Ph.D in IO (IW)?

This is for discussion of anything related to Information Operations

Some schools

Postby horde52 » Tue Feb 21, 2012 5:42 pm

Here is a list from NSA:
http://www.nsa.gov/ia/academic_outreach/nat_cae/index.shtml

New Mexico State had a program running, it has been a few years and the direction might have changed:
http://www.psl.nmsu.edu/isss/

Univeristy of Southern California had the "ISI Center for Information Operations", but I'm not sure if they are still running it.

Both NMSU and USC programs were started by Vicente Garcia (CAPT, retired)
  • 0

horde52
Registered Member
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2012 5:18 pm
Location: Left coast
Reputation: 0

Thanks!

Postby jmaxb » Tue Feb 21, 2012 8:49 pm

Great resources, thanks! I live in NM now, so that's extremely useful.

I was hoping to focus more on the cognitive domain of IW (e.g. MISO, public diplomacy, psyops, human network attacks, etc.), rather than the physical or network levels.

Thanks again for the reply! :)
  • 0

jmaxb
Registered Member
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2010 6:53 am
Location: Washington, DC
Reputation: 0

Postby Sum1 » Tue Feb 21, 2012 9:01 pm

jmaxb wrote:Great resources, thanks! I live in NM now, so that's extremely useful.

I was hoping to focus more on the cognitive domain of IW (e.g. MISO, public diplomacy, psyops, human network attacks, etc.), rather than the physical or network levels.

Thanks again for the reply! :)


As a community we appear to be divesting ourselves of the "congnitive domain" of IO and refocusing our efforts in EW, SIGINT, and Cyber. As such, the IW community has to leverage the greater IDC (read:Intel community) to fill the gap in the MISO, public diplomacy, psyops, regional expertise, etc, capabilities that we once were growing absent specific billets requiring that knowledge. While I hate to think we don't care about growing that capability any longer, I can see the rationale for the change. We simply do not have requirements levied for that sort of capability.
  • 0

Sum1
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 926
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 1:43 am
Reputation: 15

Cognitive Domain

Postby jmaxb » Tue Feb 21, 2012 9:16 pm

Great points, Sum1. I agree that the IDC has divested itself from these areas, as noted by the discontinuation (or at least relocation of responsibilities) of the USIA. Though, I see why we have invested more in the other aspects of IW (being a tech guy myself), I believe we need to step up our game when it comes to the cognitive domain. This realm is key in political warfare, as well as conventional warfare efforts. We need to take control the decision making processes of 'competitor' leadership through the manipulation, not just access, of information when considering the art of the long view.

While I believe the other aspect are of paramount importance, we have to step back from the details of the systems of EW, and understand/control the will and motivation of our enemies to implement such systems. Just my two cents.
  • 0

jmaxb
Registered Member
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2010 6:53 am
Location: Washington, DC
Reputation: 0

Postby Sum1 » Tue Feb 21, 2012 10:53 pm

That's the thing - the IDC hasn't divested itself from these important capabilities. We still maintain a cadre of Intel officers and personnel who are charged with understanding the pol-mil operating environment. The change as it pertains to EW/IO is that rather than try to grow the same or similar pol-mil expertise in Information Warfare (read:1810) we are now to leverage our IDC inter-operability to use their established expertise. A great concept, assuming communication happens at the proper levels with the appropriate sense of urgency.
  • 0

Sum1
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 926
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 1:43 am
Reputation: 15

Postby jmaxb » Wed Feb 22, 2012 4:57 am

Sum1 wrote:That's the thing - the IDC hasn't divested itself from these important capabilities. We still maintain a cadre of Intel officers and personnel who are charged with understanding the pol-mil operating environment. The change as it pertains to EW/IO is that rather than try to grow the same or similar pol-mil expertise in Information Warfare (read:1810) we are now to leverage our IDC inter-operability to use their established expertise. A great concept, assuming communication happens at the proper levels with the appropriate sense of urgency.


Ah, I see. Thanks for the clarification. As I can tell at this point, the communications and inter-agency cooperation that was pushed for so hard by the creation of the ODNI hasn't lived up to the hype yet. I feel the State Dept. should either step up their game, or leave it (cognitive domain) to those experts who need more executive power to implement without the inter-agency co-op. I say bring back the USIA, give it to the CIA/DIA, or perhaps straight DoD.

As far as I can tell, the DoD does a much better job at it anyway, and the DIA collects 90+% of America's intel anyway.

BTW, thanks for the conversation. I appreciate your feedback, and am not trying to challenge it in anyway.
  • 0

jmaxb
Registered Member
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2010 6:53 am
Location: Washington, DC
Reputation: 0

Postby das » Wed Feb 22, 2012 1:49 pm

Just a couple of points of information:

Henley-Putnam is not regionally accredited. Not that this means you can't get a good education out of the programs there ? and every institution has to start somewhere ? but regional accreditation is often considered the baseline in terms of agencies/employers "accepting" a degree. If you're doing it for your own personal interest, then certainly this piece matters less.

