Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

Transformation of the Intelligence Cycle in the Context of Postmodern Management Philosophy

Year 2022, Volume: 18 Issue: 1, 99 - 113, 29.06.2022

Abstract

Although the concept of postmodernism, which corresponds to the after modernism in the linguistic context, first emerged in the field of art and architecture, it greatly influenced the social dynamics and public/private institutions after a short time. In this respect it is not surprising that the postmodern management approach, which has a great impact on the world, has also influenced intelligence studies, which are of great importance for the survival of states. The intelligence cycle, which revealed the general working order of a standard intelligence service at the end of the Cold War period, is one of the subjects affected by the postmodern management trend in this context. In this context, the basic research question is to what extent the postmodern management paradigm affects the stages that make up the intelligence cycle (actor, interaction, quantity of activities...). When the intelligence cycle emerged, it was accepted as a general and schematic projection of the intelligence gathering process. The classical intelligence cycle, which carries the traces of the one best way view of the modernist perspective and has been accepted for a long time, is out of date according to many researchers. The one-way and stereotyped stages of the classical intelligence cycle are far from the fast and flexible
variations needed today. The new model proposals that emerged in the current situation where the classical intelligence cycle has been questioned mostly contain the traces of postmodern management philosophy. The new intelligence cycle models, which are free from a one-way relation, are flexible, can be intervened at any time, can adapt to changing environmental conditions, and do not have a rigid hierarchy, represent a break from the modernist management approach. As a matter of fact, the argument of the study is that the classical intelligence cycle was conceptualized in line with the modern management approach, while the contemporary intelligence cycle was shaped in line with the defenses of the postmodern management paradigm. In this context, the aim of the study is to reveal the relevance of contemporary intelligence cycle variations with the postmodern management paradigm

