Subscribe via RSS Feed

Expert knowledge

[ 82 ] September 11, 2013 |

A young researcher whose opinions on Syria were cited by both Senator McCain and Secretary of State John Kerry in congressional testimony last week has been fired from the Institute for the Study of War for allegedly faking her academic credentials.

The institute issued a statement on its website concerning the researcher, Elizabeth O’Bagy:

The Institute for the Study of War has learned and confirmed that, contrary to her representations, Ms. Elizabeth O’Bagy does not in fact have a Ph.D. degree from Georgetown University. ISW has accordingly terminated Ms. O’Bagy’s employment, effective immediately.

O’Bagy and her op-ed drew scrutiny last week when the Wall Street Journal failed to disclose O’Bagy’s ties to an advocacy group backing the Syrian opposition and lobbying the U.S. government to intervene in Syria. The Journal was forced to post a clarification that “in addition to her role at the Institute for the Study of War, Ms. O’Bagy is affiliated with the Syrian Emergency Task Force, a nonprofit operating as a 501(c)(3) pending IRS approval that subcontracts with the U.S. and British governments to provide aid to the Syrian opposition.”

O’Bagy wrote in an email this Wednesday morning: “I was just fired from ISW and I’m no longer legally allowed to discuss my employment with them or affiliate it any way.”

In an interview conducted before O’Bagy was fired from ISW, she rejected claims that her research was compromised by her affiliation to the advocacy group, the Syrian Emergency Task Force.

“My research is completely separate,” she said. “Every journalist and every researcher goes into the conflict with their own background and their own ideas.”

“Elizabeth is one of the best experts on Syria and her field work inside Syria along with her extensive networks on the ground makes her one of few people that can help inform policy makers on the reality on the ground,” said Mouaz Moustafa, the executive director of the Syrian Emergency Task Force.

Kim Kagan, the founder and president of the Institute for the Study of War, says she learned yesterday that O’Bagy had misrepresented her academic credentials and terminated her employment immediately.

O’Bagy has a masters from Georgetown University and was was enrolled in a Ph.D program, but had not yet defended her dissertation, a detail Kagan says she discovered while conducting “due diligence” and double checking O’Bagy’s work following a flurry of media attention on the young researcher.

Kagan stressed that the termination was not related to O’Bagy’s affiliation with SETF. “I had no problem with her affiliation, I approved it,” Kagan said.

Despite O’Bagy’s misrepresentation of her credentials, Kagan described her research as “rock solid” saying “the research stands, unfortunately, it stands alone.”

BTW if you thought Kim Kagan’ts name sounded familiar . . .

At Yale, Kagan met her husband Frederick Kagan, who is an American resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), son of Donald Kagan, a well-known historian and brother of Robert Kagan, another well-known writer and publicist. Robert Kagan’s wife is Victoria Nuland, spokesperson for the United States Department of State.


Comments (82)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Ronan says:

    Asad AbuKhalil from the angry arab blog has been running with a series of posts oppossed to her over the last month. I think its all a little unfair. A lot of people writing on Syria have links to some group or other in the conflict. Should be common sense to people reading their reports

    • DocAmazing says:

      Provided, of course, that they disclose those links.

      • Ronan says:

        The wall street journal failed to disclose her links, afaik, in an article. She overstated her PhD, which is fine by me.Half my CV is a lie (although of course they have a technical right to terminate her contract)
        Its a witch hunt though, as always

        • DocAmazing says:

          Yeeeah. Right. An opinion writer with an axe to grind throws something up against the wall at one of the leading opinion journals in the country, is called out for her failure to disclose her biases and her resume-padding, and it’s a witch hunt. She needs to get a barstool next to Pax Dickinson.

          You were kidding, nicht wahr?

          • Ronan says:

            Have you been following Assad AbuKhalil’s campaign against her? He doesnt like her politics (I dont like her politics) and her ‘support’ for the oppossition. But she seems a genuinely honest, and well informed, commentator.
            I used to go to lectures/meeting etc on Syria when living in London, and ALL of the journalists who would go to them would go with lobbysists. Good lobbyists, bad lobbyists, whatever
            She couldnt even get into Syria without cosying up to specific factions. So I dont care.
            The question is, is her research good? Thats all that matters

            • DocAmazing says:

              The question is, is she credible? Failing to disclose that one is a lobbyist pretty much destroys credibility. Padding the resume is icing on the cake.

              • Ronan says:

                Credibility is decided by peer review. Let someone review her work properly then get back to me

                • Marek says:

                  Credibility is determined by lying, full stop. If this was a misunderstanding, I’m willing to listen. Otherwise…

                • Ronan says:

                  Some are saying now she wasnt enrolled in a PhD program.If thats the case it could be fair enough. Exaggerrating on your cv isnt a lie though
                  You really never done it?

