Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:18, 21 December 2014

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. University of Pennsylvania This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of University of Pennsylvania on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.University of PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject University of PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject University of PennsylvaniaUniversity of Pennsylvania ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Business Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Australia Elton Mayo is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian at the National Library of Australia. The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography

Untitled

I'm not sure of the format for editing these discussions, but this looks like a stub and I feel that it should be extended a little further. Elton Mayo performed many experients: one was how changing lighting conditions in a factory changed the ways the workers worked. I'd elaborate more but there's probably someone else who knows a lot more about this than I do. Despite his influence, Elton Mayo has not fully established himself as a legitimate business figure to a significant minority of scholars. James Hoopes, a distinguished professor of history (and Guggenheim Fellowship Recipient and Rhodes Scholar), points out some pretty major flaws in Mayo's work and thinking. Pages 129 through 159 of Hoopes's False Prophets, 2003 Perseus Publishing, are all about Elton Mayo. Hoopes' comments are well-referenced, so these appear to be legitimate problems with this historical figure. Hoopes's ideas should be added somehow. I will give it a shot.--72.197.107.190 (talk) 16:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC) I would like to point out that there is more information on elton mayo's other experiments under the 'Hawthorn Effect'

Elton mayo Australian born psychologist

I'm not sure why the lead was altered in this article, stating Mayo was an Australian born psychologist? He was. The edit stating that fact was first added to the article in 2004 and during the past 10 years no other editors have ever questioned this fact because it is stated in so many reliable sources. This was the original editor's placement of that fact back in 2004. . Anyway I don't want to argue about it but have added a couple of reliable sources to that fact in the lead. It's an important article and if type in the words eleto mayo and psychologist into google even, you will find countless reliable sources. I cannot however find any reliable sources for researcher or organizational theorist? If reliable sources exist please add them, otherwise those terms just need to be deleted. No big deal. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrm7171 (talk • contribs) 03:37, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Mayo was not a psychologist. He had no higher degree than a BA. See Cullen. For now, and depending on evidence, I have no quarrel with regard to calling him an organizational theorist. I add that because no editor questioned something does not make it right. Iss246 (talk) 04:46, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I also don't think he earned an M.A. based on what I remember from Cullen's dissertation. Could someone check that? Iss246 (talk) 04:59, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

The story was in Trahair's book. Iss246 (talk) 05:26, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Trahir wrote that he obtained an M.A. many years after he earned his B.A. His adviser at Adelaide used Mayo's research on a textile manufacturing plant as evidence to earn Mayo an M.A. The awarding of the degree was just after Mayo got a job at HBS. Iss246 (talk) 15:27, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

All of that is unsourced iss246? Misplaced Pages is all about the reliable sources say? You deleted both the encylopedia brittanica source and the other reliable sources and the original edit from 2004 see here, that has stood in that article for 10 years? I'm confused. I won't edit war. You just reverted again during discussion? I have really tried to reason with you here iss246. You are going against what the reliable sources say? Won't revert your edit, but this reliable source issue just needs to be worked out.Mrm7171 (talk) 06:04, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Iss246, if you have a reliable source (that actually contradicts all of these other reliable sources provided) that states that Elton Mayo was not an Australian born psychologist, please provide it in full here. That would help resolve this reliable source issue. Thank you.Mrm7171 (talk) 07:37, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Based on academic sources, it is unclear how to best describe Mayo. Smith, J. H. (1974) Elton Mayo Revisited British Journal of Industrial Relations. Jul74, Vol. 12 Issue 2, p282-291, says he had a BA in psychology, but elsewhere says the degree was in philosophy. That his degree was in philosophy was also noted here Tausky also says he was a Lecturer at University of Queensland in logic, psychology, ethics, metaphysics and economics and that he was made head of the philosophy department in 1914. So it seems more correct to call him a philosopher than psychologist. Smith in the forward referred to him as a scientist and practical clinician. The title he held longest was professor of industrial research at Harvard, so maybe that would be the best to use.Psyc12 (talk) 12:04, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Can you please provide a reliable source psyc12, stating exactly what you just said, that is: "The title he held longest was professor of industrial research at Harvard"?

When Elton Mayo was a professor did he stop being a psychologist? Does a medical practitioner cease to be a medical practitioner if they also become a professor?Mrm7171 (talk) 14:18, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

You are both mostly talking about the various educational training Elton Mayo had over his life, not his profession(s). Mrm7171 (talk) 14:12, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

@Iss246:Yes, the reliable sources have called Mayo a number of things. A big one though, is an (Australian born) Psychologist. Iss246 deleted this and said that Mayo was NOT a psychologist. So, again Iss246, can you produce a reliable source please, that actually says Australian born Elton Mayo was not a psychologist?Mrm7171 (talk) 13:55, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Biographies, including what I've cited above, note that he was at Harvard for 21 years as a professor of industrial research, which is the longest he was anywhere. Sources differ in how they describe Mayo, perhaps because he's unique and doesn't fit any category very well. He doesn't have a degree in psychology, and his job titles were not psychologist. So it comes down to how best to deal with conflicting sources. Psyc12 (talk) 14:27, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

What Misplaced Pages and other biographical articles normally state in the first line of the lead, and what we are talking about here, is what the reliable sources state was Elton Mayo's profession. An example would be John Kerry is a politician and United States Secretary of State, not what various qualifications John Kerry has.

I don't care what other reliably sourced titles we also include, but a big one, very often used in reliable sources, and what was in this article for 10 years, until you deleted it iss246, is that Elton Mayo was a psychologist?

Here are just some of the reliable sources backing that up. There are so many others.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/371017/Elton-Mayo http://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/mayo-george-elton-7541 https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Elton_Mayo http://www.termpaperwarehouse.com/essay-on/Elton-Mayo/158890 http://www.samemory.sa.gov.au/site/page.cfm?u=437&c=3767 http://www.nndb.com/people/043/000119683/bibliography/ http://persona.rin.ru/eng/view/f/0/36377/Elton-Mayo--George-Elton-Mayo-Mrm7171 (talk) 14:56, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

@Iss246: You have not produced a single reliable source to counter these 7 reliable sources above, clearly stating Mayo was a psychologist. There are so many more. I'm not sure what you are trying to do here, in the face of such strong contrary evidence to your unsupported claim, that he was not a psychologist, but I have continued to assume good faith on your part. However the evidenced is overwhelming. On that basis, I am going to simply place all 7 reliable sources and the word psychologist back into the opening sentence of Elton's biography.Mrm7171 (talk) 23:44, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

So, for the last time now, and after 3 days, have you got any reliable source(s) please iss246, actually stating, that Elton Mayo was NOT a psychologist during the time he was alive?Mrm7171 (talk) 23:51, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Because something is in print does not make it right. The two biographies (cited above) I read indicate that Mayo earned a BA in philosophy and psychology. About 16 years later, after he got the job at HBS, he was awarded an MA (without taking a course) for his work at a Philadelphia textile factory. His mentor did the paperwork to award Mayo the MA after Mayo sent his mentor a description of the work completed in Philadelphia.

One of the biographies indicated that Mayo expediently neglected to correct interlocutors who called him doctor. Then he got the job of a lifetime, a faculty position at HBS. He worked at Harvard for more than 20 years. At Harvard, he was a professor of industrial research. He was not a professor of psychology. Nor was he a sociologist, as he was sometimes mistakenly called.