References

  • ABRUTYN, S. (2011). Postmodernism. In G. T. Kurian, The Encyclopedia of Political Science (p. 1325-1327). Washington: CQ Press.
  • ANKERSMIT, F. R. (1989). Historiography and Postmodernism. History and Theory, 28(2), 137-153.
  • ARONOWITZ, S. (1992). The Politics of Identity: Class, Culture, Social Movements. New York: Routledge.
  • AYDIN, B., & OZLEBLEBICI, Z. (2015). Should We Rely on Intelligence Cycle?. Journal of Management and Information Science, 3(3), 93-99.
  • BAUMAN, Z. (1992). Intimations of Postmodernity. London: Routledge.
  • BENNETT, J. (2004). Postmodern Approaches to Political Theory. In G. F. Gaus & C. Kukathas, Handbook of Political Theory (p. 46-56). London: Sage.
  • BERG, P. O. (1989). Postmodern Management? From Facts to Fiction in Theory and Practice. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 5(3), 201-217.
  • BERMAN, M. (2013). Katı Olan Her Şey Buharlaşıyor. (Ü. A. Peker, Çev.) İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları.
  • BEVIR, M. (2011). Public Administration as Storytelling. Public Administration, 89(1), 183-195.
  • BİRDİŞLİ, F. (2020). Uluslararası Güvenliğin Tarihsel Gelişimi ve Post-Modern Güvenlik Dönemi. Güvenlik Bilimleri Dergisi, (International Security Congress Special Issue), 235-260.
  • BLOLAND, H. G. (1995). Postmodernism and Higher Education. The Journal of Higher Education, 66(5), 521-559.
  • BUTLER, J. (1993). A Skeptical Feminist Postscript to the Postmodern. In B. Readings & B. Schaber, Postmodernism across the Ages (p. 233-245). New York: Syracuse University Press.
  • CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY [CIA] (1983). Fact Book on Intelligence. Washington D.C..
  • CHIA, R. (1995). From Modern to Postmodern Organizational Analysis. Organisation Studies (April), 579-624.
  • CLARK, R. M. (2016). Intelligence Analysis: A Target–Centric Approach. Washington D.C.: CQ Press.
  • CLEGG, S. (1996). Postmodern Management. In G. Palmer & S. Clegg, Constituting Management (p. 235-265). Berlin: De Gruyter.
  • DALLMAYR, F. (1989). Margins of Political Discourse. Albany: State University of New York Press.
  • DAVIES, P.H.J., & GUSTAFSON, K & RIGDEN, I. (2013). The Intelligence Cycle is Dead, Long Live the Intelligence Cycle: Rethinking Intelligence Fundamentals for a New Intelligence Doctrine. In M. Phythian, Understanding the Intelligence Cycle (p. 56-75). New York: Routledge.
  • DUNN C.M., & MAUER, V. (2009). Postmodern Intelligence: Strategic Warning in an Age of Reflexive Intelligence. Security Dialogue, 40(2), 123-144.
  • ERDEMİR, E. (2006). Postmodernizmin İşletme Yönetimine Etkileri: Kavramsal Bir Çözümleme. e-Akademi: www.e-akademi.org/makaleler/eerdemir-1.htm adresinden alındı.
  • EVANS, G. (2009). Rethinking Military Intelligence Failure – Putting the Wheels Back on the Intelligence Cycle. Defence Studies, 9(1), 22-46.
  • FRINI, A., & BOURY-BRİSSET, A. C. (2011). An Intelligence Process Model Based on a Collaborative Approach. 16th ICCRTS: Collective C2 in Multinational Civil-Military Operations, Paper 113, Stockholm, Sweden.
  • GEPHART, R. P. (1996). Management, Social Issues, and the Postmodern Era. In D. M. Boje & R. P. Gephart & T. J. Thatchenkery, Postmodern Management and Organization Theory (p. 21-43). London: Sage.
  • GILL, P., & PHYTHIAN, M. (2013). From Intelligence Cycle to web of Intelligence: Complexity and the Conceptualisation of Intelligence. In M. Phythian, Understanding the Intelligence Cycle (p. 21-42). New York: Routledge.
  • HOFFMAN, J. (2007). A Glossary of Political Theory. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
  • JACKSON, N., & CARTER, P. (1992). Postmodern Management: Past-Perfect or Future Imperfect?. International Studies of Management & Organization, 22(3), 11-26.
  • KEMP, L. J. (2013). Modern to Postmodern Management: Developments in Scientific Management. Journal of Management History, 19(3), 345-361.
  • LOWENTHAL, M. M. (2009). Intelligence: From Secret to Policy. CQ Press: Washington D.C.
  • LYOTARD, J. F. (1997). Postmodern Durum. (A. Çiğdem, Çev.) Ankara: Vadi Yayınları.
  • MARSHALL, B. K. (1992). Teaching the Postmodern: Fiction and Theory. New York: Routledge.
  • MİLLÎ İSTİHBARAT TEŞKİLATI [MİT] (2022). İstihbarat Oluşumu, http://www.mit.gov.tr/isth-olusum.html adresinden alındı.
  • MORGAN, G. (1986). Images of Organisations. London: Sage.
  • MORRİS, R. (2021). What are the Shortcomings of the Intelligence Cycle and How Might They be Mitigated?. available in https://www.navy.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/Tac_Talks_Issue_36.pdf.
  • NOLAN, C. (2015). Understanding the Intelligence Cycle by Mark Phythian. Journal of Strategic Security, 8(4), 114-116.
  • RATHMELL, A. (2002). Towards Postmodern Intelligence. Intelligence and National Security, 17(3), 87-104.
  • RICHARDS, J. (2013). Pedalling Hard: Further Questions About the Intelligence Cycle in the Contemporary Era. In M. Phythian, Understanding the Intelligence Cycle (p. 57-69). New York: Routledge.
  • ROSENAU, P. M. (1992). Postmodernism and the Social Science Insights, Inroads, and Intrusions. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  • TAYLOR, B. C. (2004). Postmodern Theory. In S. May & D. K. Mumby, Engaging Organizational Communication Theory and Research (p. 113-140). London: Sage.
  • TREVERTON, G. F. (2001). Reshaping National Intelligence for an Age of Information. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • U. S. MARINE CORPS. (2000). Counterintelligence. New York: Marine Corps Doctrinal Publications Status.
  • VERGİN, N. (2010). Siyasetin Sosyolojisi: Kavramlar, Tanımlar, Yaklaşımlar. İstanbul: Doğan Kitap.
  • WHITE, S. K. (1991). Political Theory and Postmodernism. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Postmodern Yönetim Felsefesi Bağlamında İstihbarat Çarkının Dönüşümü

