Counterintelligence issues within the U.S.
Research Design and Methods Section

There is no standard ethical framework in counterintelligence, which presents a problem because of the risk of subjective or questionable morality seeping into counterintelligence activities (Valentine 2016). To understand the problem, this research design is qualitative because the subject is exploratory in nature. The aim of the research is to explore by way of comparative case study analysis the counterintelligence program under James Jesus Angleton, including the literature of the past and present. Scholarly articles, Senate reports, memoirs, independent research, biographies, and analysis will serve as the sources of information. Data will be analyzed using content analysis, with themes drawn from the literature and arranged and organized to give a clearer understanding of how ethics might be better utilized to guide the integration of the counterintelligence enterprise with the private sector in the 21st century. Concepts of ethics will be operationalized by defining them in accordance with accepted scholarly practices. Potential biases will be addressed by bracketing them out at the beginning, as recommended by Johnston, Wallis, Oprescu, and Gray (2017). The case study analysis will focus on three areas in particular, 1) the use of counterintelligence in Operation CHAOS under counterintelligence Chief James Jesus Angleton; 2) the use of counterintelligence in the Phoenix Program, and 3) the use of counterintelligence by the Federal Bureau of Narcotics (FBN).

The purpose for this approach can best be understood in the light of Erikson’s model of human development, which enables psychologists to understand the adult by examining the age-related conflicts that must be overcome before the child can proceed successfully to later stages of development (Shriner and Shriner 2014). By examining the early stages of counterintelligence under Angleton, one may gain insight in understanding the policies and issues of counterintelligence today by examining the early days of the counterintelligence program as it grew through its infancy, childhood and adolescence stages of the post-war/Cold War era (Valentine 2016, 10). This study will explore how conflicts of interests and relationships and a lack of ethical standards led to problems in counterintelligence. The comparative case study approach is a robust one because it allows for triangulation of research. The appropriate model for this approach is that of George and Bennett (2004), which uses a structured-focused research design.

Research methods for obtaining data are important because they determine the kind of data that is collected. For instance, a survey can supply quantitative data using a 5 point Likert scale that allows the research to statistically analyze the results and test for correlation or describe the averages and so on. A focus group method can allow a researcher to obtain qualitative data that focuses on common themes and concepts found among the responses of the various participants in the focus group when a question is put out for group discussion. Experiments allow a researcher to test a hypothesis and look at specific variables and how they relate. Interviews allow a researcher to obtain in-depth data from a single participant by asking questions that can lead to more questions and more answers and so on. Each method is helpful depending on what the researcher is attempting to do, and so they all have their place in meaningful research (Walliman 2017). The difference between quantitative and qualitative research is that the former is typically conducted to test a hypothesis whereas the latter is typically conducted to develop a hypothesis. This study is exploratory and is therefore not aiming to test a hypothesis but rather to compare findings from three different case examples of counterintelligence activities.

The comparative case study approach relies heavily upon secondary data analysis—i.e., data that has already been compiled. For this study, three works in particular will serve as the starting point: Unkefer’s (2013) memoir of working with the FBN, 90 Church; Morley’s (2017) biography of Angleton, The Ghost: The Secret Life of CIA Spymaster James Jesus Angleton; and Valentine’s (2016) collection of research on the Phoenix Program as well as the FBN. Analysis of these works will then be followed up and complemented by analysis of relevant archival data, gathered by using snowball sampling—i.e., reviewing sources identified in the original data and using those sources to gather additional sources and so on. Secondary data analysis is typically used in literature reviews and systematic reviews to provide a foundation for further research or to compile past information from decades of previous research into one research article, and it can be of equal importance in case study analysis (Walliman 2017). It can be used for either qualitative or quantitative research, and the data can be interpreted in terms of quality and characteristics of the archival data or in terms of statistics. It can also be used by researchers who do not have time to...…data less reliable and can impair the validity of the findings because the approach is not focused.

Purposive sampling can work well with quantitative researchers, depending on the nature of the study, but in general quantitative research will focus on testing a hypothesis with the wider population and using a randomized sample from a population instead of their own judgment (Palinkas et al. 2015). The key to quantitative research is to be as objective as possible and to remove as much subjective bias as possible, whereas in qualitative research it is accepted that the researcher is going to be personally involved in making judgments and that the work will have a higher degree of subjectivity. This does present a limitation in terms of randomization. However, the characteristics of the study are such that randomization with regard to data collection is not of primary importance, since no theory or hypothesis is being tested.

Circumstances under which a qualitative researcher might decide to use random sampling instead of purpose sampling might be one in which the researcher already has a hypothesis formed and wants to explore whether the hypothesis can be significantly applied among the general wider population. So in that case the researcher might conduct random sampling to obtain a small pool of participants for a focus group or for interviews or for questionnaires. This happens when companies want to test a new product: they may randomly select participants from a specific population for a focus group; but they will likely be conducting a mixed-methods approach and collecting both qualitative and quantitative data (Wisdom and Creswell 2013). Random sampling can be used when the researcher is wanting to create a reliable and valid data set and may be interested in triangulation of sources (Creswell and Creswell 2018).

In conclusion, this research study uses the comparative case study analysis approach. The purpose of this method is to explore by way of comparative case study analysis the counterintelligence program under James Jesus Angleton, including the literature of the past and present. The goal of the research is to identify what the ethical framework ought to be for the counterintelligence community going forward. The data will be analyzed using content analysis and organized thematically. The framework by which the data will be analyzed will be the ethical frameworks of virtue ethics, duty ethics, utilitarianism, and ethical egoism. Sampling methods will be purposive and snowball.

Bibliography…