Let's do the right thing. The right, most apt, thing to do is to call Mayo an industrial researcher. Let's not do the expedient thing. Let's not repeat a mistake that others have made. Iss246 (talk) 00:10, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Just noticed under sources another reliable source, already on the article page, J. H. Smith, The Three Faces of Elton Mayo, New Society (December 1980) See here http://www.bookblast.com/literary_estates.html#? again, clearly stating, Elton Mayo was a psychologist.Mrm7171 (talk) 00:48, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I clicked this link. J. H. Smith did not call Mayo a psychologist and sociologist. It was the headline in this website--there's no attribution that I saw as to who wrote it. Psyc12 (talk) 02:16, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

@Psyc12:Have you clicked on the 7 reliable sources that say Elton Mayo was a psychologist psyc12? including the one from Encyclopedia Brittanica?Mrm7171 (talk) 02:58, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Mrm, you raised the question of proving a negative. Can you prove that there are no elves? I went to the detailed studies of Mayo's life to get the facts of his biography.

I also remind you that much of what came out of the Hawthorne studies and into psychology textbooks turned out is false. Yet the authors of so-called reliable psychology textbooks continued to write about the Hawthorne effect. I did more than a little digging to get the facts. I invite you to visit the same materials just as I visited the Encyclopedia Britannica and other works. Iss246 (talk) 01:21, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm trying to Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith with you iss246, which is increasingly difficult in the face of your comments like: "Because something is in print does not make it right" and now "Can you prove that there are no elves?" Mrm7171 (talk) 02:29, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

You ignored what I wrote above. Repeating the term "reliable source" does not reflect on the source's fallibility. The "elves proof" is simply a riff on Bertrand Russell's teapot with regard to the problem of proving a negative. An example of many so-called reliable sources being wrong, I explained, is reflected in the coverage of the Hawthorne effect, which emerged from Mayo's own research at the Hawthorne Western Electric plant. The Hawthorne effect got into many textbooks despite being hyperbole. Iss246 (talk) 02:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Iss246 all that matters on Misplaced Pages is what the reliable sources say. Misplaced Pages:No original research So, for the last time now, and after 3 days, I take it that you have NOT got any reliable source(s) actually stating, that Elton Mayo was NOT a psychologist during the time he was alive contrary to the seven reliable sources detailed above, including the one from Encyclopedia Brittanica clearly stating he was a psychologist?Mrm7171 (talk) 02:58, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Could you please just answer yes, and then provide them, or no, I have no reliable sources contrary to the 7 reliable sources saying he was a psychologist? Thanks.Mrm7171 (talk) 03:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

After 3 days and not one single, reliable source, stating that Mayo was NOT a psychologist, I just restored the word psychologist to this biographical article, and the 7 reliable sources attached, that all clearly state, that he was indeed a psychologist.Mrm7171 (talk) 06:43, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Iss246 you can produce absolutely NO reliable source actually stating Mayo was NOT a psychologist. That is specifically what a reliable source needed to say, because it would have needed to contradict the 7 reliable sources I have produced, which ALL clearly state Mayo was a Psychologist. But again, you came in and deleted all 7 reliable sources see here: and may have breached the three-revert rule (3RR) in doing so. I have tried to assume good faith over this, and come to a civil resolution by talking it through. I won't edit war with you, and revert again, and will step back. The objective edit history is clear over this unresolved matter.Mrm7171 (talk) 14:59, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Please don't ignore the problem of proving a negative. And please don't ignore the fact that sources have been wrong. For example, published sources have been wrong about the Hawthorne effect for years. Review the book by Trahair and dissertation by Cullen. Also note that at Harvard Mayo was not a professor of psychology. He was a professor of industrial research. It is safe to assert that he was an industrial researcher. It is not safe to say that he was a psychologist. Iss246 (talk) 17:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong. Mayo remains an important figure even if he was not a psychologist. Keeping in mind the caveats involved in proving a negative, I looked him up in the following data bases, The New Penguin Business Dictionary, Collins Dictionary of Sociology, Marquis's Who Was Who in America 1607-1984, Big Ideas Simply Explained: The Psychology Book, BUSINESS: The Ultimate Resource, and The Blackwell Dictionary of Sociology. None of these sources reported that he was a psychologist. However, his position of professor of industrial research at HBS is safe. His recognition as an industrial researcher is equally safe. Iss246 (talk) 17:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

My understanding of Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources and Misplaced Pages:No original research is that if the 7 reliable sources provided above, all clearly state that Elton Mayo was a psychologist at some point in his career, we need to go with what those 7 published, reliable sources state. Especially if no other published reliable sources actually state that Mayo was not a psychologist? I have not reverted, and I am sure we can resolve this minor content dispute in a civil way, rather than edit war iss246?Mrm7171 (talk) 00:15, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I quote from user:Lamedumal who wrote on the Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, "Contributing psychology does not mean being a psychologist or, in other words, does not make one a psychologist."

Those are 7 sources you mentioned got it wrong. Above I listed 6 sources that don't indicate that Mayo was a psychologist. At least we can agree that Mayo was an industrial researcher and organizational theorist even if we cannot agree that he was a psychologist.

We can also agree that he influenced a number of fields, including management, i/o Ψ, social Ψ, industrial sociology, and organizational theory. Iss246 (talk) 00:46, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately this minor content issue remains unresolved, despite our good faith attempts to try and resolve it here, and indeed here, . I have not reverted, and as I said, I am sure we can resolve this minor content dispute in a civil way, rather than edit war iss246? I think we just need clarification from an experienced editor/administrator specifically relating to Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources and Misplaced Pages:No original research. As I said, my understanding of these policies is that if the 7 reliable sources provided above, all clearly state that Elton Mayo was a psychologist at some point in his career, we need to go with what those 7 published, reliable sources state. Especially if no other published reliable sources actually state that Mayo was not a psychologist.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Mrm, you wrote, "Especially if no other published reliable sources actually state that Mayo was not a psychologist." This is the issue I raised earlier regarding proving a negative. I illustrate. If I were to assert that "Bertrand Russell was a not a postman," you could respond that there is no published source that says that Russell was not a postman. Does that make him having been, even once, a postman? You are doing the same thing with Mayo not being a psychologist.

It is rare that I challenge the accuracy of published sources informing Misplaced Pages. But published sources can be wrong. The writers of published sources often obtain information from other published sources. Sometimes that secondary information that gets passed along from one summarizer to another is wrong, as it is here. It is clear that published sources included wrong information on the Hawthorne effect. Iss246 (talk) 01:37, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

As I said, I think we will just need clarification from an experienced editor/administrator specifically relating to Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources and Misplaced Pages:No original research. I have not reverted your last edit see here: I'm sure we can resolve this minor content dispute, without edit warring iss246, and in a civil manner, by using appropriate Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution given the impasse reached on this talk page.Mrm7171 (talk) 02:53, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Mayo's Australian psychology qualifications in 1910

@Iss246:I just again, carefully read through all your comments above to see if I was missing something here when you keep stating he was not an Australian psychologist and deleted the 7 reliable sources stating that he was an Australian born psychologist. Do you base that statement on Mayo not holding a Doctorate in psychology? Is that it?Mrm7171 (talk) 08:39, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I answer your question.

It is partly that he did not hold a doctorate in psychology. He taught philosophy and psychology at Queensland with a BA (we don't call him a philosopher).

It is partly that the most important position he held during his career was not in psychology but in industrial research. Industrial research is a worthy topic.

It is partly his not correcting people in Australia who called him "Dr. Mayo" (see Cullen), suggesting that he was missing something that would have given him greater authenticity.