Also, American Military University no longer offers the IW concentration for their Masters in Intelligence Studies. It was offered as recently as last year, but it is very EW-focused, and does not cover all facets of IO. That said, the program was flexible enough to allow for a rich independent exploration of IO.

All that said, keep in mind that a PhD program in particular isn't really designed to "teach" you a discipline; it's intended to allow YOU to demonstrate you can research, analyze, and create new knowledge in a given field. Yes, you may learn a lot along the way, and be trained and mentored by instructors, but it's a lot less about the traditional learning of typical university curricula, even through the masters level.
  • 0

Visit Information Warfare Community Self Synchronization on Facebook, Twitter, and at IWCsync.org!
User avatar
das
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 271
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2009 1:00 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Reputation: 4

Postby Sum1 » Wed Feb 22, 2012 2:26 pm

das wrote:All that said, keep in mind that a PhD program in particular isn't really designed to "teach" you a discipline; it's intended to allow YOU to demonstrate you can research, analyze, and create new knowledge in a given field. Yes, you may learn a lot along the way, and be trained and mentored by instructors, but it's a lot less about the traditional learning of typical university curricula, even through the masters level.


That's the reason I was always surprised there weren't more opportunities to work on PhDs utilizing the distance learning method. Considering the purposes of each degree level singularly, the PhD level is really the best place to allow independant study/research and analysis. Of course, professors/experts can help drive your research or provide feedback as you go, but that can be accomplished easily through written coorespondance, the telephone, or VTC/skype.

To jmaxb:

I'd be really interested in the actual percentage of actionable or worthwhile intelligence collected by DIA. I'd be surprised if the percentage was as high as 90%, and then if you removed products that are typically low-value like Locators and/or IIRs then your numbers go down drastically. Or I'm just being biased because I have a better idea of what NSA does :)

The author of Human Factor states over and over that in his experience as a CIA intelligence officer operating overseas that the military does a much better job of foreign human intelligence collection, and the FBI does a MUCH better job of counterintelligence. Actually, his recommendation in the book was to completely eliminate the CIA (or cut it down A LOT), plus up the capabilities in the DoD, and empower the FBI to do all the domestic intelligence work that they should already be doing. The dirty little secret of the CIA is a ridiculously small amount of its workforce is actually overseas at any given moment (talking in the 10% range if I recall correctly... again, according to that book).
  • 0

Sum1
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 926
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 1:43 am
Reputation: 15

Postby Schlag » Thu Feb 23, 2012 1:12 am

jmaxb wrote:Ah, I see. Thanks for the clarification. As I can tell at this point, the communications and inter-agency cooperation that was pushed for so hard by the creation of the ODNI hasn't lived up to the hype yet. I feel the State Dept. should either step up their game, or leave it (cognitive domain) to those experts who need more executive power to implement without the inter-agency co-op. I say bring back the USIA, give it to the CIA/DIA, or perhaps straight DoD.

As far as I can tell, the DoD does a much better job at it anyway, and the DIA collects 90+% of America's intel anyway.

BTW, thanks for the conversation. I appreciate your feedback, and am not trying to challenge it in anyway.


I don't think you're being that fair to the State Department. Before WWII, Defense Dept (then War Dept) and State Dept budgets were comparable. Since then, State has consistently been given the shaft and Defense has been leaned on to do their job (because that's where the money was). As it is today, State Dept's budget is smaller than what Defense Dept spends in healthcare. There are more band members in the Defense Dept than there are Foreign Service Officers in the State Dept.

Also, I think the reorganization of the Intel community has reaped numerous wins for the US. Sure there's still areas that could use some work, afterall, it is another layer of bureaucracy, but the fact remains we have not been attacked since 9/11. Doesn't mean we should be giving ourselves high fives and kicking back with a glass of ale, but we should keep things in their proper perspective.

Now if you want to rag on someone, Homeland Security would be a great place to start. But maybe that's because I'm just spiteful about the body scanners.... :mad:
  • 0

User avatar
Schlag
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 192
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2009 3:23 pm
Location: The path of the righteous man...
Reputation: 18

Postby Zer0OneZer0 » Thu Mar 14, 2013 12:59 am

Great info regarding the PhD degree plans. I'm working on a masters in cyber security policy from UMUC. I'm thinking about switching over to the 'dual' degree with a MBA.

I would like to complete a PhD degree afterwards.
  • 0

Zer0OneZer0
Registered Member
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2013 3:42 am
Location: southland
Reputation: 0

PreviousNext

Return to Information Operations

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron