Healthy Skepticism

Abstract

In general, it's wise to be skeptical, but from politics to the media to the endless marketing robocalls, these days it's hard not to be especially weary from the weight of doubt. It seems at times as if too much important discourse is driven by ideology and self-interest, and too little attention is given to ongoing stewardship and continuous improvement of our communities and institutions. Because water is intertwined in the very fabric of everyone's life, the water industry is not isolated from the baggage of excessive skepticism. This is a shame, because a healthy level of skepticism provides a first level of defense against risks and unknown consequences and is an integral part of any field's evolution. For the water industry, which seeks to protect public health, community development, and the environment, every significant change must be met first with skepticism rightfully born from concerns over quality, safety, and sustainability. Skepticism has itself recently been a concern at Journal AWWA (JAWWA) because of the transition this year to publish peer-reviewed research in AWWA Water Science (AWS). This means that the water industry's most comprehensive peer-review process for refereed, original research now exists outside of JAWWA, with the exception of the monthly AWS Research Highlights that we publish. As of January this year and moving forward, know that the publication process for JAWWA provides technical reviews of feature articles and columns but not the systematic peer review provided in AWS. This has always been the case for the features and columns in JAWWA, though it may be more apparent now that the peer-reviewed content has moved to its own publication. AWS's scholarly peer review is invaluable because it draws together experienced subject matter experts to validate and improve the communication of research before its published. Review comments usually include feedback on the acceptability of approaches and methods, and for AWS, novelty and originality are also considered. But while the critical judgment of peer reviewers helps ensure a work's reliability and validity to some degree, by no means does a small sample of opinions guarantee things are altogether correctly stated or 100% accurate. The move of scholarly peer review to AWS means that some of the burden for skepticism has shifted to JAWWA readers. Some skepticism should have always been present, but readers should reinforce the need to ask probing questions as they read JAWWA's feature articles and columns (especially mine). JAWWA aims to introduce new concepts and strategies, and this process of information exchange and debate is improved when approached with an open mind but viewed with a skeptical eye. The ongoing professional dialogues and rational conversations within JAWWA improve our overall body of knowledge and make our understanding broader and deeper from the defense against skepticism. Expect proof and reassurances when dealing in water and water works, and try not to let outside factors unduly influence your ability to understand and accept truth even if you must approach the unknown with some level of skepticism. From the bigger picture, your skepticism is really just one additional barrier in the multiple-barrier approach that results in safe and plentiful water for healthy communities and environments. This month's Journal AWWA features an interview with the A.P. Black Research Award winner David Reckhow, with additional feature articles on emergency events and incident responses along with asset management and utility finance. To write for the Journal, e-mail me at [email protected].