derived from the results of a cognitive task analysis of intelligence analysts (Pirolli, P.L. 2006, Assisting people to become independent learners in the analysis of intelligence: final technical report, Palo Alto Research Center, Inc., Palo Alto, CA.). The analytic process is described as “A Notional Model of Analyst Sensemaking,” with the cognitive task analysis indicating that the bottom-up and top-down processes shown in each loop are “…invoked in an opportunistic mix.” (Pirolli, P. & Card, S.K. 2006, The sensemaking process and leverage points for analyst technology identified through cognitive task analysis, Palo Alto Research Center, Inc., Palo Alto, CA.). Figure 6 illustrates this process.
The image shows a graph with the Y-axis representing "structure", and the X-axis representing "effort". On the graph there are numbered steps 1 through 16; 1 being low effort, low structure and 16 being high effort and high structure.
All of these steps are interconnected. Behind these steps are three "loops": the Reality/Policy Loop that runs behind the entire graph, the Foraging Loop that runs behind the first 7 steps, and the Sensemaking Loop that runs behind the last 9 steps.
The term “sensemaking” is used as a term to describe the analysis process. Sensemaking is defined “…as the deliberate effort to understand events,” describing the elements of sensemaking using the terms “data” and “frame.” A frame is “…an explanatory structure that defines entities by describing their relationship to other entities” (Klein, G., Phillips, J.K., Rall, E.L. & Peluso, D.A. 2007, "A data-frame theory of sensemaking" in Expertise out of context, ed. R.R. Hoffman, pp. 113-15). The Klein article further explains that “The data identify the relevant frame, and the frame determines which data are noticed. Neither of these comes first. The data elicit and help to construct the frame; the frame defines, connects, and filters the data.”
Pirolli and Card contend that many forms of intelligence analysis are sensemaking tasks. As figure 4 illustrates, such sensemaking tasks consist of information gathering, re-representation of the information in a schema that aids analysis, the development of insight through the manipulation of this representation, and the creation of some knowledge based on the insight. The analyst proceeds through the process of:
Information ⇒ Schema ⇒ Insight ⇒ Product
They also suggested that the process may be reversed to:
Product ⇒ Insight ⇒ Schema ⇒ Information
In other words, in terms of Figure 6, the process can be a mix of top-down and/or bottom-up.
Schemas are the re-representation or organized marshalling of the information so that it can be used more easily to draw conclusions. Pirolli and Card note that the re-representation “may be informally in the analyst’s mind or aided by a paper and pencil or computer-based system” (Pirolli, P. & Card, S.K. 2006, The sensemaking process and leverage points for analyst technology identified through cognitive task analysis, Palo Alto Research Center, Inc., Palo Alto, CA.).
The geospatial intelligence preparation of the environment (GPE) analytic method is based on the intelligence cycle and process. According to NGA, the steps are: [10]
De Smith and Goodchild [11] examined geospatial analysis process in the broader context of analytical methodologies. The typical process of geospatial analysis follows a number of well-defined and iterative stages:
On the whole, geospatial analysis can be seen as part of a decision process and support infrastructure. The process from problem specification to outcome is, in reality, an over-simplification, and the analytical process is more complex and iterative than the steps suggest. GIS and related software tools that perform analytical functions only address data gathering, analysis, and modeling. As de Smith and Goodchild point out, the flow from start to finish is rarely the case. Not only is the process iterative, but at each stage, one often looks back to the previous step and re-evaluates the validity of the decisions made. Mackay and Oldford (in de Smith and Goodchild [11]) described a spatial analysis method in terms of a sequence of steps labeled PPDAC: Problem; Plan; Data; Analysis; and Conclusions. The PPDAC approach is shown in the below figure.
As can be seen from the diagram, although the clockwise sequence (1→5) applies as the principal flow, each stage may, and often will, feed back to the previous stage. In addition, it may well be beneficial to examine the process in the reverse direction, starting with Problem definition and then examining expectations as to the format and structure of the Conclusions. This procedure then continues, step-by-step, in an anti-clockwise manner (e→a) determining the implications of these expectations for each stage of the process.
PPDAC develops evidence. Evidence, in the context of this discussion, refers to the information that is gathered by exploratory analysis of spatial and temporal data. These methods include remote sensing and GIS to develop intermediate products. "Exploratory data analysis (EDA) is about detecting and describing patterns, trends, and relations in data, motivated by certain purposes of investigation. As something relevant is detected in data, new questions arise, causing specific parts to be viewed in more detail. So EDA has a significant appeal: it involves hypothesis generation rather than mere hypothesis testing" (Exploratory Analysis of Spatial and Temporal Data, Springer, 2006). Ultimately, what is evidence is defined by the intelligence producer. Ideally, "evidence" in the context of the framework of the problem should include: the context and the scientific and intuitive evidence.