Finally, I have no knowledge of his calling himself a psychologist although that would not be decisive for me. Iss246 (talk) 21:34, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I should have asked that direct question earlier. I'll explain. In Australia, unlike the USA, you don't need a doctorate to be called a psychologist, even today, but let alone in the 1920s! Mayo's 4 year BA honors degree, with a major in psychology, (even without his later masters degree) sufficed, officially. Requirements are always changing. See psychologist article, and the requirements in Australia today. As an interesting side note (albeit irrelevant to the placement of the word psychologist in this article) the reason Mayo "did not correct people in Australia who called him "Dr. Mayo" (see Cullen), suggesting that he was missing something that would have given him greater authenticity", answering to your 3rd reason above iss, is probably true, but greater authenticity as a lecturer, I would presume. In Australia, normally professors do hold doctorates, but ironically many, (not all) professors cannot also legally call themselves a 'psychologist' or practice as a psychologist as their research doctorates are often not accredited by the psychology boards.

Anyway, I hope I have sufficiently answered to all of your points above. Couple that with the fact that there is no reliable source stating Mayo was NOT an Australian born psychologist (and you can see now why he was even without a doctorate) and the 7 reliable sources clearly stating that fact. I also posted on the reliable sources noticeboard to get other's opinions. This response from an independent editor was appreciated, and adds further support to the word psychologist's re-inclusion in the article, where it had correctly sat for 10 years since 2004.Mrm7171 (talk) 00:30, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Regrettably, the above did not address my points. Could Mayo be deemed a psychologist in 1910? What is the evidence that in 1910 he was called a psychologist?

Response: Mayo's 4 year BA honors degree, with a major in psychology, (even without his later masters degree) sufficed, officially to be called a Psychologist in Australia.

When he was a lecturer in Australia, his lectures were usually confined to topics in economics such a trade unions. According to J.H. Smith, he did no research that bore on industrial psychology until he got to Philadelphia.

Response: Irrelevant. At the time in Australia, he was qualified as a Psychologist.

Did Mayo call himself a psychologist?

Response: Irrelevant. At the time in Australia, he was qualified as a psychologist.

There also remains the problem of proving a negative, which I addressed several times already including in my Bertrand Russell example.

Response: Irrelevant. Proving a negative is not necessary now, in this case, because there never was an error. The error you spoke of was based on the mistaken belief, that in Australia, you needed a doctorate in psychology to be a psychologist. You didn't. You still don't as explained above. At the time in Australia, he was qualified as a psychologist. Period.

The problem with the 7 sources is that they are summary sources that take facts from each other. The key sources are Cullen and Trahair. Some have called Mayo a sociologist. I have the same problem calling him a sociologist. The evidence is thin.

Response: Misplaced Pages relies on reliable sources, not what you or I would like an article to say. At the time in Australia, Mayo was qualified as a psychologist, officially. Whether he used the title, liked the title, held other job titles as well, or whatever! that's entirely irrelevant. He officially qualified a psychologist in Australia. Full Stop. On top of that, and of importance to Misplaced Pages, the reliable sources I provided, all clearly state he WAS a Psychologist. Importantly, iss246, NO reliable sources exist that state he was NOT a psychologist. The "proving a negative" argument you keep using now does not apply. Obviously. At the time in Australia, Mayo was qualified as a psychologist.

It is safest, and least controversial, to call him what Harvard called him. An industrial researcher. Iss246 (talk) 01:35, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Response: I actually think, to include 'industrial researcher,' we really do need some strong reliable sources please iss246? As far as psychologist goes, I am going to re-include it, based on all of these reasons provided. However I think taking out the 'industrial researcher' job title, is wise, at least until you could please provide some reliable sources that clearly say Elton Mayo was an industrial researcher. I'm okay leaving in organizational theorist, although its a bit abstract, but I think I at least saw one reliable source use that title.

Finally, please see the Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard which you have ignored it seems. This response from an independent editor was appreciated, and adds further support to the word psychologist's re-inclusion in the article. Please find a reliable source for the 'industrial researcher' title if you would like to include it in the article, but without a reliable source obviously that title should not be in the article. It would be like us including, Elton Mayo was a Postman. Maybe he was as well, who knows, but without reliable sources saying he was, we can't just include that job title either? I hope that you feel I have now responded directly, to all of your points iss246.Mrm7171 (talk) 03:03, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Inclusion/deletion of Elton Mayo was an Industrial researcher?

Can we have some reliable sources clearly stating Elton Mayo was an industrial researcher please iss246?Mrm7171 (talk) 03:08, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I have found a couple of sources stating he was a professor of industrial research at Harvard university USA, oddly, without a doctorate? We can just use that correct job title, instead of industrial researcher. As the other independent editor correctly noted; often, over the course of a career path, people can hold numerous job titles. Please see here: . This editor correctly noted that many other Misplaced Pages, biographical articles do the same. So, we can and should correctly include psychologist, professor of industrial research, organizational theorist. I'm okay with sociologist too, because that's what some reliable say. But I agree with you iss246, the evidence is thin on that one. His degree was not in sociology. I'm easy either way including that one. Thoughts?Mrm7171 (talk) 03:22, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

At Harvard he worked for 20 years as a professor of industrial research. That is why it is safest to call him an industrial researcher.

Based on this reliable source, (I think it was one of the 7 sources I've used) http://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/mayo-george-elton-7541 first published in hardcopy in Australian Dictionary of Biography, Volume 10, (MUP), 1986, it clearly states Elton Mayo was an industrial psychologist. Shall we go with industrial psychologist or psychologist do you think? I think it is safer to go with what the reliable source actually says, but I'm open to your thoughts?Mrm7171 (talk) 13:13, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm even okay with industrial researcher as a compromise here iss246 and to see a resolution here. Good, so I will go ahead and put in Elton May was an Australian born industrial psychologist, industrial researcher and organizational theorist then. We can even leave out sociologist as a further compromise, given you have objected to that title too, and to see a resolution here over this minor edit.Mrm7171 (talk) 13:27, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Wow. You just deleted again?? and with no discussion here first. Umm, am I missing something iss246? thought we had just come to a resolution here based on the discussion sequence to this point? I even made a number of further compromises so we could just resolve this? I'm finding it difficult to keep assuming good faith iss246?Mrm7171 (talk) 14:23, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Wow nothing. There was no resolution Mrm. The only resolution was in your mind. All we could agree on was that reporting that Mayo was an industrial researcher, as per his position at Harvard, was not controversial. Iss246 (talk) 14:59, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I have been consulting academic biographical sources about Mayo. Smith's (1974) article in British Journal of Industrial Relations (I gave reference earlier) says Mayo's BA was in psychology, but then in his 1975 forward to Mayo's book (reference I gave earlier), he says his BA was in philosophy. In 1974 Smith says he was a Lecturer in Psychology and Ethics, but in 1975 says Lecturer in Logic, Ethics, and Psychology, and that he lectured in economics. Both sources note he became Chair of Philosophy in 1919. From 1926 until 1947 he was Professor of Industrial Research at the Harvard Business School. So it is safe to call him Professor of Industrial Research or Industrial Researcher. It would be safe to call him Professor of Philosophy, although that's not what he's known for. To say he was an lecturer in psychology would be incomplete, as he was a lecturer in a number of topics, but that too is not what he is known for. So this takes things back to the issue of how to deal with conflicting sources. According to Misplaced Pages instructions, "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources." Psyc12 (talk) 15:57, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I will just clarify again. Nothing conflicts. All sources confirm Mayo at least earnt an Australian BA degree, (ie. Bachelor of Arts degree), with honors. Mayo majored in psychology and philosophy. At the time he therefore qualified as a Psychologist in Australia. Officially. Full stop. Therefore these references, including Brittanica, are correct. Mrm7171 (talk) 23:44, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

