Credibility of Knightsbridge "Faculty" Member Questioned

In trying to find a bit of information about Knightsbridge, I came across some interesting information on one of their "faculty" members, Rohan Gunaratna. In July, "The Melbourne Age" published an expose about Gunaratna.

The article, and several other items have been republished here.


Among other things, the Melbourne article states that Gunaratna claimed to have served as principal investigator of the United Nations’ Terrorism Prevention Branch, but later admitted that this was not true.

He claims to have addressed the U.N., the American Congress, and the Australian Parliament.

"He also confirmed that, rather than directly addressing the UN, Congress and the Australian Parliament, he had actually spoken at a seminar organised by the parliamentary library, given evidence to a congressional hearing on terrorism and delivered a research paper to a conference on terrorism organised by the UN’s Department for Disarmament Affairs."

 

Thanks for this important correction, Jeff. I had been fooled by Gunaratna's publicity. I repudiate my earlier positive comments about Gunaratna, and reject any positive inferences I once drew about Knightsbridge based on his misinformation.

Carpathicus implacabilis

 

Another Knightsbridge "Faculty" Member

Kalonga Stambuli is listed as a faculty member at Knightsbridge:


LILONGWE, Malawi - A former presidential economic adviser
accused Finance Minister Aleke Banda of ordering his arrest out of
spite.

Kalonga Stambuli was arrested Saturday on corruption charges
involving the misuse of 346,000 kwacha (dlrs 23,000) from an appeal fund he controlled when working in President Bakili Muluzi's office.


http://www.anc.org.za/anc/newsbrief/1997/news0628


I don't know how this worked out. The charge could have been baseless.

It just seems that there is a pattern here. Maybe not.

 

> Gunaratna claimed to have served as principal investigator
> of the United Nations’ Terrorism Prevention Branch, but later
> admitted that this was not true.

"After The Sunday Age made detailed checks on Gunaratna’s biographical details, he confirmed last week that there was no such position as principal investigator at the UN’s Terrorism Prevention Branch and he worked there in 2001-02 as a research consultant."
http://www.sangam.org/ANALYSIS/Sachi_9_12_03.htm

It doesn't say he admitted to a falsehood. Perhaps he was "principal investigator" in the academic sense, for some specific research project?

"Principal Investigator means the person who has ultimate responsibility for a research project. In the case of a project funded by an external or internal grant, normally the holder of the grant. In the case of a project that is not funded, the initiator of the project. The principal investigator is usually the supervisor of the research team (which may include other faculty members) and is usually a faculty member."
http://www.universitycounsel.ubc.ca/policies/policy85.html

 

But his bio says he was "was principal investigator of the United Nations’ Terrorism Prevention Branch." If you are the principal investigator on a physics project at Harvard, would it be proper to say that you were the "principal investigator of the Harvard University physics department?"

If this were the only misstatement, I might buy that it's possible that it's just not worded properly.

But the previous sentence says that he was "called to address the United Nations, the US Congress and the Australian Parliament..."

He spoke at a seminar organised by the parliamentary library.. Not even remotely close to addressing parliament. And neither are the other two claims.

I've written a letter to my Congressman before, so I suppose I could claim that I have addressed the US Congress, too.

 

> But his bio says he was "was principal investigator of the
> United Nations’ Terrorism Prevention Branch."

"He said that he was the principal investigator of Project One at the UN Terrorism Branch and that The Age article was just ‘playing with semantics’." That doesn't sound like an admission of falsehood to me.

> If you are the principal investigator on a physics project at
> Harvard, would it be proper to say that you were the "principal
> investigator of the Harvard University physics department?"

If your first language were English and you called yourself "PI of Harvard Physics Dept.", I would convict you of being a liar. But "PI at Harvard" would be OK, and "PI for Harvard" would be marginal.

The first occurrence at the link you gave (in the Playboy interview) says, "From 2000 to 2001 he served as principal investigator for the United Nations’ Terrorism Prevention Branch."

None of this is in the first person: we don't know what exactly he said. We do know (from Henrik) that the words at http://www.knightsbridgeuniversity.com/faculty.html are exactly his: "Principal Investigator, Project on Terrorist Escalation and De-escalation, UN Terrorism Prevention Branch".

> He spoke at a seminar organised by the parliamentary
> library.. Not even remotely close to addressing parliament. And
> neither are the other two claims.

"He also confirmed that, rather than directly addressing the UN, Congress and the Australian Parliament, he had actually spoken at a seminar organised by the parliamentary library, given evidence to a congressional hearing on terrorism and delivered a research paper to a conference on terrorism organised by the UN’s Department for Disarmament Affairs."

You are more convincing here. But maybe he supplied a CV of places where he'd spoken, which some press hack turned into prose. "Parliament" is also the name of a building. If he'd meant that he had addressed the UN General Assembly or UN Security Council, I'm sure he'd have said that.

 

Here is another article questioning Dr. Gunaratna’s credentials, reliability and expertise. Do we know if Dr. Gunaratna has actually supervised or mentored any students at Knightsbridge?

Professor Eugene de Silva, who holds PhDs in Chemistry and Plasma Physics (albeit we don’t know the granting institutions) is also in the Department Of Intelligence, Security & Terrorism Studies, based, I guess, on his Martial Arts experience. He is listed as a “Research Fellow; Centre for Defence and International Security Studies; Cartmel College, University of Lancaster.” As previously noted, the Centre for Defence and International Security Studies does not list Dr. de Silva among the Honorary (seems like he forgot that part) Research Fellows (see here). Moreover, he also continues to list himself as “Head: Faculty of Intelligence, Security and Terrorism Studies; CHEMA, UK,” even though the College of Higher Education in Martial Arts now appears to be defunct. CHEMA used to (or perhaps still does) grant academic degrees for Martial Arts experience.

Professor Joseph F. Connolly, another faculty member in the Department of Intelligence, Security, and Terrorism Studies of Knightsbridge University also used to be a faculty member of the College of Higher Education of Martial Arts (CHEMA). Although the faculty list doesn’t state so, Professor Connolly earned his Master of Science from Knightsbridge University.

 

Gus asks:

> Do we know if Dr. Gunaratna has actually supervised or
> mentored any students at Knightsbridge?

Yes, we do. Henrik has said: "I thought I'd already said that those on the list are or have recently been active. In saying so, I've pointed out all of them. The only exception to this is Dr Kannan, the merits of which we've already covered elsewhere."

I already quoted this once before. In contrast, the dissertation request that Gus accuses Henrik of ignoring has not been quoted by anyone.

 

You know, Mark, you’re a bright guy; however, if you are going to subject us all to the fallout from your recently acquired penchant for playing Devil’s advocate, you are simply going to have to better. For example, as to this same Knightsbridge faculty list, Henrik also had this to say.

In other words, in reference to the same faculty list, Henrik has both stated that dozens have never been assigned candidates and those on the list “are or have recently been active.” What does “are or have recently been active” mean anyway? How does Henrik, who has a spin for everything, characterize “active?” Don’t be so naïve as to fall for Henrik’s weasel words; he has never given a direct answer to a single question you have posed. Moreover, pay close attention to Henrik’s skillful use of the word “directly” in his quote. Dr. Kannan (whose doctorate is from Knightsbridge) is a loose cannon who runs his own Knightsbridge “franchise” in Malaysia, where he continues to dupe students into believing that Knightsbridge is UK institution.

Here, let me change that (the conversation is always infinitely more interesting when I quote myself).

Why don’t you ask Henrik how many dissertations Dr. Gunaratna has supervised in, say, the last 12 or 24 months? Insist that the answer be a number. Ask for copies of these (if any) dissertations.

 

Good question, particularly considering that the list hasn't even been updated in over a year.

"DETAILS OF SOME SENIOR FACULTY
AS PER 01 SEP 2002"

http://www.knightsbridgeuniversity.com/faculty.html

 

Note: "some" senior faculty.

