Rescuing the Decision Process Matthew R. Auer School of Public and International Affairs University of Georgia Matthew.Auer@uga.edu My observations on Harold D. Lassǁells contributions to public policy research and practice are informed by an early-2000s stint as editor of Policy Sciences, but more profoundly, as a reader of works by contemporary policy scientists and as a teacher of public policy and public administration. In two prior editorial notes, Garry Brewer (2017) and Bill Ascher (2017) reflect on the work of bringing to publication genuinely problem-oriented, multi-method research, steeped in actual, concrete (versus hypothetical, generalized) social and political contexts. In selecting and editing submissions to Policy Sciences, neither Brewer nor Ascher, nor to my knowledge, any other editor of the journal, insisted on Lassǁells policy sciences framework as a prerequisite for publication. Clear writing, well-defined problem narratives, sound methods and persuasive arguments were the main expectations. Brewer and Ascher published worthy submissions (see Ascher 2017, 160-161), but only after much winnowing and editorial care. These trends continued during my own tenure as editor: I helped bring good policy research to light, but only after wading through much darkness. Few submissions even held to the basic staŶdaƌd of adǀaŶĐiŶg the ƌeadeƌs understanding of public policy. Fewer still were clear and persuasive diagnoses of problems or guides for improving policy. Submissions that were published featured clear problem statements, contexts that could be located in time and space, well-defined variables, and frank acknowledgement of gaps in the analysis. For the purposes of discovering, shaping and sharing sound policy research, Policy Sciences editors roles are important, but the gatekeeping and editorial work of other experts are more important still. Public policy textbooks, handbooks, and encyclopedia – how they present the fundamentals of the study of public policy, and how they make reference to the policy sciences in doing so – are the core concerns of the present note. Public policy textbooks reach a much wider audience than does Policy Sciences, and arguably, the downside risks of flawed explanations of the policy process are greater when the primary consumers are students. Lassǁells deĐisioŶ pƌoĐess, or more precisely, the various reformulations and distortions of the decision process, deserve particular attention because secondary source treatments of the decision process are as close as most students of public policy ever get to insights from Lasswell. Misreadings have continued long after others have tried to set the record straight (see DeLeon 1999; Auer 2007). Hence, there is value in laying out first principles, identifying where the critics go off course, and providing a reference point to prospective authors of articles in this journal, and more vitally still, to authors of policy textbooks.