Interesting or Important? Resetting the Balance of Theory and Application

Guest Editorial/

Interesting or Important? Resetting the Balanceof Theory and Applicationby Randall J. Hunt1 and John Doherty2,3

Hydrogeology was founded on the need to solvereal-world problems, and societal needs underpinnedhydrogeologic investigations during the 20th century.Theory was an adjunct for solving societal problems.In the mid-1930s, well hydraulic theory was introducedto quantify the transient response around an individualpumping well. In the 1960s, an understanding of flowbeyond the single well was needed and a theoreticalrepresentation of a regional flow system was developed.Transport observations in the early 1900s were followedby transport theory, which in turn was followed byfield work testing the theory. Groundwater modeling tooiterated between theory and application, where real-worldconcerns informed and directed theoretical development.

This complementary feedback of theory and appli-cation has become decoupled in the 21st century. Manytheoretical developments languish in academic journalsand remain unapplied; state-of-the-practice approachesreflect the era when hydrogeologists were trained morethan the state of the current science. Decoupling arisesfrom many factors. The sum of theoretical investigationis on the whole larger than in the 20th century. Hydro-geology has become more specialized; “niche” areas orresearch microenvironments provide publication outletsfor findings not widely applicable. Evaluation of researchproposals and distribution of funds are often uncoupledfrom the societal need that drove the initial request for theproposal. Finally, publication in a peer-reviewed journalis viewed as the “coin” of the impact realm—an objec-tive quantum of scientific contribution. The explosion ofpublications provides many opportunities to stamp thesecoins, irrespective of the exchange rate of the resultingcurrency.

An unfortunate result of decoupling is that there islittle sorting of the interesting (that which is publishable)from the important (that which has widespread utility tosolve societal problems). Such lack of sorting is not be-nign. Research funds for hydrological work will become

1USGS Wisconsin Water Science Center, 8505 Research Way,Middleton, WI 53562; rjhunt@usgs.gov

2Watermark Numerical Computing, Corinda, Queensland,Australia; johndoherty@ozemail.com.au

3National Centre for Groundwater Research and Training,Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.

© 2011, The Author(s)Ground Water © 2011, National Ground Water Association.doi: 10.1111/j.1745-6584.2011.00807.x

scarcer as other societal needs become more dire; inter-esting alone will not automatically translate to valuable.Moreover, there is an opportunity cost: Overemphasiz-ing the interesting crowds out effort that could be doneon the societally important. Perhaps most tellingly, to anon-scientist, such imbalance makes it appear as if weare fiddling while Rome burns. Today’s water-resourceproblems are getting larger, more coalesced/connected,more interdisciplinary, and affecting more and more peo-ple. Efforts dominated with curiosity driven research onnarrow, but interesting, things might be considered a lux-ury ill-afforded by a water-stressed public.

What can be done to restore the balance of appli-cation and theory? A renewed emphasis on applicationsdesigned to test theoretical constructs is needed. Collab-oration between theoretical and applied researchers andoutreach/training elements should be explicit in a workplan, not left to luck and serendipity. Professional soci-eties should bring the metric of application to the fore onall awards, not just the subset of awards that highlightnon-theoretical aspects of hydrogeology. As in the 20thcentury, a lifetime of field experience should be recog-nized as valuable as a swathe of publications. Academicassessment should do more than cursorily acknowledgethe need for education that equips students with both thepractical and theoretical knowledge to solve the largeenvironmental and water management challenges thatsociety faces. Such efforts would emphasize that trueimpact is ultimately valued using metrics beyond citationcounts. The economic or societal benefits, and the feed-back of practitioners, are all needed to judge the valueadded. With such a view, a short fact sheet or soft-ware utility that facilitates better hydrogeological problemsolving would be valued higher than publication in a high-impact factor journal, which is seen by some, cited by less,and applied by none.

We expect those comfortable in the current systemwill not see value in such rebalancing. But the effect ofresearch that overly emphasizes the academic seems self-evident; not many look to have their work characterized as“Ivory Tower.” In many ways, hydrogeology started outas a boots-on-the-ground science. As such, we believerebalancing, along with a renewed focus on appliedaspects of our science, will ultimately serve society, ourindustry, and the future of hydrogeology, most effectively.

Editor’s Note: Opinions expressed are the authors’ andnot necessarily those of the National Ground WaterAssociation, the U.S. Geological Survey, or NationalCentre for Groundwater Research and Training.

NGWA.org Vol. 49, No. 3–GROUND WATER–May-June 2011 301