An independent editor on the Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, supported this logic, and made another good point regarding job titles. Please see: Misplaced Pages biographies often include a number of different job titles, over the course of one's career. I'm easy on what other titles we include, as long as the reliable sources support those ones too!Mrm7171 (talk) 00:01, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I hope that finally clears it up, given that there are at least, 'no conflicting sources' relevant to Mayo's BA honors, with a psych and philosophy major, and in Australia that qualified him, officially, as a Psychologist. He did not need a doctorate or even a MA either! Whether he later lectured in this, or that, or here, or there, is entirely irrelevant to Mayo qualifying in Australia as a Psychologist. Mayo, among other job titles, it seems, formally qualified in Australia as a Psychologist. Therefore this is why these references, including Brittanica all clearly stating Mayo was a psychologist, are correct. I will now tentatively add psychologist, at least, back in to the article, unless of course there is a reliable source which states Mayo did not complete a BA, in Australia, in psychology, and philosophy?Mrm7171 (talk) 00:16, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

In Australia he was a lecturer, not a professor. In Australia, he mostly lectured on economic concerns. I don't see evidence that he was given the title of psychologist. We covered this ground. The International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, the Oxford Handbook of Management Theorists, the Oxford Bibliographies Online, the Oxford Dictionary of Sociology, and the Oxford Companion to Australian History did not identify Mayo as a psychologist. The biographies don't indicate that either. The safest, least controversial title is industrial researcher or professor of industrial research (the position he held longest). I'm okay with either title but not the title psychologist. Iss246 (talk) 00:43, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

2 questions. Firstly, all sources confirm Mayo at least earnt an Australian BA degree with honors. Mayo majored in psychology and philosophy. At the time he therefore qualified as a Psychologist in Australia. Officially. He did not need a doctorate or even a MA either! Whether he later lectured in this, or that, or here, or there, is entirely irrelevant to Mayo qualifying in Australia as a Psychologist. Are you disputing now Mayo's BA honors in psychology and philosophy? Please just respond to that specific question?

And secondly, why are you and psyc12 so terribly opposed to Mayo being an industrial psychologist? I don't get it? I'm okay with psychologist or industrial psychologist, but this reliable source http://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/mayo-george-elton-7541 first published in hardcopy in Australian Dictionary of Biography, Volume 10, (MUP), 1986, clearly states Elton Mayo was an Industrial psychologist?Mrm7171 (talk) 01:07, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't accept the "therefore" in the first paragraph you wrote. Where is the documentation that in 1910 he was a psychologist? As I said, many secondary sources are a hall of mirrors. If one secondary source contains an inaccuracy, the inaccuracy will be reflected in a number of other secondary sources. I prefer Cullen and Trahair to the encyclopedia because the two authors get close to the subject, closer than the encyclopedia. To answer your second question, my interest is in accuracy.

At least it isn't controversial that Mayo was a professor of industrial research at Harvard University. It is acceptable to call him an industrial researcher. Iss246 (talk) 02:27, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Added reflist to tidy up Talk page. Bromley86 (talk) 10:44, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

1. http://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/mayo-george-elton-7541
2. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/371017/Elton-Mayo
3. https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Elton_Mayo
4. http://www.termpaperwarehouse.com/essay-on/Elton-Mayo/158890
5. http://www.samemory.sa.gov.au/site/page.cfm?u=437&c=3767
6. http://www.nndb.com/people/043/000119683/bibliography/
7. http://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/mayo-george-elton-7541
8. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/371017/Elton-Mayo
9. https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Elton_Mayo
10. http://www.termpaperwarehouse.com/essay-on/Elton-Mayo/158890
11. http://www.samemory.sa.gov.au/site/page.cfm?u=437&c=3767
12. http://www.nndb.com/people/043/000119683/bibliography/

2 Specific questions toward a resolution

Re framed then. All sources confirm Elton Mayo earnt an Australian BA degree with honors, majoring in psychology and philosophy. If a person held a BA (honors) degree in psychology in Australia, they were qualified as a Psychologist. Are you disputing now Mayo's BA honors in psychology and philosophy? Or are you disputing the qualifications in Australia to qualify as a Psychologist? Please just respond to that specific question for a resolution here?

I already mentioned what I am disputing. Iss246 (talk) 03:47, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Iss246, I just want a resolution & we are nearly there. It would be really helpful if you could simply answer those 2 direct unanswered questions above please, rather than avoid them. Thanks.Mrm7171 (talk) 04:09, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

You have done this a lot. On this page and on other talk pages. Simply answer this direct question or that direct question. Invariably you take whatever answer I provide, and twist it into something else. This is not a Chubby Checker exercise. Supply the evidence from 1910. Don't engage in guessswork regarding what you suspect would happen in 1910. Get the evidence. It is evidence that satisfies me. Iss246 (talk) 04:34, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I had hoped we could resolve this here, in a civil manner, without edit warring, and even tried using Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard to get other non-involved editor's points of view. In fact, an independent editor also agreed, but you have ignored them too, it seems. Please see: . Anyway, given this is such a minor edit, and had been correctly placed, and remained in the opening sentence of the article by another editor in 2004, see: , I do wonder why you and psyc12 are so opposed to Elton Mayo being a psychologist, and more specifically, an industrial psychologist. I'm fine with either psychologist or industrial psychologist, frankly, so we can just get a resolution here, but this reliable source http://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/mayo-george-elton-7541 first published in hardcopy in Australian Dictionary of Biography, Volume 10, (MUP), 1986, clearly states, Elton Mayo was an Industrial psychologist? It seems pretty accurate to me iss246?Mrm7171 (talk) 06:40, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of Daniel Bell, sociologist

@Iss246: I noted you deleted "sociologist" here: and then replaced sociologist (written by other Misplaced Pages editors on that article) with the word "intellectual"? However in the redirect to the actual Daniel Bell article, it clearly states he was a sociologist? Again, I am trying to assume good faith with you iss246? But...?Mrm7171 (talk) 00:34, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I know about the Misplaced Pages article about Danny Bell. Daniel Bell's work went beyond sociology. At Cambridge he was a professor of American history. But that is getting ahead of things. Bell's critique of Mayo and Mayoism was published 13 years before Bell earned a Ph.D. He was a brilliant intellectual. I would leave it at that. Incidentally, a quick way to learn a little about Daniel Bell is to see the documentary film, Arguing the World. Iss246 (talk) 02:49, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand all of that, I am just interested in what the reliable sources say. You deleted "sociologist" here: and then replaced David Bell's profession as a "sociologist" with the word "intellectual"? However in the redirect to the actual Daniel Bell article, it clearly states he was a sociologist? Can you answer directly to that please?Mrm7171 (talk) 03:03, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Mrm, you were right to delete the word "celebrated" as a modifier of the word "intellectual." Iss246 (talk) 23:48, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Mayo was not a psychologist

We had this discussion earlier. I will say it again. Mayo, an industrial researcher, contributed to psychology. But he was not a psychologist. The secondary sources got it wrong. Just as many secondary sources got wrong the nature of the Hawthorne effect. Iss246 (talk) 12:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I discussed in depth, why these 6 reliable sources and many, many more, all state Mayo was a psychologist, in Australia, and at one stage in his lifetime career path as well as other occupations. In Australia his qualifications BA (honors) with a psych major. Your only reasoning iss246, all along, was that he only had these qualifications. They sufficed. More importantly though, this is Misplaced Pages and all of these reliable sources clearly state he was. That is just how Misplaced Pages works.Mrm7171 (talk) 13:11, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Those 6 secondary sources echo each other just the way many textbooks have echoed each other on the Hawthorne effect but the Hawthorne effect proved to be elusive.

Consult the Cullen bio of Mayo. He was not a psychologist.

