ABSTRACT This paper reviews socio-hydrology and hydrosocial research, finding a sophisticated relationship with emergent syntheses. We examined 419 papers by topic, region of study, theories implemented, journal, and year published to ascertain trends in both subfields. We found important overlap and considerable difference between subfields. Whereas hydrosocial research took years to develop, socio-hydrology commenced with an inaugural paper in 2012. While the former focuses on power and scale in studying water demand, the latter concentrates on practical responses to climate extremes. Hydrosocial research usually relies on qualitative methods, and socio-hydrology research the quantitative. In the geographic regions where the former does not focus, the latter does. The former often relies on post-structuralist theory, whereas the latter uses positivist approaches. Our review concludes that socio-hydrology and hydrosocial research exist in a complex epistemological relationship, offering fertile grounds for lively discussions from which both will continue to benefit.

中文翻译：

---

社会水文学与水社会理论：同一枚硬币的两个方面？

摘要 本文回顾了社会水文学和水文社会研究，发现了与紧急综合的复杂关系。我们按主题、研究领域、实施的理论、期刊和发表年份检查了 419 篇论文，以确定这两个子领域的趋势。我们发现了子领域之间的重要重叠和显着差异。水文社会研究需要数年时间才能发展起来，而社会水文学从 2012 年的一篇就职论文开始。前者侧重于研究用水需求的功率和规模，而后者则侧重于对极端气候的实际响应。水文社会研究通常依赖于定性方法，而社会水文学研究则依赖于定量方法。在前者不关注的地理区域，后者关注。前者往往依赖于后结构主义理论，而后者使用实证主义的方法。我们的审查得出的结论是，社会水文学和水社会研究存在于复杂的认识论关系中，为双方将继续受益的热烈讨论提供了肥沃的土壤。