                • DocAmazing says:

                  In my line of work, some exaggerations of your CV are felonies.

                • Ronan says:

                  Perhaps, but I dont think shes in your line of work (?)

                • LoriK says:

                  Whether or not a statement is a lie is not determined by the number of people who have made that statement. “Exaggerating” on one’s CV is a lie. You may think it’s an unimportant lie, but it’s still a lie and the fact that you do it doesn’t change that. This is not actually a difficult concept.

                • Ronan says:

                  I know. My point is only (to my eyes) in this context, it doest really matter. IMO

                • Johnny Sack says:

                  Come on this is unbecoming and borderline bad faith argument, if you claim to have a degree that you don’t have (even if you’re working on it!) that’s an outright lie, not an exaggeration. The only way I wouldn’t consider it a lie would be if PhD programs had 0% attrition, and no one even at the level of ABD didn’t make whether by choice or otherwise.

                  Would you claim to have won an award that you hadn’t actually won? I’ve even disclosed when I’ve been a co-recipient so I can’t be accused of lying.

                  Some people in their work experience might overstate their role in a group project, or describe mundane things in an impressive way, stretching things that you did to make them sound like they’re more related to the job you’re looking for than they actually are. But that stuff’s all framing-it’s marketing yourself. It’s you being a salesman for yourself.

                  But lying about your credentials? Different ballgame.

                • Ronan says:

                  Okay, considering the pushback ill reconsider that this probably is a big deal in academia

                • JoyfulA says:

                  I’m not in academia and never have been, except as a student.

                  I’ve never lied about my credentials or experience, nor would I.

                • herr doktor bimler says:

                  Let someone review her work properly then get back to me

                  Consider Kagan’s description of that work: “the research stands, unfortunately, it stands alone.”

                  That does not sound like a glowing endorsement of independent corroboration for O’Bagy’s reports from the front.

                • N__B says:

                  “the research stands, unfortunately, it stands alone.”

                  Possibly she researched cheese.

            • Anna in PDX says:

              There is a reason Asad Abu khalil’s own nom du blog is “the angry arab” – he is known for the intemperate nature of his rhetoric. In fact he cultivates this. If he is the only one who is being particularly harsh about this woman’s myriad of conflicts-of-interest, I would hardly call it a witch hunt.

          • Ronan says:

            There are serious problems with lobbyists, conflicts of interests etc, but instead of dealing with those problems the media prefer to have one indivdual scapegoated for the system and make them don the sackcloth and ashes

        • wengler says:

          I’ve never gone through the process, but they tell you when you have a Ph.D. right?

        • Barry says:

          It’s impossible for them to not have known about her lacking a Ph.D, unless they did no checking whatsoever.

          • Cody says:

            Well, none of my jobs have ever asked for an academic transcript. Although one cared deeply about my GPA. Though to be honest, I hardly see how having a degree means anything.

        • Diogenes says:

          So you only lie half the time or is your lying just restricted to the documentation needed to get the job?

  2. Dana Houle says:

    Someone should let her know she could apply for an open CTO job at Business Insider.

  3. Orpho says:

    Oy. My diss draft just went to committee; I certainly hope the unfinished PhD was a perma-ABD situation and not a mid-process-defense.

    I mean, I realize if you put that PhD down on a resume before the defense date, you’ve just committed fraud and misrepresented your credentials. And you probably shouldn’t help lead a country into war, regardless.

    But I feel that, at least a little.

    • Bassopotamus says:

      I suppose that they are different situations, but as someone who went on the market ABD, I can confirm that we all knew not to claim that you had a PhD when you were working on it. To my mind, it doesn’t matter how close to done she was or not. She was misrepresenting herself. Heck, I didn’t even label myself as Professor Bassopotamus on my syllabi until I had been granted the degree.

      • FridayNext says:

        Technically you are a professor when you teach in front of a class, regardless of which degree you have. I was Professor Next when I taught museum studies for years as an Adjunct PROFESSOR. (of course, there is no PhD in museum studies in the US so an MA is the terminal degree. Maybe that is a distinction.) Now that I am ABD, I wouldn’t dream of saying I had a PhD until the diploma was in hand. When I worked for the federal government, misrepresenting credentials was one of the few things you could fire someone for without a years long paper trail of accumulated discipline and I agree with that stance.

        • J. Otto Pohl says:

          No, teaching in front of a class does not automatically make one a professor. It depends on the institution. In the UK and Ghana you generally only get to be professor after two promotions. The firs is to senior lecturer. My official position is lecturer and people here address me as Dr. Pohl. Only much higher ranking people are addressed as Professor so and so.

          • Linnaeus says:

            Yes, when I taught my own class, I was not a professor. Officially, I was classified as a “predoctoral instructor/lecturer”. I put “instructor” on my syllabus.

            • FridayNext says:

              Maybe that is where I am getting tripped up. The students, other teachers, and admin called me Professor Next in public discussion. What I was officially is anyone’s guess. I just put my name on the syllabus with no title or anything.

              But then my official title, what appears on my cv for both positions I am “Adjunct Assistant Professor” which is what both of my supervisors told me to put.

              I am beginning to think there is no standard usage on this, except perhaps in official rankings of Professors. In any event, this has little to do with the original post. Futzing job titles is one thing. Representing that you have earned a credential you haven’t, in this case a PhD, is a whole other thing.

          • José Arcadio Buendía says:

            In the UK and Ghana. This is relevant to what Next said because …?

        • Aimai says:

          Well, I was “professor” to my classes when I taught the students in them– but on my resume I was not permitted to put anything more than “lecturer” when I was, in fact, a lecturer. There are technical titles at issue here and putting anything other than the actual title is a fraud.

          • Dana Houle says:

            Likewise, I assume medical interns are regularly called “doctor,” and they wouldn’t be able to get away with saying they’re a medical doctor.

            • kateislate says:

              Medical interns are MDs. Internships come after med school in both of our countries. (Clinical clerkships are what you do during med school up here, don’t know what they are called in the states).

              Medical doctors being called ‘Doctor’ is a quirk of history in the settling of North America. The MD is the actual credential, followed by professional licensing of one kind or another.

    • Linnaeus says:

      I do put Ph.D. on my resume, but I also say that it’s “in progress”, i.e., not completed. Otherwise, there’s a rather large span of years that I would have to explain somehow.

      • Hogan says:

        I’m looking at a bunch of resumes, some of which say things like “Ph.D. (expected Spring 2014).”

      • Orpho says:

        That’s right where I’ve been. Ph.D. (ABD) or Ph.D expected Dec 2013 – but then again, I’m not currently applying to federal positions, hanging out a shingle, or leading the country into a war, I’m in places where those distinctions or classifications seem to be well understood.

  4. Todd says:

    Notre Dame football rumored to be interested in interviewing O’Bagy for a coaching position.

  5. Warren Terra says:

    Honestly, the fact that she’s a Kagan should be disqualification enough. They have a thriving family business in consequence-free mindless pseudo-academic warmongering. That her “pseudo-academic” was even more “pseudo” than the rest, that she was literally a fake academic, is mere filigree.

    • José Arcadio Buendía says:

      I hate to tell all of you expert ABD and Ph.D. people who know everything, but Kagan is a common Jewish name and not everyone who has that name is related.

      • Djur says:

        Except this Kagan is actually one of “the” Kagans. I don’t think anyone needs to be reminded that everyone named Kagan isn’t a neocon shill. Elena Kagan should be an obvious counterexample.

        She isn’t the one who was disqualified, though, so I think the OP misread.

        • Warren Terra says:

          I indeed conflated O’Bagy with her boss, Kim Kagan. But, even if sloppy, I’m not a total idiot: Kim Kagan is indeed one of those Kagans, part of Warmongering Incorporated.

    • R. Porrofatto says:

      Yeah. If a member of the Kagan family is associated with it, it should be called The Institute for the Mongering of War. There’s no point for them to study it because they never learn anyway, and they certainly keep a good distance away from the execution of it, but promoting and shilling pointless wars, they’re pros at that.

  6. FridayNext says:

    O’Bagy has a masters from Georgetown University and was was enrolled in a Ph.D program, but had not yet defended her dissertation, a detail Kagan says she discovered while conducting “due diligence” and double checking O’Bagy’s work following a flurry of media attention on the young researcher.

    No. If you did the research BEFORE you hired her, THAT would be due diligence. AFTER? That’s barely post-diligence.

  7. wengler says:

    This feels like one of those situations where if you just spent five minutes on the ground talking to any normal, non-official person in Syria, you’d get a lot better perspective on what is actually going on than so-called researchers with fraudulent credentials.

  8. Strong Thermos says:

    Don’t lie on your résumé, kids.

    • Lee Rudolph says:

      Don’t hire kids who lie on their résumés, old farts. (Really, it should not be beyond your means to check them out; and, if it is, maybe you’re doing something wrong.)

      • N__B says:

        Speaking as a hirer – currently hiring, as a matter of fact – lying on a resume or a cover letter is grounds for automatic disposal of resume in the garbage (pre-hire) and automatic dismissal (post-hire). I have to be able to trust the people in my firm and I distrust liars.

  9. justme says:

    Any relation to Elena Kagan?

  10. Eli Rabett says:

    She was hired by a Kagan. Nuff said

  11. Major Kong says:

    Kagan met her husband Frederick Kagan, who is an American resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI)

    These think-tanks seem to be very incestuous.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.