Year 2022, Volume: 18 Issue: 1, 99 - 113, 29.06.2022

Abstract

Linguistik bağlamda modernizm sonrasına karşılık gelen postmodernizm kavramı her ne kadar ilk olarak sanat ve mimari alanında ortaya çıksa da kısa bir süre sonra sosyal dinamikleri ve kamusal/özel kurumları büyük ölçüde etkilemiştir. Bu açıdan dünya nezdinde büyük yankı uyandıran postmodern yönetim anlayışının, devletlerin bekası için büyük önem teşkil eden istihbarat çalışmalarını da etkilemiş olması şaşırtıcı değildir. Soğuk Savaş döneminin sonlarında standart bir istihbarat servisinin genel çalışma düzenini ortaya koyan istihbarat çarkı, bu bağlamda postmodern yönetim akımından etkilenen öznelerden biridir. Bu bağlamda postmodern yönetim paradigmasının istihbarat çarkını meydana getiren aşamaları hangi ölçüde (aktör, etkileşim, faaliyetlerin niceliği…) etkilediği temel araştırma sorusunu teşkil etmektedir. İstihbarat çarkı ortaya çıktığı dönemde istihbarat toplama sürecinin genel ve şematik bir izdüşümü olarak kabul görmüştür. Modernist bakış açısının en iyi tek yol (one best way) görüşünün izlerini bünyesinde taşıyan ve uzun süre boyunca kabul gören klasik istihbarat çarkı, birçok araştırmacıya göre güncelliğini yitirmiştir. Klasik istihbarat çarkının tek yönlü ve kalıplaşmış aşamaları günümüzde ihtiyaç duyulan hızlı ve esnek varyasyonlardan uzaktır. Klasik istihbarat çarkının sorgulanmaya başlandığı güncel durumda ortaya çıkan yeni model önerileri, çoğunlukla postmodern yönetim felsefesinin izlerini bünyesinde barındırmaktadır. Tek yönlü bir ilişkiden azade, esnek, her aşamaya her an müdahalenin olabileceği, değişken çevre koşullarına uyum sağlayabilen, katı bir hiyerarşinin olmadığı yeni istihbarat çarkı modelleri modernist yönetim yaklaşımından bir kopuşu temsil etmektedir. Nitekim çalışmanın argümanı klasik istihbarat çarkının modern yönetim anlayışı doğrultusunda kavramsallaştığı, çağdaş istihbarat çarkının ise postmodern yönetim paradigması savunuları doğrultusunda şekillendiğidir. Bu bağlamda çalışmanın amacı çağdaş istihbarat çarkı varyasyonlarının postmodern yönetim paradigması ile olan ilişkiselliğini gözler önüne sermektir.