The purpose of the project is to provide a compelling deep dive into geospatial intelligence analysis using a structured methodology. We will split into teams. Each team will take on a particular analytic question associated with the same problem. Through the exploration of the analytic question, we hope that each team gets a comprehensive understanding of a particular problem and in the use of a structured approach in the development of geospatial intelligence.
The term project is to geospatially investigate the Jonathan Luna case.
Jonathan Luna was a Baltimore-based Assistant United States Attorney who was stabbed 36 times with his own penknife and found drowned in a creek in Pennsylvania. No suspects or motive for murder was determined. The federal authorities (FBI) lean towards calling it a (hypothesis 1) suicide but the local Lancaster County authorities, including two successive coroners, ruled it a (hypothesis 2) homicide. Your task is to (1) organize as a team to (2) assemble and (3) evaluate the geospatial evidence to determine if the evidence (including the geospatial aspects of the case) is consistent or inconsistent with the hypotheses. The following information is provided as a starting point in your geospatial analysis:
The Jonathan Luna Case Study: An Unsolved Mystery (Pherson Associates, LLC in 2006) [12]
Anticipated Jonathan Luna Route (Pherson Associates, LLC in 2006) [13]
Jonathan Luna Chronology (Pherson Associates, LLC in 2006) [14]
Helpful Links [15] (download)
Key Known Locations [16] (download)
Submission Instructions: Post deliverables 1, 2 and 3 in your Canvas Team Dropbox.
The traditional approach to geospatial intelligence analysis is the intuitive method. Analysts learn by doing, and the best analysts have often learned from their mistakes. However, mistakes in intelligence work are dreaded, and one hates to hear the words "intelligence failure." Intelligence failures are often disastrous, and lives can be lost. It is important, therefore, to constantly work at improving the mind and never accepting old habits of thinking. The Structured Geospatial Analytic Method addresses the need for development of analytic methods in the geospatial community of practice. Methods of thought have evolved with respect to intelligence analysis, which seems to have largely excluded geospatial analytics. This seminar lesson examined a particular geospatial method for approaching analysis.
In order to improve analysis, relatively uncomplicated techniques have been developed to help intelligence analysts structure their analysis and reduce the frequency and severity of error. These are what the Intelligence Community now calls structured analytic techniques, or SATs for short. The next lesson will address the SATs That can directly assist you using the Structured Geospatial Analytic Method.
Links
[1] https://www.e-education.psu.edu/geog885/sites/www.e-education.psu.edu.geog885/files/geog885q/file/Lesson_02/Sense_Making_206_Camera_Ready_Paper.pdf
[2] https://www.e-education.psu.edu/geog885/sites/www.e-education.psu.edu.geog885/files/geog885q//file/Lesson_02/21602029-Intelligence-Analysis-Once-Again.pdf
[3] https://www.e-education.psu.edu/geog885/node/1936
[4] https://www.e-education.psu.edu/geog885/sites/www.e-education.psu.edu.geog885/files/geog885q//file/Lesson_02/Golledge_Spatial_Concepts.pdf
[5] https://www.e-education.psu.edu/geog885/sites/www.e-education.psu.edu.geog885/files/geog885q/file/Lesson_08/PsychofIntelNew.pdf
[6] https://www.e-education.psu.edu/geog885/sites/www.e-education.psu.edu.geog885/files/geog885q/file/Lesson_02/Critical_Thinking_2641.pdf
[7] http://www.visualspatial.org/
[8] https://www.sarahandrews.net/biography/
[9] https://www.cia.gov/legacy/headquarters/cia-library/
[10] https://fas.org/irp/agency/nga/doctrine.pdf
[11] http://www.spatialanalysisonline.com
[12] https://www.e-education.psu.edu/geog885/sites/www.e-education.psu.edu.geog885/files/file/Luna%20Case%20Study/CS10.pdf
[13] https://www.e-education.psu.edu/geog885/sites/www.e-education.psu.edu.geog885/files/file/Luna%20Case%20Study/CS10-1.pdf
[14] https://www.e-education.psu.edu/geog885/sites/www.e-education.psu.edu.geog885/files/file/Luna%20Case%20Study/CS10-2.pdf
[15] https://www.e-education.psu.edu/geog885/sites/www.e-education.psu.edu.geog885/files/file/Luna%20Case%20Study/Jonathan%20Luna%20Case%20Study%20links%20theories.docx
[16] https://www.e-education.psu.edu/geog885/sites/www.e-education.psu.edu.geog885/files/file/Luna%20Case%20Study/luna%20case%20study%20table.xlsx
[17] https://www.e-education.psu.edu/geog885/sites/www.e-education.psu.edu.geog885/files/file/Spatial_Thinking_Assist_V2.docx