 

The first quote is about the faculty list (on the Website); the second quote is about the faculty (including the unlisted faculty). There is no contradiction here (except in Gus's imagination); and I'm not the person who will have to do better.

 

What does the word "recently" mean? In the past year? (Obviously not.) The past decade? What?

 

Unlisted faculty? You can't be serious. So, now you are professing to be privy to the faculty list that exists only in Henrik's mind? Doctor Marianus, is that you?

 

In 1995, Knightsbridge Dean of Sociology Daniel Burch was apparently supervising "several hundred" adjunct faculty.

http://www.cep.org.hu/aboutus/newsletter/alumni2.htm

 

I see what Mark is saying. We need to get the context of Henrik's statement regarding there being dozens of faculty that haven't been assigned any candidates. Was he talking about the faculty list or the greater faculty? I also originally read Henrik's statement to mean the faculty list rather than the faculty.

Mark, you must admit though that it is very strange to refer to a group of people as faculty when they have never worked there. Henrik's silly phrase about us not knowing what an adjunct faculty member is is extra funny in light of the fact that he apparently doesn't seem to know what an employee means and that an adjunct faculty member is supposed to be a subset of employees not applicants.

 

That's nothing, in my degree mill, Burlap University, I supervise several million adjunct faculty. Of course this is all the type adjunct faculty that are not in my employee now and never have been.

 

All,

This is an interesting thread.

First and foremost, let me just say that I shall be writing Prof de Silva about the issues raised concerning Prof Gunaratna. It seems to me odd that he should choose to puff up his details when he is in fact clearly eminently qualified. Someone somewhere bandied about the notion that Prof Gunaratna was a 'posterboy' for KU. None of the adjunct faculty are considered more interesting/important/glamorous/whatever than the rest. Had the 'posterboy' idea been relevant you'd have perhaps expected to see, well, posters.

Some talk of adjunct faculty in a way that leaves me with the impression that in their mind adjunct faculty are employees. They are exactly not employees in the classical sense of the word. They are hired on a case-by-case basis to apply their particular set of abilities to a particular candidate. The two following Webster's definitions are apt:

"something joined or added to another thing but not essentially a part of it" (Ninth New Collegiate).

"attached in a subordinate or temporary capacity to a staff" (Ibid.)

How anyone could get mixed ideas as to whether 'adjunct faculty' is someone that works for you on a non-fixed basis or they might be applicants, I just don't understand.

Let me try and get this clear, I thought it was, but apparently not:

The list at the web-site is but a small fraction of the people upon whom we could call. The list at the web-site does not list all of those who have been recently active. By 'recently' I mean within the past couple of years. Of the list, some have been external examiners, some, programme directors, some supervisors, some tutors, some have been several different things.

I must comment here that the idea that a senior academic should be unable to supervise hundreds of faculty is perfectly feasible. I trust noone thought the talk was of supervising hundreds of candidates?!


Henrik

 

Yes, we know. Theoretically, Knightsbridge could call upon any individual on the planet (and perhaps beyond). You’ve stated this before, Henrik.

Once again, we have no idea what you mean “active.” Moreover, why doesn’t the list include all of those who have recently been “active?” Why are some excluded? Are their credentials questionable? Are they ashamed of their affiliation? Aren’t prospective students entitled to know the kinds of individuals available and the extent of their involvement?

By “couple,” do you mean two or is it some other number?

So, this isn’t a faculty list as most universities employ the term. How convenient. The bottom line is that, after another one of your posts, Henrik, we do not have any more real and substantive information than we did before you saw fit to grace us with your eloquence.

 

In the U.S., many adjunct faculty members ARE employees. There is a separate thread (started by Mary Adams) on this topic. I myself am an employee rather than an independent contractor. This gives the University much more control over what I do. This includes training, etc. For example, I recently had to complete a "sexual harrassment awareness" course, which was mandatory for all faculty -- adjunct or fulltime.

From what I can gather, hiring adjuncts as employees rather than independent contractors is becoming increasingly the norm. Perhaps Mary will at some point share the results of her exploration of the issue.