The Enemy of Teaching Evidence-Based Policy: The Powell-Bush Doctrine of Public Affairs

Abstract

Public policies are increasingly debated and approached from a war perspective that is clearly at odds with the academic focus on objective, evidence-based policy in the field of public affairs education. This paper introduces and defines the Powell-Bush Doctrine as policy interests and surrogates that have taken to waging war on issues, and do so increasingly through unilateral preemptive strikes and the use of overwhelming force with the sole objective of winning, regardless of public opinion, evidence, or consequences. This leads to discussion of the five major pitfalls of the evidence-based policy education in light of the Powell-Bush Doctrine: ideology/politics, emotion versus reason, lack of an evidentiary standard, poor messaging, and lack of a definition of public affairs. Each of these pitfalls is integrated with a NASPAA core competency and is informed by knowledge of other disciplines in the true nature of public affairs. The goal of this work is to identify the enemy of teaching evidence-based policy to better educate students in the field so they are less susceptible to the five pitfalls of the Powell-Bush Doctrine and more ready for the policy battlefield that is increasingly expected to lie ahead.

Keywords:

• Powell-Bush Doctrine of Public Affairs
• evidence-based policy
• NASPAA competencies

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Joseph Ferrandino

Joseph Ferrandino, PhD, is assistant professor of Criminal Justice at the School of Public and Environmental Affairs (SPEA) at Indiana University–Northwest. He researches the intersection of the new governance of public administration and criminal justice systems, organizations, and policies as well as the efficiency and productivity of criminal justice systems. He is also data and policy analyst for 10 police and fire departments in Northwest Indiana.