The other point I make is that we don't know that in 1910 Australia officially deemed Mayo a psychologist based on his bachelor's degree. No evidence has been presented. Moreover, Harvard did not place Mayo in its psychology department. He was in HBS. Based on his academic appointment he was not a psychologist.

I want to be clear that what I am saying is not to take anything away from Mayo's being an industrial researcher. He certainly was that. But he was not a psychologist. Iss246 (talk) 19:42, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

According to the Baker Library at HBS, Mayo was a professor of industrial management. I am okay with reporting that Mayo was an industrial researcher. Iss246 (talk) 19:47, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:No original research

We just need to go with what all those 6 reliable secondary sources actually say, not advance or debate here, some 'original contrary opinion', that is not stated in any reliable source iss246. There are many, many more reliable sources too, saying the same thing! That is, Mayo was at one point, an Australian psychologist (among other occupations, and during his lifetime career path). This policy applies well here. Misplaced Pages:No original research, especially the section titled: "Synthesis of published material that advances a position". I'm also trying to assume good faith here iss246 but think we have discussed this simple addition more than enough.Mrm7171 (talk) 00:11, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Another policy is no research that got the facts wrong. Iss246 (talk) 14:44, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

For user:Truthbringer1. Miner, who wrote a history of the field of organizational behavior, described in some detail Mayo's career. Miner indicated that Mayo was not a psychologist. To report that Mayo was an industrial researcher is accurate. In fact, Cullen indicates that Harvard treated him as an industrial researcher, and placed Mayo in the Department of Industrial Research within HBS. As for the encyclopedias, they sadly copy each other and repeat what each other says. Miner and Cullen were scholars who closely studied the life of Mayo. Iss246 (talk) 00:51, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Truthbringer1. You ignored the point I made. The reliability of your sources is a bit faulty. One of your sources indicates that Mayo worked on the lighting studies at Hawthorne. But he arrived later. The sources mainly repeat an error, that Mayo was a psychologist. The scholars who looked more deeply into Mayo's life were Miner and Cullen. They wrote in depth about Mayo's life and work. The encyclopedia articles don't have that kind of depth.

Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia. It would not say much for one encyclopedia to copy "facts" from another encyclopedia. It is important to get reliable sources, as you assert. The encyclopedia should be built upon the most reliable sources. Iss246 (talk) 02:16, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Can you provide even one single major published reliable source iss246 & psyc12, that clearly states "Elton Mayo was NOT an Australian-born Psychologist?

Truthbringer1, Psyc12 and I don't agree on the matter of whether or not Mayo was a psychologist. It is I with whom you disagree, not Psyc12. Iss246 (talk) 14:51, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

All you have provided instead, is some abstract source which you say "indicates" he was not?? Could you provide a page number please and where it clearly states he was NOT a Psychologist?

So far, you have NOT provided even one, single reliable source that clearly states Elton Mayo was not a Psychologist? Not even one!!

If not, please leave the current 5 reliable sources in place psyc12 & iss246. They strongly support this very well known fact. Please stop vandalizing articles to fit your agenda.

The huge number of reliable published sources provided below are NOT wrong and I'm sure you're just taking the piss!Truthbringer1 (talk) 05:31, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Over 10 reliable sources all stating very clearly that Elton Mayo was a psychologist. There are many, many more too! Misplaced Pages is only based on what the reliable sources say, not what any editor wants or fabricates an article to say! I'm positive all experienced editors and admins would agree.Truthbringer1 (talk) 03:32, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

It's pretty clear to me that people are using reliable source incorrectly (not least by referring to sources as reliable when minimal checking would confirm that some, at least, are not; I've removed those). I refer you to something that was said in a recent RSN on Riccardo Patrese:

"We don't just decide if a source is reliable. We decide (or rather discuss) whether it is reliable for a particular claim."

Now, there's world of difference between a one-off mention in a book on Jewish athletes and an EB entry that supported by published bios (like the ADoB one by Burke), but the principle still holds.

Iss246 definitely has a point. Support for this position (read from Though he is often described as a psychologist . . .). However, follow the wikilink for psychologist in the Elton Mayo lead and you'll see this: A psychologist evaluates, diagnoses, treats, and studies behavior and mental processes . . . social or organizational psychologists conduct research and provide consultation services. Follow the organisational psychologists wikilink and you get, Industrial and organizational psychology . . . is the scientific study of human behavior in the workplace and applies psychological theories and principles to organizations. Bearing in mind I know almost nothing about Mayo, that's our guy, surely? Therefore, he was a psychologist.

By all means, refer to this difficulty with pigeon holing him within the body, perhaps using that cite I've given as the ref. Bromley86 (talk) 08:05, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Bromley86 and User:Truthbringer1, I appreciate your concern. I am bent neither neither on embellishing or lessening the Mayo entry. My goal is to make the Misplaced Pages entry on Mayo as accurate as the information available can make the entry. An encyclopedia article that Truthbringer1 cited, and this is not an ill reflection on Truthbringer1, indicated that Mayo was involved in the lighting studies. But that was wrong because Mayo came to the Hawthorne research after the lighting studies ended. I don't think we should repeat the wrong information in Misplaced Pages just because an encyclopedia mentioned it.

As for the psychologist claim. It is not justified although Miner explained why one might mistake Mayo for a psychologist. Mayo was probably a psychologist-manqué. I can thus understand why Truthbringer1 has view that Mayo was a psychologist.

Unfortunately encyclopedias can echo each other rather than dig in to important sources such as Miner and Cullen. I don't think Misplaced Pages should echo other encyclopedias. There are good secondary sources on which to build articles. I think the sources such as Miner and Cullen are excellent. Miner and Cullen carefully sifted through the primary material for us. Iss246 (talk) 14:07, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Don't have time to look at it ATM, but for those that do I would assume that this is the Miner book. Couldn't find an online copy of the Cullen one, but I did see this by Trahair. Bromley86 (talk) 14:34, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for considering the matter. The book by Miner that you cited is close but not the book in question. Here is a link to the book:

To access the Cullen dissertation, one ought to do so from a major library--a university library would be good--that has PsycInfo and Proquest's dissertation index. The Miner book is also likely to be housed in a university library, particularly a university that has an organizational behavior program. Iss246 (talk) 16:24, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. Just cut a massive wall of text that I was creating; short story - mental philosophy is psychology, so he does have a degree in psychology and taught it as well. In the absence of anyone saying that he was not a psychologist, we have to go with reliable sources. One reliable source may be mistaken, but we've got a number of sources that call him a psychologist (rather than, for example, a philosopher or a mentalist). I especially found the detail on his tutor in the SA bio to be accurate; nobody making stuff up would introduce the uncertainty that that bio does, by detailing the tutor's fields as A & B and then the students as C, unless B=C (A is English Literature :) ).

The argument that he was the first chair of philosophy, rather than psychology, during his UoQ time is initially strong. However (a) there didn't appear to be a named discipline in that time an place of psychology (it seems it fell under mental philosophy) and (b) he had free reign to do what he wanted; the UoQ had only just opened. So they could call him whatever, doesn't necessarily mean he was that."The then raw state of that institution allowed Mayo considerable freedom to develop his interests. He built up, single-handed, a small but successful school of Mental and Moral Philosophy, in which he tackled whatever subjects he thought pertinent, including economic theory." I'm uncertain as to how reliable New Society is, but that article looks pretty solid on the detail it has on Mayo.

And all that's without looking at the Trahair source I linked to, which has Mayo=psychologist all through it.

So, at the moment, he's a psychologist as far as I'm concerned. I'd suggest that the sensible approach is for anyone arguing that he is not to present their argument with quotes and direct page cites. Bromley86 (talk) 21:46, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Bromley86, I think you have a point. I, however, take this opportunity to enumerate a number of pieces of evidence for the view that Mayo was not a psychologist.

