About Course
Course Code: IS-F01 | Status: IN DEVELOPMENT (Group A — Launch Priority) | Level: Foundation | Format: Self-paced, knowledge-first
Overview
Establishes the core vocabulary and reasoning of intelligence: the difference between information and intelligence, the intelligence cycle, source and evidence evaluation, and how analysis supports decisions.
Target Learners
Students, lecturers, researchers, policy analysts, government and security-sector professionals, journalists, and professionals entering intelligence studies.
Prerequisites
None.
Module Structure (proposed)
- Module 0 — Start Here: orientation and responsible use
- Modules 1–5 — core knowledge, methods, and applied analysis
- Final module — applied project and assessment
Assessment
Knowledge checks, module quizzes, an applied analytical exercise, and a final applied project. Certificate of Completion on meeting all requirements.
Instructor
INSTRUCTOR PENDING OWNER CONFIRMATION. Course materials were developed with AI assistance and are subject to human academic review.
Ethical and Legal Statement
This course teaches lawful, ethical, open methods only. See the School Ethics and Legal Boundaries policy.
Enrollment
Price: Owner Approval Required. Enrollment opens after substantive content is complete and tested.
What this course is about
Intelligence literacy is the ability to tell the difference between information and insight. Most professionals drown in the first while making decisions that require the second. This foundation course builds the habits that close that gap: separating what is observed from what is inferred, judging sources on evidence rather than familiarity, and stating conclusions with the level of confidence the evidence actually supports.
How the course is structured
The opening sessions establish the intelligence cycle — direction, collection, processing, analysis, dissemination — not as a diagram to memorise but as a diagnostic. Most analytical failures can be located at a specific point in that cycle, and being able to say where a judgement went wrong is more valuable than being right by accident.
The middle section deals with sources. Students work with material of deliberately mixed quality: reliable reporting, plausible rumour, official statements with obvious motives, and outright fabrication. The task is not to sort them into true and false but to assign weight and to be explicit about why.
The final section covers communication. An analytical judgement that a decision-maker cannot act on has failed regardless of its accuracy. Students write short assessments under time pressure, then defend them against questioning.
What you will be able to do
By the end you should be able to construct a defensible assessment from incomplete evidence, express uncertainty in language that does not collapse into vagueness, identify the assumptions your own reasoning depends on, and recognise the standard analytical traps — confirmation bias, mirror imaging, and the pull of the most recent striking event.
Who it suits
The course assumes no prior training. It has been useful to analysts entering the field, journalists handling contested claims, policy staff who must brief superiors quickly, corporate risk and compliance officers, and researchers who want a more disciplined approach to evidence. It is a prerequisite in spirit, if not in rule, for the more technical courses in the School of Intelligence & Strategic Studies.
Assessment is written. There are no multiple-choice examinations, because the skill being taught cannot be demonstrated that way. Work is graded on reasoning quality and on the honesty of stated uncertainty — a well-argued judgement that turns out wrong scores better than a lucky guess.
Full study pathways are listed in the Academy.
Course Content
Module 0 — Start Here
-
Lesson 0.1 — Welcome and How This Course Works
-
Lesson 0.2 — Responsible and Lawful Practice