References

  • ABRUTYN, S. (2011). Postmodernism. In G. T. Kurian, The Encyclopedia of Political Science (p. 1325-1327). Washington: CQ Press.
  • ANKERSMIT, F. R. (1989). Historiography and Postmodernism. History and Theory, 28(2), 137-153.
  • ARONOWITZ, S. (1992). The Politics of Identity: Class, Culture, Social Movements. New York: Routledge.
  • AYDIN, B., & OZLEBLEBICI, Z. (2015). Should We Rely on Intelligence Cycle?. Journal of Management and Information Science, 3(3), 93-99.
  • BAUMAN, Z. (1992). Intimations of Postmodernity. London: Routledge.
  • BENNETT, J. (2004). Postmodern Approaches to Political Theory. In G. F. Gaus & C. Kukathas, Handbook of Political Theory (p. 46-56). London: Sage.
  • BERG, P. O. (1989). Postmodern Management? From Facts to Fiction in Theory and Practice. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 5(3), 201-217.
  • BERMAN, M. (2013). Katı Olan Her Şey Buharlaşıyor. (Ü. A. Peker, Çev.) İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları.
  • BEVIR, M. (2011). Public Administration as Storytelling. Public Administration, 89(1), 183-195.
  • BİRDİŞLİ, F. (2020). Uluslararası Güvenliğin Tarihsel Gelişimi ve Post-Modern Güvenlik Dönemi. Güvenlik Bilimleri Dergisi, (International Security Congress Special Issue), 235-260.
  • BLOLAND, H. G. (1995). Postmodernism and Higher Education. The Journal of Higher Education, 66(5), 521-559.
  • BUTLER, J. (1993). A Skeptical Feminist Postscript to the Postmodern. In B. Readings & B. Schaber, Postmodernism across the Ages (p. 233-245). New York: Syracuse University Press.
  • CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY [CIA] (1983). Fact Book on Intelligence. Washington D.C..
  • CHIA, R. (1995). From Modern to Postmodern Organizational Analysis. Organisation Studies (April), 579-624.
  • CLARK, R. M. (2016). Intelligence Analysis: A Target–Centric Approach. Washington D.C.: CQ Press.
  • CLEGG, S. (1996). Postmodern Management. In G. Palmer & S. Clegg, Constituting Management (p. 235-265). Berlin: De Gruyter.
  • DALLMAYR, F. (1989). Margins of Political Discourse. Albany: State University of New York Press.
  • DAVIES, P.H.J., & GUSTAFSON, K & RIGDEN, I. (2013). The Intelligence Cycle is Dead, Long Live the Intelligence Cycle: Rethinking Intelligence Fundamentals for a New Intelligence Doctrine. In M. Phythian, Understanding the Intelligence Cycle (p. 56-75). New York: Routledge.
  • DUNN C.M., & MAUER, V. (2009). Postmodern Intelligence: Strategic Warning in an Age of Reflexive Intelligence. Security Dialogue, 40(2), 123-144.
  • ERDEMİR, E. (2006). Postmodernizmin İşletme Yönetimine Etkileri: Kavramsal Bir Çözümleme. e-Akademi: www.e-akademi.org/makaleler/eerdemir-1.htm adresinden alındı.
  • EVANS, G. (2009). Rethinking Military Intelligence Failure – Putting the Wheels Back on the Intelligence Cycle. Defence Studies, 9(1), 22-46.
  • FRINI, A., & BOURY-BRİSSET, A. C. (2011). An Intelligence Process Model Based on a Collaborative Approach. 16th ICCRTS: Collective C2 in Multinational Civil-Military Operations, Paper 113, Stockholm, Sweden.
  • GEPHART, R. P. (1996). Management, Social Issues, and the Postmodern Era. In D. M. Boje & R. P. Gephart & T. J. Thatchenkery, Postmodern Management and Organization Theory (p. 21-43). London: Sage.
  • GILL, P., & PHYTHIAN, M. (2013). From Intelligence Cycle to web of Intelligence: Complexity and the Conceptualisation of Intelligence. In M. Phythian, Understanding the Intelligence Cycle (p. 21-42). New York: Routledge.
  • HOFFMAN, J. (2007). A Glossary of Political Theory. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
  • JACKSON, N., & CARTER, P. (1992). Postmodern Management: Past-Perfect or Future Imperfect?. International Studies of Management & Organization, 22(3), 11-26.
  • KEMP, L. J. (2013). Modern to Postmodern Management: Developments in Scientific Management. Journal of Management History, 19(3), 345-361.
  • LOWENTHAL, M. M. (2009). Intelligence: From Secret to Policy. CQ Press: Washington D.C.
  • LYOTARD, J. F. (1997). Postmodern Durum. (A. Çiğdem, Çev.) Ankara: Vadi Yayınları.
  • MARSHALL, B. K. (1992). Teaching the Postmodern: Fiction and Theory. New York: Routledge.
  • MİLLÎ İSTİHBARAT TEŞKİLATI [MİT] (2022). İstihbarat Oluşumu, http://www.mit.gov.tr/isth-olusum.html adresinden alındı.
  • MORGAN, G. (1986). Images of Organisations. London: Sage.
  • MORRİS, R. (2021). What are the Shortcomings of the Intelligence Cycle and How Might They be Mitigated?. available in https://www.navy.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/Tac_Talks_Issue_36.pdf.
  • NOLAN, C. (2015). Understanding the Intelligence Cycle by Mark Phythian. Journal of Strategic Security, 8(4), 114-116.
  • RATHMELL, A. (2002). Towards Postmodern Intelligence. Intelligence and National Security, 17(3), 87-104.
  • RICHARDS, J. (2013). Pedalling Hard: Further Questions About the Intelligence Cycle in the Contemporary Era. In M. Phythian, Understanding the Intelligence Cycle (p. 57-69). New York: Routledge.
  • ROSENAU, P. M. (1992). Postmodernism and the Social Science Insights, Inroads, and Intrusions. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  • TAYLOR, B. C. (2004). Postmodern Theory. In S. May & D. K. Mumby, Engaging Organizational Communication Theory and Research (p. 113-140). London: Sage.
  • TREVERTON, G. F. (2001). Reshaping National Intelligence for an Age of Information. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • U. S. MARINE CORPS. (2000). Counterintelligence. New York: Marine Corps Doctrinal Publications Status.
  • VERGİN, N. (2010). Siyasetin Sosyolojisi: Kavramlar, Tanımlar, Yaklaşımlar. İstanbul: Doğan Kitap.
  • WHITE, S. K. (1991). Political Theory and Postmodernism. New York: Cambridge University Press.
There are 42 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Subjects Public Administration
Journal Section Articles
Authors

Yaşar Orçun Küçükyılmaz 0000-0002-5426-8913

Çağrı Çolak 0000-0001-5806-9084

Early Pub Date June 29, 2022
Publication Date June 29, 2022
Acceptance Date May 23, 2022
Published in Issue Year 2022 Volume: 18 Issue: 1

Cite

APA Küçükyılmaz, Y. O., & Çolak, Ç. (2022). Postmodern Yönetim Felsefesi Bağlamında İstihbarat Çarkının Dönüşümü. Ekonomik Ve Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 18(1), 99-113.

İletişim Adresi: Bolu Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Ekonomik ve Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi 14030 Gölköy-BOLU

Tel: 0 374 254 10 00 / 14 86 Faks: 0 374 253 45 21 E-posta: iibfdergi@ibu.edu.tr

ISSN (Basılı) : 1306-2174 ISSN (Elektronik) : 1306-3553