1. Miner, a major figure in organizational behavior, and the history of the discipline wrote the following about Mayo, "An effective speaker and proficient in cultivating influential friends and mentors, he nevertheless had little by way of academic credentials and practically no training in the conduct of scientific research. In actual fact, he was much more a social philosopher than the psychologist or psychiatrist he would have preferred to be" (p. 60). The research that Mayo conducted was weak and inconclusive.

2. Cullen, whose dissertation was a biography of Mayo, also does not view Mayo as a psychologist.

3. Harvard, his main employer, regarded him as an industrial researcher, and never placed him in a psychology department. Harvard placed him the Dept. of Industrial Research.

4. He had a bachelor's degree in philosophy and psychology when he taught in Queensland.

5. He got a master's degree from Queensland perhaps 15 years after his bachelor's degree without taking courses. The degree was ostensibly for his work in a Philadelphia textile factory but served more to help strengthen his resume in his quest for a job in the U.S.

6. He did not earn a doctorate in psychology.

We (you, me, Truthbringer, and, for that matter, Harvard) agree that Mayo was an industrial researcher. I happened to have attended the Harvard Businss School exhibition (fall 2012) on the Hawthorne studies and did not observe a mention that Mayo was a psychologist. I think we should do the conservative thing, namely, indicate in the text that Mayo was an industrial researcher, and omit mentioning that he was a psychologist because the evidence that he was a psychologist is weak. Iss246 (talk) 22:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

4,5 & 6 are true, but irrelevant. Assume for the moment that he remained in Oz and taught Mental and Moral Philosophy to 3rd rate students for 40 years. Could he then be described as a psychologist? Of course!

2 is valid, but is a dissenting opinion that should be dealt with in the body (as I suggested a while ago). Likewise 1, although even then that indicates that he may well have thought of himself as a psychologist. 3 is more solid but, at the end of the day, unless you have something from Harvard that says he was not, it doesn't supersede reliable sources that say he was (as that really is original research). And it assumes that the Department of Industrial Research in 1926 was staffed entirely by people who had gained a degree in Industrial Research (or perhaps a doctorate would be required to qualify in the US :) ). Is that likely? I think you might find that the backgrounds of the people in that department at that time, before disciplines like organisational behaviour even existed as distinct entities, were varied (e.g. engineer, philosopher, economist, but no industrial researchers). At what point did Fritz Roethlisberger cease to be what he was before and begin to be a (whatever he ended up)? What if he'd been doing those things for 16 years, like Mayo, rather than 6?

And look what I found when looking at Fritz. Harvard says Mayo is a psychologist. Also note that they reference Trahair. I think you need to address his spamming of the word psychologist throughout that book on Mayo (although, in fairness, I'm asking you to review something I haven't).] Bromley86 (talk) 01:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Truthbringer, I appreciate what you are writing. But when Mayo was teaching in Australia, the highest degree he had was a bachelor's degree. That did not make him a psychologist. Then he left Australia for the US. During his stay in the US a supportive professor had Mayo awarded a master's degree without Mayo taking any courses. But he was still in the US. Like many people Mayo was interested in what psychologists had to say, and he helped shell shocked World War I veterans, but that did not make him a psychologist.

I wondered if you perhaps found in Mayo's papers in London that he called himself a psychologist (Mayo moved to England during his last years). Cullen could not find that. Iss246 (talk) 23:32, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

That Cullen could not find something is not enough. And, regarding his qualifications, he headed up the (what they appear to have called the psychology (and other disciplines) department in Australian universities at the time) from scratch. Bromley86 (talk) 01:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Bromley86, I appreciate your efforts here. We both want the Misplaced Pages entry to be accurate. Cullen is a professor and an expert on Mayo. After reading Prof. Cullen's dissertation, I got in touch with him to ask him if he thought Mayo was a psychologist. He told me that he does not regard Mayo as a psychologist. But Prof. Cullen does not want to participate in Misplaced Pages, which certainly is his right, but a loss for those of us who would like to ensure that the Mayo Misplaced Pages entry be as accurate as it can be. Prof. Cullen's dissertation, which is a comprehensive bio of Mayo and an analysis of Mayo's work, does not say that Mayo is a psychologist. It would be very unlikely that Prof. Cullen would have written in his dissertation, "Mayo was not a psychologist." It would be just as unlikely for him to have written, "Mayo was not a sociologist" or "Mayo was not a political scientist." Given that Prof. Cullen's understanding of Mayo's life, having sifted through the primary source material, if Mayo were a psychologist, Prof. Cullen would have likely written that Mayo was a psychologist. Miner, who is cited in the Mayo entry, put it best with regard to Mayo not being a psychologist, recognizing that Mayo was a kind of psychologist- or psychiatrist-manqué, with little scientific training. Iss246 (talk) 12:52, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Whilst interesting, anything Cullen told you is pretty much the definition of OR. Even if he was willing to take part, it would still be a dissenting opinion. I think you're just going to have to face it; WP just reports what sources say, assigning due weight to them. Even had Cullen written that unlikely statement, and supported his reasoning, it would still be just one opinion (two if we count Miner's statement). Currently the balance of secondary (and tertiary) sources is heavily in favour of calling him a psychologist. Even looking at primary sources, such as the Harvard archive on Mayo, indicates he can fairly be described as a psychologist. Bromley86 (talk) 09:26, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Bromley86, I don't dispute what you are saying about citing a conversation. I well know that a conversation with Prof. Cullen, regardless of his being a Mayo scholar, is not source for the Misplaced Pages entry on Mayo. Prof. Cullen knows more about Mayo's life than just about anyone. Nowhere in Prof. Cullen's dissertation does he write the equivalent of, "Mayo was not a psychologist," "Mayo was not a sociologist," or "Mayo was not an expert in political science." Prof. Cullen wrote that Mayo read the work by the psychiatrist Pierre Janet, but that did not make Mayo a psychiatrist.

I add that I think it is with caution that we build the Mayo entry (and other entries) on information culled from other encyclopedias. These are tertiary sources. Often they are a kind of hall of mirrors, reflecting back and forth accurate information and inaccuracies. I think secondary sources such as the work of Miner, Cullen, and Trahair are better sources because those individuals read the source material. Iss246 (talk) 14:14, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

You are missing Bromley86's very well made point iss246. The reliable sources are not repeating themselves either.Truthbringer1 (talk) 14:40, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Iss246 in all that text you have still not provided even one single major published reliable source, that clearly states "Elton Mayo was NOT an Australian-born Psychologist? or even Mayo was NOT a Psychologist. If you had even one major reliable published source you would have provided it, I'm sure.

Truthbringer1, I understand the point made by Bromley86. I understand that one cannot use a conversation with a scholar to justify an edit on Misplaced Pages--I said as much on this page. Perhaps Bromley86 and I have a slightly different amount of confidence in encyclopedia articles. Nevertheless, I respect Bromley86 although we have a small disagreement. I think Bromley86 understands my point of view, and respects me. Iss246 (talk) 03:21, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Nowhere in Miner's book does he state Mayo was NOT a Psychologist, by the way.

Miner does write as much. Miner does not hold the view that Mayo was a psychologist. See page 60 of Miner's book. Iss246 (talk) 03:23, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

In Australia, unlike the USA, you don't need a Doctorate to be called a Psychologist. You still don't. I think this is where you and Miner and US psychologists may be getting confused. All you needed in Australia, and in fact, all you still need today is a Bachelors Degree with Honours to be called a Psychologist. Mayo had this Degree awarded. Mayo, in Australia was a Psychologist. If he was alive today, he still would be a Psychologist and could practice in Australia and call himself a Psychologist.

