Maeve Quaid
Canadian economist
Maeve Quaid is a senior faculty member in the Business Administration program at Trent University in Peterborough, Ontario. Quaid was educated at McGill University, the London School of Economics as well as a D.Phil. in Social Sciences from the University of Oxford. She teaches in the areas of Organizational Behaviour and Human Resource Management. She has written various articles and two books, one revealing how organizations devise their pay scales and the other on social policy, specifically on the training programs related to welfare reform. Quaid has written extensively on human resources and recently completed her latest work, entitled: Workfare: Why Good Social Policy Ideas Go Bad.
She also ran in the Canadian federal election in 1993 as a candidate for Progressive Conservative Party of Canada in the electoral district of Notre-Dame-de-Grâce.
Selected publications
Quaid, M. (2002) Workfare: Why Good Social Policy Ideas Go Bad, Toronto, University of Toronto Press.
Quaid, M. (1997, 1993) Job Evaluation: The Myth of Equitable Assessment, Toronto, University of Toronto Press.
“Maeve Quaid” enters the record as canadian economist. Crown Archives preserves that source wording while asking what Maeve, Quaid and Canadian can confirm, complicate or overturn.
Why this record matters
“Maeve Quaid” is worth following because a concise public description often conceals a longer documentary argument. Here, Maeve, Quaid and Canadian provides the most credible route into that argument.
Biographical claims are most persuasive when dates, appointments and relationships can be traced to records created close to the events described. The source revision retrieved here is dated Aug 12, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q14949461. VIAF identifies the subject as 23814235. The Library of Congress control number is n93080459. 2 of 2 selected statements include explicit references; 0 carry qualifiers and 0 use preferred rank. The first chronological checks are 1993, 2002 and 1997.
Later biographies can compress uncertainty and repeat inherited reputations, so apparently settled claims may still require comparison. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Read biographical claims against dates, named institutions and the cited references. Distinguish a subject’s later reputation from evidence produced during their lifetime.
- Establishing names and roles
- Building a first chronology
- Locating cited institutions
Personal papers, civil or court records, institutional files and the scholarship cited by the source.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Maeve Quaid”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Maeve Quaid primary sources, Maeve Quaid archive and Maeve research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Maeve Quaid”?
- Which claims depend on a single source or contested interpretation?
- How has the subject’s reputation changed across later accounts?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Maeve Quaid” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.