| dc.description.abstract | Rivers flow across national borders, unfettered by political distinctions, and the ecological health of rivers is closely linked to their degree of connectivity. River research today is more global than it has ever been, but we show that river research, engineering, and management still operate within homegrown local paradigms. As a basis for this discussion, we studied the citation networks surrounding the most widely cited papers in our field, assessing the degree to which researchers have collaborated across geographical boundaries and fully drawn from the international literature. Despite gains over time, our field remains surprisingly and pervasively provincial. The likely explanation for provincial bias is that researchers are generally more familiar and comfortable with their own research methods, sites, and agendas. However, local focus has tangible consequences. For example, contrasting paradigms and differing approaches to river restoration and to flood-risk management show that opportunities are lost when we fail to learn from the successes and failures of other regions. As Sharp and Leshner (2014; p. 579) have argued, "the search for solutions needs to draw upon the talents and innovative ideas of scientists, engineers, and societal leaders worldwide to overcome traditional and nationalistic paradigms that have so far been inadequate to meeting these challenges." | en_US |