Was that the case in 1912? That is in 1912, did the Australian government require someone with a bachelor's degree with honors in psychology to call himself or herself a psychologist? In more contemporary times, the government has required prospective bachelor's level psychologists to have supervised experience, an experience supervised by a registered psychologist. Was that the case in 1912? Iss246 (talk) 03:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Looks like it was the wild west (at least as far as psychology was concerned). I suspect, but don't know, that you just said you were and, if people believed you and were willing to pay you, you were. Also, proof that Mental & Moral Philosophy taught at the time included psychology.

Thank you Bromley86 for doing the research needed to find the above web sites. I still find it vexing that there are no straightforward guidelines regarding whether to call Mayo a psychologist. Of course you know that I take the view of Miner with regard to the issue. Who knows? Maybe some information will turn up that we overlooked that will shed further light. But it was good that you found the above web sites. Iss246 (talk) 23:00, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Elton Mayo as at least 3 reliable sources, clearly state was an Australian-born Psychologist. In Australia, that is. Not in America. But in Australia he was definitely a Psychologist. Bromley is correct in their conclusion. That is why the Trahaire source and many others clearly state that Mayo was a Psychologist in Australia.

The point you are missing is that he was a Psychologist in Australia. He was perhaps not a Psychologist in the United States. This is clearly where Miner got confused. Its the same as today If an Australian Psychologist travels to the USA they can't use the Title as a Psychologist in the United States, unless they have a Doctorate. But they are still a Psychologist (in Australia) and can still use the title of Psychologist in Australia.

So far, you have NOT provided even one, single reliable source that clearly states Elton Mayo was not a Psychologist? Not even one. None exist. Hope that clears things up. Misplaced Pages is based on what the reliable published sources say iss246 not what you or Harvard wants them to say! In Australia, Elton Mayo was definitely a Psychologist. Full stop.Truthbringer1 (talk) 23:47, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Mayo was not a psychologist although he still contributed to research on industrial relations

User:Bromley86. I have been reading about Mayo. The three most definitive works on Mayo are by Cullen in his dissertation on Mayo, Miner in his book on the history of organizational behavior, and Trahair's Elton Mayo: The humanist temper. All three works have been cited in the Misplaced Pages entry on Mayo. Cullen does not mention that Mayo was a psychologist. Miner indicated that Mayo was not a psychologist. Miner wrote, "An effective speaker and proficient in cultivating influential friends and mentors, he nevertheless had little by way of academic credentials and practically no training in the conduct of scientific research. In actual fact, he was much more a social philosopher than the psychologist or psychiatrist he would have preferred to be" (p. 60). Trahair wrote, "Mayo was not a psychologist, sociologist, or anthropologist, although sometimes he was cast as such" (p. 357). Trahair informs the reader that there were times Mayo let himself be cast as a clinical psychologist. Trahair and Cullen also indicated that Mayo let interlocutors call him "Dr. Mayo" without correcting the mistake.

I add that Trahair is Australian, a professor at La Trobe University. I don't think he can be accused of anti-Australian prejudice, of which I was wrongly accused by Truthbringer1.

I would like to edit the Mayo article to reflect these scholarly works. The scholarly works trump encyclopedia articles that are largely unsourced or come from non-close readings of books like Trahair's. The research I cited is carefully sourced.

We can agree that he was an industrial researcher. Indicating that he was not a psychologist does not detract from his contribution to the study of industrial relations. In the interest of accuracy in Misplaced Pages, the change should be made. Iss246 (talk) 16:39, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll try to have a look at it tonight; I'm surprised Trahair said that. Bromley86 (talk) 13:48, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Right, I'll not deal with Miner & Cullen, as I believe that's been covered before (i.e. retain psychologist, discuss dissenting opinions in the body). Trahair is the key, although even if he repudiated Mayo psychologist status throughout, for the purposes of WP, it could be convincingly argued that it should only be discussed in the body (see final sentence).

I can only access the online preview. P.143, lots of psychologist stuff. P.75 has psychology students. P.121, 126; lecturing on psychology, with a suggestion of a chair in psychology (rather than philosophy) and research in psychology on p.126. P.160 (& others), treating patients. I got bored there; Trahair says he's a psychologist on so many pages. (Not enough? P.17 "established himself as a leading psychologist". P.103 "reputation grew as a successful academic, clinic psychologist and public speaker". P.131, self identifies as a psychologist.) P.357 is interesting, more so if I could access the context, but again it's probably not sufficient to overcome the reliable sources that say he is.

I recently had an experienced editor tell me that is a reliable source said the sky was green, then that's what WP should say. Not sure I agree with him in that case, but here it looks more solid. Bromley86 (talk) 23:44, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

My recommendation is that you get hold of the book. I borrowed it through my university library's inter-library loan facility because it wasn't in the university library. The book makes clear that Mayo would have liked to have been a clinical psychologist or a psychiatrist. Mayo even teams up with a psychiatrist to help people, and developed some envy of the psychiatrist.

I know Google Books. It gives snippets but the snippets fail to give the comprehensive picture a book provides. It can deceive a reader into believing one thing when the author makes a different point. Which is the case with Mayo.

You cited page 17. I also read that in the preface. It is clear from reading further in the book that what Mayo did was to let people think he was a psychologist or a sociologist--both Trahair and Cullen make it clear that it was more passive on Mayo's part than his actively lying about credentials. He also let people think he had a doctorate. But he did it in a passive way. He didn't actively lie to people. He let people think these things about him. He was an important figure. I liked him. But I would like to have an accurate portrayal of him in Misplaced Pages. 01:21, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Reverted the most recent attempt to murder the lead. You need to get it into the body, which I might support (although others might not) first. Then it can be considered for the lead, although, frankly, the fact that he is frequently described as a psychologist means it'll likely stay there. A suggested rough text for the body is something like this (bolded heading to avoid messing up the sectioning here):

Classification

Although Mayo is frequently described as a psychologist, some biographers have indicated that he was not. Miner observed that Mayo was more a social philosopher than a psychologist. Trahair wrote, "Mayo was not a psychologist, sociologist, or anthropologist, although sometimes he was cast as such."

There's no need, as some might, to go crazy on the citing of the frequently described part.

As it's really not central to the article, this would be the last section.

All this ignores the fact that, rather than trying to construct an argument out of fragments from biographies, what we should probably really be doing is changing the lead (from psychologist, industrial researcher and organizational theorist) to reflect what Bourke called him, namely "social theorist and industrial psychologist". Job done. Bromley86 (talk) 17:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Bromley86, I rewrote the section with an acknowledgement that there is some disagreement as to whether Mayo was a psychologist. The text of my writing does not ignore that there is disagreement. It acknowledges disagreement. I pointed out that the researchers who have been closest to the source material did not view Mayo as a psychologist although I acknowledged that the Britannica differs. I am not constructing from fragments but from the most important publications bearing on Mayo's life. Moreover, I did not invite you to insult me with a comment about "going crazy." I've been courteous with you. I don't see why you cannot reciprocate instead of giving me this "crazy" comment as if tarring someone who disagrees with you must be crazy. What I wrote was measured and balanced. Iss246 (talk) 20:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Do you understand what a lead is? Have you read what I wrote? The "go crazy" referred not to you (as you've not added a load of unnecessary cites to the section of text that I've suggested and was referring to) but to your detractors (who will add a load of cites to that statement, unnecessarily, to prove their point). Bromley86 (talk) 23:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I still object to the term "go crazy." It is not appropriate. The detractors to whom you refer were banned from Misplaced Pages. Moreover, I can't permit detractors who may have erroneous notions guide my writing. Yes, I understand what a lead is. I more or less left the lead in tact except for the removing reference to Mayo's being a psychologist. In the second paragraph, I underlined the notion that calling Mayo a psychologist is controversial, and the reader should know that.Iss246 (talk) 03:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

