The institutional setting and the formal social practice within which intelligence is produced is characterised by two sets of features. The production process is formally ordered and hierarchically structured in a way that identifies and directs various actions and interactions within the MUST and in the MUST's external relations with intelligence consumers. The roles, routines and procedures for the analytical process within the MUST (structuring the actions of analysts and managers) are characterised by a set of informal social and textual discursive practices. These informal practices imply a disregard for discussing, reflecting on and critically reviewing vital aspects of the analytical process. The intelligence social discursive practices at the least discourage a reflective and critical perspective on the analytical foundations and conduct of the intelligence analysis. The intelligence knowledge is created, upheld and affirmed within a specific intelligence ‘collective of thought’ and an intelligence ‘style of thought’.

The intelligence ‘style of thought’ is founded within a worldview corresponding to political realism, which defines what the intelligence holds as being important objects of knowledge. Hence, the worldview becomes primarily state-centric, arguing and interpreting world events through a (undefined) concept of power, and becomes inattentive to factors such as non-state actors, ideology and ideas. However, the analysts do not consciously recognise that realism is the frame of interpretation. Hence, the assumptions underlying the intelligence analysis are not argued, discussed or defined; rather they might be conceived as complying with an established way of thought – a tradition of conceptualising.

Rather than an explicit reliance on a defined worldview, it is the emphasis on seeking consistency and continuity within the established ‘style of thought’ (and the traits of the ‘collective of thought’ to cohere with the social and textual practices) that directs the approaches used for problematising, articulating issues and drawing conclusions. The search for continuity and consistency with accepted approaches to issues and to how conclusions have been argued and substantiated constitute an intelligence knowledge discourse. The drive for continuity and consistency in the intelligence knowledge discourse dominates the analytical distinction between assumptions, arguments and conclusions. The arguments and facts used for substantiating the analysis are not distinctly separated from assumptions and valuations. Hence, the intelligence knowledge discourse suggests a reproducing of knowledge rather than a creation of new insights.