...seemingly adopted the view that knowledge was sought for knowledge's sake. This led to a debate between those who believed that remaining aloof from policymakers was the only way to keep their analytical purity and those who believed that purity without relevance made no sense.
I wouldn't fault you for mapping this divergence on to the academic field of international relations. But this excerpt comes from a set of newly declassified articles from Studies in Intelligence, the CIA's "in-house journal for the intelligence professional."
In the author's estimation, the relevance hawks "won" the argument. He or she continues, discussing the impact of this shift on the output of the intelligence community:
I have gained the clear impression that most papers that I read now seem to emphasize what is happening and why, or what happened and why. In the interest of policy relevance we appear to be training a generation of intelligence newspersons and historians.