You've been bold, been reverted, and failed to secure consensus (WP:BRD). Would you like me to invite a 3rd party in? Bromley86 (talk) 06:15, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I thought that that my last edit, in which I removed from the lead the paragraph about the controversy regarding Mayo's being a psychologist, and put the paragraph in the main body of text, would help you and me arrive at a consensus. Iss246 (talk) 15:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Best talk about it here first. Objections:

(1) In the absence of other opinions, and bearing in mind I know nothing about Mayo other than what I've researched on this Talk page, I think that the word psychologist needs to be in the lead. It's what he's often called by reliable sources. As I said, I'm personally happy for that term to be as part of a phrase (such as "industrial psychologist"), but you should expect that even that may be changed over time back to "psychologist" (again, just because that's what he's often called, including in the source I just used). There's also the fact that the psychologist WP article covers industrial/organisational psychologists, so a convincing argument can be made to call him plain "psychologist" in the lead, just as you'd call an infantryman and a tanker, "soldier"). Anyway, just warning you that you'll need to police this page and that consensus may change.

And you need to expect that the wikilink might be changed to point to psychologist, just as it does in Cecil Alec Mace.

(2) The use of the word "controversial". Shouldn't be in there as there's no controversy, at least outside of this talk page. This applies to the infobox, the section title and the text of the section.

(3) The section that I called Classification, but could be called anything similarly neutral. The version I included above is a simple, clear and neutral description of the situation. Expressions like "Although . . ." convey an opinion. Further, if using the phrase "biographers close to the documentary source material", you'd need to explain how the biographers that we quote/paraphrase (Miner & Cullen) trump other possibles. I'd suggest that that's avoided, as it places undue weight on this section; the fact that we include them but no others should be enough to convey the idea that they are important. The "Dr." and "clinical psychologist" points are best not included, as that's beside the point; there are plenty of reasons, unrelated to whether or not he should be described as a psychologist, why he might have encouraged those erroneous impressions.

So, suggested text for the body is as above. Once we agree on that, or something like it, we can tweak it if needed.

Suggested text for the lead follows Bourke's wording here, i.e. "social theorist and industrial psychologist". That gets "psychologist" in there; Britannica calls him "industrial sociolog", which is a subset of the WP industrial psychologist article

Note that I didn't wl the expression "social philosopher" as there's some question in my mind as to whether it should point where it does at the moment or to the social philosophy article. I've asked over on another talk page.

Also, I've found a source (by Bourke) for that OR I did a while back that showed that Mental & Moral Philosophy included Psychology. Bromley86 (talk) 18:10, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

This is my response, and what I propose.

1. I would like to restore the paragraph I wrote. However, I would entitle the caption above the paragraph "Was Mayo a psychologist?"

2. The word "controversy" would be gone from the caption.

3. I would also delete the first sentence from the paragraph b/c it contains the word "controversy."

4. There is not enough in the Cecil Alec Mace entry to draw parallels with Mayo.

5. The idea that someone can contribute to a field such as industrial/organizational psychology does not make the person an industrial/organizational psychologist. I note the term organizational psychologist did not become common currency until the 1960s and 1970s. Mayo could not have been an industrial/organizational psychologist. Many researchers have contributed to fields other than their own without becoming professionals in the new fields to which they contributed.

6. I mention Britannica because it is a highly prestigious encyclopedia.

7. I explained how Miner, Cullen, and Trahair trump Britannica. The three authors were closer to the documentary material, some of which is housed at HBS and a library in the UK.

I am going to make the change I proposed. Iss246 (talk) 22:46, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

You clearly don't get how the discussing it on the talk page part works. I'm reverting again and asking for WP:3O. Please refrain from making the disputed changes to the article until someone responds to the request, which may take up to 6 days. Bromley86 (talk) 23:02, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

What "you clearly don't get" is that my edits are disputed by you and not anyone else (excepting someone who was banned from Misplaced Pages). And that your changing my edits is okay but my changing yours is not. You have already indicated above that you don't know that much about Mayo, and I quote, "I know nothing about Mayo other than what I've researched on this Talk page...." By contrast, I have read about Mayo. I think I have more knowledge about his career (I even visited the Hawthorne exhibition at HBS).

Moreover, I have respected your view that the question of whether or not Mayo was a psychologist does not belong in the lead. Because I respected your view, I placed a paragraph on the question regarding his being a psychologist in the body of the article.

In addition, I respected your view that the word "controversy" may not be the most apt word. I reworded the section to write about the "question" of whether Mayo was a psychologist. There is certainly a question about whether Mayo could be called a psychologist. It was raised by Trahair and Miner in their books.

The way I see our disagreement about the article is that you should be respecting my edits, and not wiping them out wholesale as if you are the more knowledgeable about Mayo. Iss246 (talk) 17:27, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Look, you've been trying to make these changes for a long time now. Whatever the situation with the original editor that you were bumping heads with, I came here with no axe to grind. I've looked at it in detail and I believe that there's simply no way around the fact that reliable sources call him a psychologist. I'm not won over by your argument. You've still failed to achieve consensus for the change to this article that is counter to what reliable sources say. Therefore, it doesn't happen.

I've asked for someone else, who will almost certainly be unknown to me, to come in and offer a 3rd opinion. If it goes against me, then fine; that's consensus. What you don't do is add to the article when you have no consensus to do so. You discuss it on the Talk page.

So, in summary, your last statement is wrong. I've already conceded that I'm far less knowledgeable about Mayo, but then the other side of that coin is that I really have no axe to grind here. At the end of the day, WP just reflects what others say. Bromley86 (talk) 17:56, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I want to be clear. Your being won over by an argument is not my aim. I think accuracy is a more important aim. In the interest of accuracy, we can agree that a distinguished encyclopedia like the Britannica calls Mayo a psychologist. In the interest of accuracy, we can agree that the scholars who are very close to the source material have indicated that he wasn't a psychologist. Instead of being won over by what I wrote, it is better to check with the Miner, Trahair, and Cullen if you think I am misrepresenting them (I returned my copy of Trahair to the Interlibrary Loan librarian two days ago because it was due). I even took the trouble of getting in touch with Cullen to make sure I understood the matter.

I don't believe that there is disagreement regarding what a world leading encyclopedia wrote and what leading scholars wrote. I reported on that in a paragraph. As per your recommendation, I removed the paragraph from the lead, and placed it in the body of the text. As per your recommendation, I replaced the term "controversy" with the term "question." You have been undoing my edits while I have accepted your editorial commentary. You undid my edits despite your not having knowledge of the subject except for what was written in the talk page. I find objectionable this one-sided approach to editing. Iss246 (talk) 19:28, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

3O Response: I suggest the matter of what this person actually was be sidestepped. Present that he styled himself as a psychologist, and others considered him to be so based on his work, but that he lacked formal education or credentials in the field. Rhoark (talk) 16:17, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

1. "Elton Mayo". Encyclopædia Britannica.
2. Cite error: The named reference Miner was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
3. Cite error: The named reference Trahair was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class University of Pennsylvania articles
• Unknown-importance University of Pennsylvania articles
• Start-Class WikiProject Business articles
• Low-importance WikiProject Business articles
• WikiProject Business articles
• Start-Class Australia articles
• Unknown-importance Australia articles
• WikiProject Australia articles
• Start-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles