CaseForHGv4

University of Birmingham
The case for the retention of
Hydrogeology Research and
Education at the University of
Birmingham
A report compiled by PhD candidates in Hydrogeology in defence of the
Hydrogeology Group against the recent GEES proposal
Hydrogeology PhD Candidates, Earth Sciences, University of Birmingham
02/12/15

3
The case for the retention of
Hydrogeology Research and Education
at the University of Birmingham
A report compiled by PhD candidates in Hydrogeology in defence of the
Hydrogeology Group against the recent GEES proposal
Authors
Simiao Sun
Ban To
Omar Al-Azzo
Ben Harvey
Rohazaini Muhammad Jamil
Christopher Barry
Please make your views and queries known to the Change Management Group or the
University of Birmingham Executive Board. The former may be contacted at:
hydrogeology@contacts.bham.ac.uk
Additionally, you can comment on the online petition at: https://www.change.org/p/prof-
david-hannah-save-the-university-of-birmingham-msc-hydrogeology-course

4
Contents
Authors....................................................................................................................................................3
Executive Summary.................................................................................................................................5
1. Analysis of REF2014 Submissions ...................................................................................................6
Research Outputs....................................................................................................................................6
A reflection on analysing research performance............................................................................6
REF2014 Outputs ............................................................................................................................6
Research Impact....................................................................................................................................10
Research Environment..........................................................................................................................11
2. The contributions of the Hydrogeology Group.............................................................................13
Ongoing Research .................................................................................................................................13
Contributions to University Education..................................................................................................14
Contributions to Industry......................................................................................................................18
3. Concerns about provision for current PhD students ....................................................................19
Supervisory requirements.....................................................................................................................19
Provision of Supervision for continuation of PhDs ...............................................................................20
4. Concerns about the handling of the consultation process...........................................................22
The Process as a Whole ........................................................................................................................22
Involvement of PhD Students in the Consultation ...............................................................................22
Adverse impacts by the proposal and proposed changes ....................................................................24
5. Conclusions and Reflections .........................................................................................................26
Appendix A: REF2014 analysis of Water Sciences outputs...................................................................28
Appendix B: Research Groups of Water Sciences Research Staff.........................................................31
Appendix C: Comments of Endorsement for University of Birmingham Hydrogeology in the Impact
Case Study submitted to REF20147
.......................................................................................................32
Appendix D: Selected Comments from workers in the Water Industry13
.............................................33

5
Executive Summary
On 22nd
October 2015 it was announced via e-mail to the PhD students in the Hydrogeology Group
that the school of Geography, Earth and Environmental Science (GEES) had released a proposal
which set out plans to disinvest in the field of Hydrogeology. This disinvestment would result in the
termination of the Hydrogeology MSc course and reduction of investment in Hydrogeology research,
with a loss of 7-8 FTE positions, as confirmed to the authors by the Guild of Students, and staff
members with agreement from the Change Management Group. The stated reasons in the e-mail
(which mirrors the text in the webpage associated with the proposal1
and can be seen in Appendix E:
E-mail notification to PhD students about the GEES proposal, 22/10/2015) may be summarised as
such: GEES needs to sharpen its research focus and vision and therefore reprioritise investment into
key areas of demonstrable global strengths.
The reasons given do not constitute a specific line of reasoning that would lead to the conclusion
that GEES’s research would be of higher calibre or more focussed in the future with less or no
research in Hydrogeology. Despite repeated requests, the Change Management Group has declined
to supply the PhD students with the more complete line of reasoning on the grounds that the
School’s Research Strategy Document is commercially sensitive. Therefore, it has not been possible
to address the case for the disinvestment directly. This report considers all possible lines of
reasoning as far as the authors could conceive and addresses them. The report then describes the
positive reasons for which the Hydrogeology Group should be considered a great asset to the
university and therefore should be protected and invested in, not removed.
Further sections list concerns about provision for PhD students in the event that the proposal is
accepted and about the management of the consultation process, providing references to
supporting documents and legislation that give formal grounds for raising these as complaints.
Key points covered include the Hydrogeology Group’s submissions to REF2014, both outputs and the
impact case study (the latter being the only contribution of its type from Water Sciences). An
overview of current research topics is given, showing that the research from the group is both
productive and relevant, covering many important and high-profile societal issues. The
Hydrogeology Group’s contributions to university education and industry are analysed, showing that
the group is an asset to the University of Birmingham that contributes positively to the university’s
standing in research, education and society. On the topic of communication with and provision for
supervision, the authors believe that they have been unreasonably denied relevant information,
particularly on the subject of continuing supervision. The supervision needs of the PhD students (the
authors) are tabulated and demonstrate that only experts in the field of Hydrogeology will be able to
supervise the ongoing PhD projects.
This report is based entirely on information that is legitimately available to the authors, all of whom
are Hydrogeology PhD students and are subject to identical confidentiality constraints. All
information contained within is appropriate for public dissemination. No academic staff or other
members of the University of Birmingham have confided in the authors any information which
would breach confidentiality requirements. The report represents and has been driven by the
knowledge and views of the authors. All external information is referenced.
1
https://intranet.birmingham.ac.uk/les/gees/research-vision/index.aspx

6
1. Analysis of REF2014 Submissions
Research Outputs
A reflection on analysing research performance
The following section provides an analysis of Hydrogeology’s contribution to REF2014. In terms of
both outputs and research impact, the contributions of the Hydrogeology Group are strong, at least
on a par with Water Sciences as a whole. However, before embarking on such an analysis, it seems
prudent to temper such discussion with a reflection on the value of measuring research performance
solely by outputs to scientific journals. The following reflection posted on the online petition to
retain Hydrogeology at the University of Birmingham2
expresses this sentiment.
It has been a while since we started to be obsessed and blinded by the false glory of publications and
pressured by these research evaluations. We seem to have forgotten the original intentions why we
came up with these evaluation standards: To discover the truth, to extend the boundary, to help with
the reality and to influence the young… These are the shared values of science and education, which
ought to be served by those standards, not otherwise. When you know it for sure that these capable,
dedicated and inspiring academic staff have built a legendry course and successful research
department, which has become the cradle of hydrogeologists of UK and beyond; when you know it
for sure that its alumni has blossomed all over the world, remediating contaminated lands and
safeguarding the most important natural resources; when you know it
for sure that these difficult multi-discipline knowledge, experiences
and achievements along with professional dedication is being passed
on by its messengers globally within and across industries, academia,
regulation organizations and private sectors, can you really convince
yourself based on whatever evaluation you’ve conducted, that this is
not an example of excellency but redundancy?
I come from China where everything is pushed to be accelerated,
quantified, mass-produced and result-oriented, tragically including
science and education. I felt so fortunate that I’m allowed sufficient time to doubt, to mistake, to
condense, to wonder, to imagine and to create. This is how this department has changed my life.
This is one of thousands of examples, demonstrating real power and influence.3
REF2014 Outputs
The GEES proposal1
cites REF2014 feedback as key supporting evidence:
We plan to enhance and build on the demonstrable global strengths in Water Sciences at the
University of Birmingham; REF2014 feedback highlighted hydrology, hydroecology, sedimentology
(i.e. river processes) and environmental change as particular world-leading strengths in Physical
Geography.
The REF2014 feedback is not available to the authors due to understandable confidentiality
stipulations. However, a summary of the REF2014 assessment of Earth and Environmental Sciences
2
https://www.change.org/p/prof-david-hannah-save-the-university-of-birmingham-msc-hydrogeology-course
3
Simiao Sun, current PhD student
We seem to have forgotten the original
intentions why we came up with these
evaluation standards: To discover the
truth, to extend the boundary, to help
with the reality and to influence the
young.

7
is freely available online4
. This section analyses the outputs listed within Water Sciences as listed on
the REF2014 website. In total for GEES, there are 106 submitted outputs for Earth and
Environmental Sciences and 98 for Geography, Environmental Sciences and Archaeology. There are
60 output submissions from Water Sciences, across both divisions. The subject boundaries are
devised by REF2014 rather than the University of Birmingham. Water Sciences unhelpfully straddles
these two divisions, which reinforces the perception that groundwater and surface water studies are
independent fields. At the University of Birmingham this false perception is given further weight by
the fact that Hydrogeology and Hydrology research are based in separate buildings.
In the following analysis, Water Sciences is divided into five research groups according to those listed
by the proposal: Hydrogeology, Sedimentology (river bed processes), Hydrology, Hydroecology and
Environmental Change. Apologies are made for the dual usage of the term Hydrology, which in its
broadest sense could be used to encompass the latter four or indeed all five of these fields. For the
remainder of this section, “Hydrology” is used in the narrow sense, referring to one of the four
Water Sciences research groups, which specialise in surface water related study. The research group
to which an output is attributed is based on the authors, rather than the exact topic of the paper,
although clearly there is a close match. Since it is not clear exactly which staff member falls into
which research group, this was determined from stated research interests on the GEES website5
and
is listed in Appendix B. The authors would welcome any corrections to miss-assignment at this step.
The outputs are almost entirely journal publications, although there is one conference contribution
listed for Hydroecology. The entire dataset for the 60 outputs are tabulated in Appendix A – note
that REF’s ratings of outputs are not publically available. For each, the journal name and impact
factor (when available from the journal homepage) is given and the number of citations both at the
REF2014 analysis (if given) and now. The conference contribution is assigned 0 for impact factor and
citations: this may be harsh, but as it only represents one data point the effect is not severe. A
second research group column is added to allow for any collaborations that may have occurred.
There are some collaborative outputs, notably with Environmental Health (in particular Jamie Lead)
from both groundwater and surface water, but sadly very little evidence of collaboration between
the five Water Sciences groups, even within surface water. That said, it must again be acknowledged
that the research group assignment of the staff is somewhat vague.
The number of outputs during the six REF2014-analysed years (2008—2013) are plotted in Figure 1.
As for the totals over the period: Hydrogeology staff accounted for just under a quarter of Water
Sciences research staff (7 in 29) and contributed just over a quarter of the research outputs (16 in
60). In 2008, 2009 and 2011, Hydrogeology contributed outputs well above what would be
proportionately expected. In the remaining three years, conversely it has produced below
proportion. It is noted that outputs listed on REF2014 do not constitute the comprehensive list of
publications from Water Sciences, but the analysis of REF2014 seems to have been used as major
informing evidence to the proposal.
4
http://results.ref.ac.uk/Results/BySubmission/1335
5
http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/schools/gees/people/index.aspx

8
Figure 1: Water Sciences Outputs submitted to REF2014.
The citation figures (Figure 2) show Hydrogeology roughly on a level with most of the Water Sciences
Groups (243 total citations, compared with 2084 WS total and 752 WS total excluding Environmental
Change). However, this is a figure that will vary from field to field (as indeed is number of outputs).
This is clearly seen in Environmental Change, where there are some papers that have received more
than 100 citations. However, these tend to be papers with large numbers of authors from various
institutions that are not solely creditable to the University of Birmingham. REF2014 observed that
nationally, Hydrogeology is in decline6
. From this it would seem that there would seem to be fewer
compatriots in Hydrogeology to cite papers in this field. As such, any deficit in citations attracted by
the Hydrogeology group may well be attributed to the fact that their discipline is increasingly being
reduced in this country. It is stressed that citation count is a very hard metric to compare across
disciplines, as opposed to across institutions, because the citing community will be different for
different disciplines. The statistics for journal impact factor of accepting journals (Figure 3) clearly
demonstrates that anonymous and international peer review regards the research output from
University of Birmingham Hydrogeology to be of high quality, on a par with the rest of Water
Sciences.
6
sub-panel report for UOA7: Earth Systems and Environmental Sciences in REF2014,
http://www.ref.ac.uk/media/ref/content/expanel/member/Main%20Panel%20B%20overview%20report.pdf

9
Figure 2: Water Sciences Citations for Outputs submitted to REF2014.
Figure 3: Water Sciences Journal Impact Factors for outputs submitted to REF2014. Values are for present-day Journal
Impact Factor, rather than for at the time of submission.

10
On the subject of collaborations within the university, the Hydrogeology group is certainly taking a
lead. Of their 16 outputs, 3 involved collaborations with other groups and departments: Geophysics,
Environmental Health, Biosciences and Metallurgy and Materials (one output collaborated with two
other groups). Conversely, there were only two collaborations from the three surface water
disciplines, with Environmental Health. Currently, there is a collaboration between Hydrogeology
and Geophysics studying environmental colloid movement and one between Hydrogeology and
Chemistry studying radioactivity in the environment.
It must be stated that the intent of this section is not to demonstrate that the University of
Birmingham should select another research group to disinvest in or that Hydrogeology is performing
better than any research group. The purpose is to demonstrate that the Hydrogeology group is
producing world class research along with the rest of GEES and that evidentially research
performance is not a sound basis for losing or diminishing the group. The Hydrogeology group at the
University of Birmingham has a prestigious history of more than 40 years and any review of recent
research performance must be taken in light of a long history, as well as new ongoing projects as is
discussed below. This is also to say nothing of the proven success of the group in the area of
scientific education and collaboration with other departments and industry.
One must question whether the proposal’s stated aim to sharpen its research vision is indeed
laudable. Perhaps a focus on interdisciplinary collaboration, the way in which the scientific
community in general is moving, would be a more productive drive – this could be seen as
broadening the research vision. After all, if there are five world-class research groups in a
department, why settle for four?
Research Impact
REF2014 introduced an assessment of research impacts, submitted in the form of impact case
studies, a new form of assessment not included in the previous equivalent assessment (RAE). Within
GEES, eight impact case studies were submitted, of which one was from Water Sciences. This case
study was from the Hydrogeology group: Regional Groundwater Resource Management7
. The
impact case study outlines the leading role of the Hydrogeology group in developing conceptual
understanding and regional models of important aquifers, especially of Birmingham, Manchester
and Liverpool. The usage of these aquifer resources has been strongly directed by research at the
University of Birmingham by the Hydrogeology group.
Research conducted by the Hydrogeology group on organic and inorganic contaminants have also
been instrumental in informing the management strategies in these aquifers. In Birmingham,
Liverpool and Manchester, as well as multiple other urban centres nationally and beyond,
groundwater resources have been adversely affected by the spillage of chlorinated solvents.
Historical data, laboratory studies and modelling studies from the University of Birmingham have
been of great assistance in developing and extending our knowledge of the complex behaviour of
these non-aqueous phase liquids (NAPLs) and in delineating the probable distribution of affected
groundwater. This means that the remediation of this extremely common type of pollution can be
undertaken with efficiency to safeguard nearby populations, water resources and the environment.
These studies have international relevance, which are important not only in the UK and Europe, but
7
Found at: http://results.ref.ac.uk/Submissions/Impact/1335

11
also very much of environmental relevance to the aggravating global groundwater contamination.
In Liverpool, studies by the University of Birmingham have helped to understand and manage saline
water ingress.
All the assertions within this section are backed up by letters of
endorsement by several organisations in the water industry: Severn
Trent Water, United Utilities Water, the Environment Agency, MWH
consultants and ESI consultants. A selection of endorsing comments
can be found in Appendix C.
Ultimately, the research of the Hydrogeology group has and will
continue to protect and facilitate the usage of groundwater
resources that will supply millions of people in some of Britain’s
largest urban areas, including the residents of the University of
Birmingham.
With the Research Excellence Framework now clearly valuing societal impact, it would seem
imprudent to remove a research group with a track record of societal impact which is both long-
standing and continuing.
Research Environment
A particular concern within the REF2014 results was the environment scores within the UOA7 (Earth
and Environmental Sciences) submission, which achieved 0% 4*, (100% 3*) within the REF report.
Within the UOA7 submission there are three overlapping research themes, Geosystems,
Environmental Health and the Hydrogeology (Water Sciences) research group. As seen from the
submissions for the output assessment, the majority of collaborations between the different
research groups for the submission occur between the Hydrogeology and Environmental Health
groups, and the Hydrogeology and Geosystems research group. A key theme within the UOA7
Environment Template submission was the enhancement of multi-and interdisciplinary working,
which is indeed a increasingly important theme throughout the University of Birmingham (through
initiatives such as the Institute of Advanced Studies), and indeed throughout scientific research and
academia as a whole.
The removal of the Hydrogeology group would remove the link between the different research
groups, leaving two largely separate research groups, Geosystems and Environmental Health. This
will have inevitable consequences for multi- and interdisciplinary working within the remainder of
the UOA 7 submission for REF2020 and beyond. The removal of the Hydrogeology group would also
have impact on collaborations between the Hydrogeology and Surface Water fields (Hydrology,
Hydroecology and River Bed Process), which are unfortunately lacking at present, and other fields
within the University as a whole (Chemistry Physics, Metallurgy and Materials for instance).
Hydrogeology is also an area of research that brings together a variety of academic backgrounds, as
seen by the backgrounds of the staff (Geology, Mathematics, Chemistry, Physics, Engineering,
Biology, etc.). Hydrogeology also attracts PhD students from different backgrounds (Geology,
Physics, Biology, Computer Science, Nuclear Technology, Environmental Science, Hydraulic
Engineering and Hydrogeology backgrounds from within the present cohort). Within the REF2014
With the Research Excellence
Framework now clearly valuing societal
impact, it would seem imprudent to
remove a research group with a track
record of societal impact which is both
long-standing and continuing.

12
submission, the variety of backgrounds within the Hydrogeology group is cited as giving further
potential for multidisciplinary working.
The development of the Lapworth Museum (£2 400 000 Heritage Lottery Fund) and the ECOLAB
(£330 000 University Infrastructure Fund) were cited as examples of upcoming investment within the
Schools general infrastructure within the GEES proposal email. Although undoubtedly important
investments for outreach and teaching for the school, it is unclear how these investments will
improve the research environment within the school. The first development will make the museum
more public facing, with little discernable impact on research, with the latter seemingly a facility
with little impact for the UOA7 submission for REF2020. There is no evidence within the GEES
proposal for other investments, as well as no news within the school as a whole at time of writing.
The REF2014 submission stated that “The school as a whole is in a strong financial position”,
achieving over 100% Full Economic Cost Recovery. The Hydrogeology group is believed to be cost
neutral, as funded by tuition fees from the MSc Hydrogeology and PhD students, as well as other
income from Research Councils etc. It Is unclear within the proposal how the school will cover the
financial cost of new staff members for Geosystems as promised, and further infrastructure
improvements with the removal of a cost neutral group that has a specific source of income tied to it
(tuition fees from MSc Hydrogeology students).

13
2. The contributions of the Hydrogeology Group
Ongoing Research
Hydrogeology is mentioned in two comments within the REF2014 sub-panel report for UOA76
:
In contrast, hydrogeology appears to be in decline and there is concern at the apparent loss of
national expertise, though we note that some work may not have been submitted or referred to SP 7.
The sub-panel noted that a number of specialist areas were less prominent in the REF submissions
than in previous submissions (e.g. metamorphic petrology, mineralogy, structural geology,
hydrogeology, biostratigraphy, physical oceanography, marine analytical chemistry) and seem to be
dropping out of the UK university research agenda. The UK economy relies heavily on well-qualified
and trained research scientists. These trends are therefore particularly concerning since many of
these specialties remain essential for industry, income generation and economic growth, and for
ensuring that the next generation of the workforce is suitably skilled.
It is important to frame the following section in the context of those comments, and a concern that
nationally, Hydrogeology research appears to be dropping out of the university research agenda.
The University of Birmingham is in a unique position in that it has one of the few research groups in
this field nationally.
Hydrogeology research at the University of Birmingham has the aim of protecting and improving
groundwater supplies. Research is carried out on groundwater in urban areas, on the impact of
energy on groundwater resources, and protecting groundwater resources by developing
understanding of contaminant behaviour. This research from the Hydrogeology Group is conducted
in collaboration with many external organisations, national and international, public and private to
better achieve the stated aim.
The urban groundwater theme involves research on urban water resources, including urban-system
analysis, recharge and contaminant recharge assessments, and combines water resources protection
research, with investigates the behaviour of contaminants (organic legacy and emerging organics,
inorganics, manufactured nanoparticles and viruses), and quantifying solute transport in structured
geological media.
Current projects develop unique methods for quantifying solute transport. Work on organic
contaminants includes protecting public supply wells from DNAPL Chlorinated Solvent
Contamination (MOR, AWH, CB), investigating the transient water table influence on LNAPLs (MOR,
AWH, SS) and organic matter oxidation of Fe and Mn oxides (JHT, MOR, OA). Applying our
understanding of contaminant behaviour in geological media is carried
out within two investigations on the importance of different facies
within sandstone units on contaminant transport (JHT, AWH, BT, MJ).
Nanoparticle and virus transport is investigated within projects that
look at mobility in artificial media and intact rock columns, and
developing non-invasive methods to observe particle transport within
rock pores (MSR, JHT, NS). As well as the above research which helps
protect urban water supplies, other investigations of urban
groundwater systems includes research into direct recharge in urban
Hydrogeology research appears to be
dropping out of the university research
agenda. The University of Birmingham
is in a unique position in that it has one
of the few research groups in this field
nationally.

14
aquifers (JHT, RJ) and the sustainability of Riyadh’s Urban Water system (JHT, AA).
A number of new potential sources of energy are believed to have significant impact on
groundwater resources, so research on energy-related issues includes investigates the
hydrogeological impacts of new unconventional sources of hydrocarbons, including hydraulic
fracturing of shales (‘fracking’), ground-source heat supplies, critical energy materials, and the
biogeochemistry of CO2 sequestration. The impact of radioactive wastes on groundwater is
investigated, as well as remediation and geological disposal of these wastes.
Projects currently being carried out in this area include the first UK attempt to develop an
environmental baseline in areas where fracking has the potential to occur (MOR, JHT). Recent
developments in creating a geological disposal facility for radioactive waste within the UK has led to
research into the potential for colloids to facilitate radionuclide transport from such a facility,
creating numerical models of in-situ field tests of coupled colloid-radionuclide transport (AWH, MSR,
JHT, LM, BH) and also investigating the geochemistry that affects colloid and radionuclide mobility.
As well as research into geological disposal of radioactive wastes, hydrogeological impacts of the
current surface storage for radioactive waste is investigated through a project that researches the
impact of transient saline-freshwater interfaces on radiological contaminant transport (AWH, MOR,
MC). Two new PhD research projects on the topic of environmental contamination from nuclear
energy are planned to start by January 2016.
The research focus being undertaken will be increasingly strengthened and sharpened. It potentially
opens more opportunities in collaboration nationally and internationally with countries struggling
with urban groundwater related problems and demands for energy exploration and management in
China, India, Japan, Indonesia, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brazil and Africa. Collaborations have included
teaching (MSc Hydrogeology, MSc Nuclear Decommissioning and Waste Disposal) and research
transfer (PhD in Hydrogeology, PhD in Nuclear Decommissioning and Waste Disposal, various time-
length courses for research training, etc.). Undoubtedly, it has an important role to play in the
sustainable development of GEES and the University of Birmingham as a whole.
In short, University of Birmingham Hydrogeology research has been and continues to be on the
forefront of high-profile groundwater-related environmental concerns, of which there are several.
The Hydrogeology Group are a powerful asset for the university in proving their engagement with
issues that the public cares about.
Contributions to University Education
Most obviously, the Hydrogeology Group delivers the world-renowned and long-established MSc
Hydrogeology course, which was set up in 19738
. Lecturers within the group also contribute the
environmental and waste management components of the MSc Nuclear Decommissioning and
Waste Management course9
.
Hydrogeology lecturers also deliver or contribute towards several different modules within the
Geology undergraduate programmes (Geology, Environmental Geology, Palaeobiology and
Palaeoenvironments). For instance, Hydrogeology lecturers are module leads on ESCM221
8
http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/staff/profiles/gees/lloyd-john.aspx
9
This is another example of interdepartmental collaboration from Hydrogeology, as the course also includes
physics, chemistry and engineering disciplines. Two of the Hydrogeology staff are involved in this programme.

15
(Introduction to Hydrogeology), ESCM323 (Applied Geology: Engineering Geology and Pollution
Hydrogeology), and ESCM329 (Geological Hazards and Anthropogenic Impacts). These modules are
a combination of compulsory and optional modules depending on the degree programme that the
student is undertaking. When the course is optional, modules with a Hydrogeology/
Geoenvironmental background are extremely popular with students. For the current academic year
2015/16, around 50 students are registered to take ESCM323.
It is unlikely that a member of staff with a specialism other than Hydrogeology will be able to deliver
these modules to the same quality as the current academic staff. In an environment when teaching
quality is potentially going to be measured in tandem with research quality through the Teaching
Excellence Framework (TEF) it is concerning that the school’s actions will lead to decreasing teaching
quality in these modules. TEF is a manifesto promise of the current government and proactive steps
are being made towards its instigation. It recognises that teaching is a hugely important aspect of a
university’s work, both for the sake of financing the university and for equipping the nation’s
workforce and it is therefore inadequate that there is no systematic teaching assessment as there is
for research (REF). Potentially set to commence in the academic year 2017/18, institutions
performing well according to TEF can anticipate financial and reputational advantages. This,
therefore, is a foolish time for a university to make educational cuts for purely research-grounded
reasoning.10
Although not currently required for the Geological Society of London
accreditation, these modules as well as the reputation of the Earth
Sciences’ specialism in Hydrogeology is a key characteristic, ‘selling
point’ and is indeed a factor that leads to students picking out the Earth
Sciences’ programmes at Birmingham, as Birmingham is one of the few
Universities to cover Hydrogeology in as much detail as in the current
undergraduate program. Indeed, one of the authors can relate to
advice given at Imperial College when picking a university to study
undergraduate Geology – “if you want to study Hydrogeology, you go
to Birmingham”.
These modules also equip students with good skills to enter Geoenvironmental/ Hydrogeological
careers on completion of their studies. Looking at the Destinations of Leavers from Higher Education
(DLHE) survey results from 2012-13, a large proportion of students carry out Geoenvironmental
work for consultancies such as Atkins and Hays, or go on to study programmes such as the MSc in
Hydrogeology or Geotechnical Engineering. Indeed, a large proportion of careers within the West
Midlands are in these fields, with Hydrogeologists making up a third of the membership of the local
West Midlands group of the Geological Society of London in 2012.11
The Hydrogeology and Nuclear Decommissioning and Waste Management (also largely dependent
on Hydrogeology staff) MSc courses together accept about 30 postgraduate students each year,
roughly a quarter of which are from overseas. This is approximately one in eight GEES MSc students.
10
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/higher-education-teaching-excellence-social-mobility-and-
student-choice
11
pers. Comm West Midlands Regional Group, Geological Society of London to Ben Harvey
In an environment when teaching
quality is potentially going to be
measured in tandem with research
quality through the Teaching Excellence
Framework (TEF) it is concerning that
the school’s actions will lead to
decreasing teaching quality in these
modules.

16
Since 201012
, the Hydrogeology MSc has always been in the top three MSc courses measured by
student numbers, and in 2010—2011 and 2012—2013 was the largest. A summary plot is shown in
Figure 4. Removing the Hydrogeology and Nuclear Decommissioning MSc programmes would
significantly reduce the number of taught postgraduate students in GEES. It is likely also to reduce
the number of undergraduate applications indirectly, particularly in Earth Sciences, because
Hydrogeology is a unique appeal of the Birmingham Earth Sciences BSc and MSci, both to those who
are interested to have some component of Hydrogeology in their degree and to those wishing to
continue to the MSc course.
One major factor contributing to the appeal of Hydrogeology as a study area is the current job
market for earth scientists. While oil and mineral related job demand is highly variable and
economy-dependent, there is consistent demand for hydrogeologists and groundwater modellers
(both disciplines taught by the Hydrogeology Group), as well as for environmental consultants,
engineering geologists and science teachers (two of which are closely related to Hydrogeology).13
One factor considered highly important in the TEF proposals, whether laudable or not, is student
employability10
. Hydrogeology has the additional appeal of a more ethical career. Whilst no-one will
deny that oil and gas have given us many benefits, many students are attracted to the idea of
working with water because it is such a vital human need.
Philippa Stacey, UoB geology alumnus writes in the online petition to preserve University of
Birmingham Hydrogeology14
:
I studied geology at the University of Birmingham, and one of the main things that drew me to the
uni was its reputation for hydrogeology. Not many Universities still offer hydrogeology, and
Birmingham is widely known as one of the best places to study the fascinating subject. It would be a
great loss to the university to set aside one of the geology department's greatest assets.
Natasha Hollingworth, current student writes14
:
I don't want the modules I'm interested in to be cut and therefore not get the most out of my degree
as I want.
12
The earliest data available to the authors.
13
Careers Network presentation by Jim Reali, received gratefully from Peter Lee (Senior Postgraduate Tutor,
taught) and Jim Reali (Careers Advisor)
14
https://www.change.org/p/prof-david-hannah-save-the-university-of-birmingham-msc-hydrogeology-course

17
Figure 4 Enrolment on GEES MSc programmes. H: home; O: overseas. FT and PT figures are combined. Plots are stacked
rather than overlain.
15
The masters course has an international reputation, as is testified to by many of the comments in
the online petition14
.
John Ng'ambi of Chililabombwe, Zambia writes:
[I] Am from the 2010 Class. Here far away in Africa the importance of that programme sings loud
and clear. The training enables me to drive critical and important dewatering strategies for Konkola
Copper Mines. The company may soon be committing in excess of $50M just in dewatering. How
possibly can anybody play down the contribution this programme has had not only on the UK but
also on the entire world wherever the graduates have set foot? Consider and think about all of us.
This programme is humanity and beyond.
Ken Howard of Canada, president of the International Association of Hydrogeologists writes:
I'm not signing because I'm a graduate of the program. Neither am I signing because I have very
fond memories of the 4 years I spent in the department as a research associate working towards my
PhD. I'm signing because the hydrogeology program remains one of the best in the world, and its
loss would be tragic for all concerned. It has taken a lot of hard work sustained over many decades
for the program to achieve its enviable international reputation. The quality of its research output is
globally recognised. I’m astounded that the Birmingham administration fails to appreciate this. This
is not about the past; it’s about the future and the damage that will be done not only to the
University but to one of the pillars of our profession. Yes, this is why I am signing.
Rosie Crumpler of Australia writes:
15
Statistics and permission to publish gratefully received from Peter Lee (Senior Postgraduate Tutor, taught)

18
Upon completion of the course in 2011 I was fortunate enough to move to Perth, Australia for work.
Having worked on many mine sites, I have a true appreciation for the pivotal role us hydros
[hydrogeologists] have in sustaining mining- ranging from, sourcing sustainable water supplies to
implementing dewatering schemes in order to enable bwt [below water table] mining. Most hydros
here in Perth either graduated from the MSc or know of it16
, I[t] would be a great loss for the UoB if
this highly regarded course was terminated.
Katie Tedd of Dublin, Ireland writes:
The University of Birmingham MSc course in Hydrogeology is internationally renowned. I, and many
others from Ireland, studied hydrogeology at Birmingham16
. The course is vitally important for
hydrogeology not only in the UK but also in Europe and beyond.
Sheila Imrie of Cape Town, South Africa writes:
I completed my MSc Hydrogeology at Birmingham in 2006 and now work for an international firm at
an international location (Cape Town) and can tell you that this course at Birmingham has extremely
high international recognition.
Contributions to Industry
This section is largely covered by analysing the impact case study submitted to REF2014 (see section
1 – Research Impact). It is a statement of the obvious to say that more than 40 years of the
Hydrogeology MSc course and research department at the University of Birmingham has made a
tremendous positive contribution to the understanding and management of water resources in the
UK and beyond. In addition to the aforementioned section about the case study, Appendix D quotes
some of the many comments left by workers in the water industry testifying to the impact of the
University of Birmingham Hydrogeology Group14
.
By analysing the membership figures of the Geological Society of London, the largest number of
Hydrogeologists are based in the West Midlands region, by both actual number and as a percentage
figure of all the regional groups11
. A large number of Hydrogeological consultancies are based in
Birmingham and the wider West Midlands region. It is likely that the strength of Hydrogeology in
the West Midlands region can be attributed to the strength of the Hydrogeology group, with both
the MSc Hydrogeology course and research providing skilled workers and current knowledge into
the industry.
16
Consider that: in two developed nations, one on the other side of the world, the groundwater industry has a
significant dependence on the Hydrogeology Group at the University of Birmingham!

19
3. Concerns about provision for current PhD students
Supervisory requirements
Hydrogeology is a distinct field of research field. It draws upon and in turn informs the fields of
Geology, Hydrology and Environmental Science, but it is by no means a mere hybrid of the three, as
there is a large body of subject material that is specific to Hydrogeology and which would require
rigorous training in Hydrogeology to understand fully.
The authors have been informed that GEES is “committed to ensuring that your study as a Doctoral
Researcher is not adversely affected by any changes”. This commitment is reassuring, but it is the
view of the authors that this promise will be impossible to fulfil without academic staff whose
specific expertise is in Hydrogeology, namely the current staff within the Hydrogeology Group.
Table 1 shows the specific expertise required by some of the current PhD students for effective
steering, guidance and trouble-shooting in their research. Without these areas of expertise in the
department, there can be no question that the ongoing PhD projects will be adversely affected.
Table 1: Supervisory needs of a selection of the current cohort of Hydrogeology PhD students
PhD student 1st
supervisor 2nd
supervisor Crucial supervisory expertise
Christopher Barry Mike Rivett Alan Herbert Organic contaminants in groundwater
(MOR)
DNAPL behaviour (MOR)
Urban contaminant hydrogeology and
industrial history (MOR)
Regional groundwater modelling (AWH)
Groundwater contaminant transport
simulation and algorithms (AWH)
Simiao Sun Michael Rivett Alan Herbert LNAPL behaviour (MOR)
Automation of experimental platform
including programming and hardware
control (AWH)
Organic contaminants (MOR)
LNAPL experiments and analysis (MOR
AWH)
Multiphase flow modelling (AWH, MOR
and other collaborators introduced by
supervisors)
Ben Harvey Alan Herbert John Tellam Finite-element modelling of
groundwater systems with coupled
transport of colloids and radionuclides
(AWH)
Behaviour of radionuclides and colloids
in field and laboratory experiments,
experience of issues with running field
experiments (AWH, JHT)
Determining and interpreting the
structure of a fractured rock core from
Synchrotron CT scans (AWH, JHT,
external collaborations)
Ban To John Tellam James Wheeley, Hydrogeological aspects, including field,

20
Alan Herbert laboratory experiments, interpretation
issues (JHT)
Sedimentology of the sandstones (JRW)
Simulation effects of mudclasts on
matrix permeability of sandstones, and
modelling solute transport in fluvial
multichannel groundwater systems
(AWH)
Omar Al Azzo John Tellam Mike Rivett The oxidization of dissolved organic
compounds by redbed sandstone
I need my first supervisor (JHT) to
interpret my results of hydrochemical
interaction between red sandstone and
dissolved organic carbon (oxidation
reduction reaction)
Also I need my second supervisor
(MOR) to help me in interpretation of
the sorption mechanism of dissolved
organic compounds on the surface of
oxides in sandstone sediment
Rohazaini
Muhamad Jamil
John Tellam Mike Rivett Direct Potential Recharge estimation in
Urban Aquifers (JHT)
4R groundwater modelling (MOR)
Provision of Supervision for continuation of PhDs
The proposal release from GEES stated:
We are committed to ensuring that Doctoral Researchers are not adversely affected by any changes.
This includes ensuring that their supervision will continue to be delivered by academic staff within the
University / relevant Doctoral Training Partnership.
Therefore, within the proposal is a promise that PhD students will not face any adverse impacts from
the proposed changes. In particular, this includes the continued provision of supervision from
academic staff within the university or partner organisations where applicable (not applicable in all
cases). This is a bold promise and it is absolutely right that it should be made, because these
requirements are stipulated by the University of Birmingham’s code of practice on supervision17
. On
the basis of both the Change Management Group’s promise and the policy of the University of
Birmingham, the PhD students within the Hydrogeology Group will
insist that their supervisory requirements are fully met and co-
ordinated by the department, in particular the head of school17
.
This presents a tall order for the department if the proposal is
passed and the academic staff from the Hydrogeology Group are
lost18
. The section “Supervisory requirements” and in particular
17
http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/Documents/university/legal/supervision-monitoring-postgrad-
researchers.pdf
18
It is an assumption that the 7—8 FTE staff who would be lost constitute the complete staff of the
Hydrogeology Group. It is thought that this is a reasonable assumption, but technically the identities of the
staff under consultation are confidential.
Without these areas of expertise in the
department, there can be no question that
the ongoing PhD projects will be adversely
affected.

21
Table 1 demonstrates that PhD researchers will irrefutably require experts in Hydrogeology in order
to complete their programmes and produce high quality research and publications. Staff whose
expertise does not include Hydrogeology, Groundwater and Solute transport Modelling,
Groundwater Contaminant behaviour, Groundwater Chemistry and Colloid Processes will be unable
to give guidance on a scientific level.
In light of this, it has been distressing that the Change Management Group have been reticent to
discuss what plans are in place to ensure that the PhD students’ research is not adversely affected.
To give credit where due, it has been encouraging that the department, through the Doctoral
Researcher Tutor in Water Sciences and the Senior Postgraduate Tutor (Research) has been
proactive in collating information about the PhD students’ supervisory needs in person. The
information collated through these individual consultations will not differ greatly from Table 1. The
PhD students have been assured:
The information gathered on your supervision needs is being carefully considered.19
However, it is concerning that the position taken by the Change Management Group is:
We are mindful of your concerns but as we are in a consultation period it would be inappropriate to
discuss any proposed changes to your supervision, that may or may not occur, until a final decision
on the proposal has been taken.19
In order to be sure that the promises contained within the proposal will be upheld, a firm and
specific plan with named personnel must be made before the decision on the proposal is made. To
emphasise: these discussions must occur before the end of the consultation. Otherwise, the
department cannot know that it can keep its promises. Indeed, the authors do not believe that they
could if all the staff within the Hydrogeology Group are lost. To summarise: if the Change
Management Group cannot discuss how it can keep its promises in all reasonably likely events, then
it cannot know that it can keep its promises.
More recently, the Change Management Group have conceded that
these concerns merit further discussion and a meeting has taken
between David Hannah and Christopher Barry. Christopher was
informed that consultation with PhD students involved mapping out
supervision requirements, which has been done and for which the
students are grateful. However, the authors insist that proper
consultation must involve a two-way conversation before any
decision has been made to lose academic staff positions.
The authors have every hope that the Change Management Group will give careful consideration to
the highly technical supervisory requirements of each of the PhD students, as they been assured.
Upon this consideration, it seems very likely that the Change Management Group will realise that, in
order to keep their promises and to remain in line with university legislation, the proposal will need
either to be modified to protect most or all of the Hydrogeology staff or to be rejected in January.
19
pers. comm. David Hannah to Christopher Barry
Proper consultation must involve a two-
way conversation before any decision has
been made to lose academic staff
positions.

22
4. Concerns about the handling of the consultation process
The Process as a Whole
It was made clear during meetings with particular members of the Change Management Group and
through proposal documents that the consultation process was intended to be an open and
transparent process. It is of significant concern that the choice of Hydrogeology for the proposed
disinvestment was made without the consultation of staff members (and research students) across
the school through the normal decision-making bodies within GEES (School Executive Committee,
School Teaching and Learning Committee and others) and the school was only notified after the
decision was made for a consultation process to begin on Hydrogeology disinvestment. This missed
a particularly important opportunity for engagement with staff members within the school and
instead the decision for Hydrogeology disinvestment was made in secret by staff members, for
whom this decision would have limited impact on their respective research fields, introducing
conflicts of interest into the schools’ proposal.
Another major concern is the lack of information provided throughout the consultation period,
including receiving the exact details of what is entailed by ‘disinvestment’. The authors understand
and acknowledge confidentially concerns relating to individual staffing consultations, mitigations
and plans, but it took a member from the Guild of Students to confirm to the authors that under the
proposals there are 7—8 FTE posts at risk of redundancy. It was also made clear that at the
beginning of the consultation period that the fact that this information was commercially sensitive
and not to be discussed with outside bodies. This made it impossible to truthfully discuss the
impacts of the proposal during the consultation process with external organisations including
collaborators, sponsors and funding bodies, or to update risk registers for funding bodies (as
required for certain projects).
Throughout the consultation process the authors have been assured by the Change Management
Group that the process is a consultation and that no final decision has been made. It is of note
however that the materials that the authors have received (the initial email and the material on the
intranet) give the impression that the decision has already been made to go ahead with the
proposal, subject to certain mitigations with individual members of staff to be decided in their
consultation meetings, and that the consultation process is just a formality, so it is disappointing to
see the involvement of stakeholders reduced as detailed in the following section.
Involvement of PhD Students in the Consultation
The involvement of students in consultations behind major changes is governed by the Policy on
Consulting Students about Major Changes20
. It is of the opinion of the authors that the school’s
proposal is covered by this document, as it meets Section 3 (Definition of Major Change):
A major change, as a minimum, materially impacts on a cohort of students’, e.g. a year group within
an academic department (a unit within a School) or a residence, pursuit of study and/ or student life.
Interpretation of this definition may evolve as greater experience of consultation on major changes is
gained.20
20
http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/Documents/university/legal/consulting-students.pdf

23
PhD students as a cohort have been refused information from the Change Management Group,
despite several requests, including to see the school’s Research Strategy which we believe details
the reasoning behind the school’s proposal. The authors acknowledge the commercial sensitivity
behind these documents, but despite repeated efforts to abide to information and viewing
restrictions, we have been unable to see the reasoning behind the proposal, with the reason for this
provided being confidentially concerns.
The authors believe that the Change Management Group is in breach of section 5 of the Policy
(Provision of Information and Level of Detail)20
:
It is understood that some information cannot be provided, as it would affect staff and their
individual jobs. Notwithstanding that restriction appropriate information should be provided to
illustrate the scale and implications of a change. Where possible a range of options should be
included and not a fait accompli.
We believe this to be the case due to the fact that the Change Management Group has still at the
time of writing not confirmed the number of jobs at risk with the proposal, with the authors only
finding out through the Guild of Students that there are 7—8 FTE jobs at risk with the proposal. The
fact that the Change Management Group has not yet provided this information means that the scale
and implications of the change have not been made clear to the authors, apart from the generic
term ‘disinvestment’, which is open to various interpretations.
The fact that information has not been received from the Change Management Group makes it
difficult, almost impossible, for the authors to engage in the consultation process if information is
withheld. The only consultation meetings that the authors have gone through are an initial group
meeting with David Hannah and Bill Bloss, one individual meeting with David Hannah, and our
individual tutor meetings to discuss supervision requirements. The authors have not received any
further information throughout this consultation process, despite reassurances that ‘We will keep
you updated of all relevant information, and consult with you about the proposed changes as set out
in the communication to you.’21
It is difficult to trust the Change Management Group that consultation process is open and
transparent when no further information has been released, and no further meetings scheduled
between members of the Change Management Group and the authors at time of writing. Indeed, it
was very disappointing to learn that early in the consultation process ‘at the moment the Change
Management Team suggest that we do not need to arrange another group meeting’22
, despite the
authors having further questions about the proposal and the implications on their research projects,
with individual consultation meetings not answering those questions. The fact that no new
meetings have been arranged or information communicated indicates to the authors that either no
new information has been generated throughout the consultation process that is influencing the
proposal or that PhD students are being deliberately excluded from the consultation process.
21
Pers. Comm from Prof David Hannah to Authors (5/11/15)
22
Pers. Comm from Prof David Hannah to Authors (29/10/15)

24
Adverse impacts by the proposal and proposed changes
On 22nd
October 2015, the authors received an e-mail from Prof David Hannah, Head of GEES and
Prof Myra Nimmo, Pro-Vice-Chancellor and head of LES about a proposal regarding changes to
research and some aspects of teaching activity within GEES (appendix E). The authors learnt that
proposed changes would primarily affect the entire Hydrogeology department, which is “reducing
investment in the area of Hydrogeology research, including discontinuing the MSc Hydrogeology
programme with effect from 2016/17”. A formal consultation process of 60 days started from that
day and a final decision on this proposal will be taken in January.
A meeting was organized for the 23rd
October 2015 with the presence of Prof David Hannah (Head of
School), Dr William Bloss (Deputy Head of School) and Dr Nicholas Barrand (PhD Tutor for Water
Sciences) as well as the current PhD cohort within Hydrogeology. We were informed again regarding
the contents in the email and reassured that ‘Business is as usual’ and ‘we will not be adversely
affected’. During the Q&A session, our enquiries were mainly regarding:
1) The specific reasoning that lead to the proposal;
2) More detail regarding the proposal, especially the potential fate of our supervisors;
3) What are the strategies to mitigate the adverse impact on our PhD projects.
Unfortunately the authors feel that the enquiries regarding our concerns were not answered
sufficiently during the Q&A session as well as in follow up emails.
As the head of school suggested, the following week, the authors all had Individual ‘risk assessment’
meetings with Jon Sadler (Head of Education) to collect information about the authors’ individual
research projects and for the authors to determine the likely impact of the proposal upon our PhD
research as well as to ask questions about our concerns. The authors assume that after these risk
assessment meetings, the school realized the fact, which we had claimed during our first meeting,
that replacing our supervisors from other staff within the University/ NERC CENTA Doctoral Training
Partnership will not be possible due to the nature of our studies.
The authors have received significant impact to their respective research projects from the proposal,
and the Change Management Group have acknowledged that this is a unsettling time for the
authors, but the authors would like to make it clear what impacts the proposal has had.
The proposal has clearly created an unsettling situation for all of the authors. It is undoubtedly
demoralising to find out that the school you are part of does not consider the research field that you
engage in to be important enough to continue into the future. The uncertainty in the fate of our
supervisors, who are so vital to our research progress, has made it difficult to plan the direction of
our projects. The authors feel that the uncertainty is also relevant to the availability of necessary
resources if the proposal goes ahead, in particular if equipment and laboratory facilities that we
require continue to be available, but also extending to collaborations and software licenses.
The authors have expended a large amount of time and energy during the consultation process to
try and obtain information (to various degrees of success) from the Change Management Group,
engaging with the consultation process through the creation of this report for instance and
attending the two consultation meetings has diverted time and energy away from our respective
projects.

25
The proposal has impacted on our welfare somewhat, creating additional stress. It is very difficult to
continue as normal during the consultation period, and it is therefore unsurprising to consider that
the proposal has slowed research progress. Considering the length of time that uncertainty remains
a part of our research, potential delays for submission could arise. With the potential for delays for
submission of our PhDs, there is concern that this could lead to funding running out, and there is a
particular concern for international students who may potentially have to obtain visa extensions, at
great cost, financially and on their time.
Finally, the authors all chose to carry out research at Birmingham due to the strength of the
Hydrogeology Research Group. If the proposal goes ahead to disinvest in Birmingham, there will
most likely be damage to the university’s reputation. This, by extension, and in combination with
the potential for delays and reduced quality for our PhD will have adverse impacts on our future
career development in academia.
The authors all chose to carry out research
at Birmingham due to the strength of the
Hydrogeology Research Group.

26
5. Conclusions and Reflections
The authors consider that they have studied the issues at stake thoroughly. They were ostensibly
encouraged to engage in the consultation and have sought to do so, by trying to engage in
constructive debate with the Change Management Group the merits and failings of the proposed
changes and their basis. If anyone can find fault in the authors’ conduct during this consultation
period so far, then they are invited to declare it. However, it soon became clear that the Change
Management Group deemed that the PhD students (authors) were not to be trusted with
commercially sensitive information, either regarding the reasoning of the proposal or any plans put
in place to avoid adverse impacts to their PhDs. This is despite University of Birmingham policy
asserting that20
:
Students are major stakeholders in the University’s operations and decision- making processes. …
The emphasis of student consultation is to provide accurate, complete information.
To address the latter issue first, it is gravely concerning that the Change Management Group
consider that they are unable to discuss any specifics as to their plans for arranging supervision in
the event that the proposal is accepted. It is recognised that there may be information in such
discussions that is of confidential nature, as it relates to staff positions. However, it is obvious that
these considerations are of paramount relevance and importance to the PhD students themselves
and that therefore they should be involved in detailed discussions about possible supervision
arrangements before any decision on the proposal is made. The authors will hold the Change
Management Group to their promise to carefully consider their supervision requirements and do not
see how careful consideration on this matter cannot lead to the conclusion that the proposal must
be modified or rejected, given their supervision requirements.
On the matter of basis for the proposal, the authors have deduced from the limited statement given
that the proposal is argued solely from the point of view of research performance and in particular
the outcomes of REF2014. A full review of Water Sciences submissions to REF2014 has been
undertaken as far as information is publically available. As far as the statistics may be used for
interdisciplinary comparison, the results show that Hydrogeology is performing well, at least on a par
with the rest of Water Sciences and there is no clear reason for supposing that GEES will perform
better with less or no Hydrogeology research. Additionally, the outputs show that Hydrogeology is
leading the way in interdisciplinary collaborations. In the area of research impact, a new assessment
criteria in REF2014, Hydrogeology made the sole submission within Water Sciences. Hydrogeology’s
impact case study submission demonstrates the formidable contribution that the group has made to
the UK water industry.
Whilst the proposal may be reasoned on research performance, there are multiple other reasons for
keeping the Hydrogeology Group. Teaching is becoming an important component of university
assessment, especially with the potential for the TEF to be
introduced by the government. The Hydrogeology Group teaches
an established and popular MSc course and contributes to another,
as well as delivering modules and parts of modules at
undergraduate level. The enrolment statistics for the MSc course
and the undergraduate uptake of Hydrogeology modules suggests
that Hydrogeology would be a wise investment for the University of
The authors ask the University of
Birmingham to think beyond their campus
and their research statistics to consider
their role in protecting and feeding people.

27
Birmingham in light of the upcoming TEF assessment. Financially, Hydrogeology brings in a strong
and reliable income through the MSc programme as well as attracting undergraduates to Earth
Sciences at Birmingham due to the relative rarity of taught Hydrogeology in the UK. This is in
addition to a steady stream of grants from NERC and industry. On the subject of reputation, the
Hydrogeology Group is long-established and world famous. Many of the comments on the online
petition14
and the mere fact that the petition attracted more than 1200 signatures, testify to the
global reputation that the Hydrogeology Group affords to the University of Birmingham.
It is a well-known truism that a reputation takes a long time to build and an instant to destroy. The
authors beseech the University of Birmingham to consider whether it is wise to sever links with a
such a respected and renowned research group so casually. It seems that from a directive from the
University of Birmingham Executive Board to sharpen research focus and make tough decisions has
come a proposed cut that is neither necessary or grounded in truth. Whilst sharpening focus and
making tough decisions may (or indeed may not) be good strategies, it should be recognised that
such principles needlessly destroy the fruit of decades of hard work if applied without thought and
where unnecessary.
It is also a well-known fact that, with the pressures of growing population and climate change, wars
may be fought in the next century in the quest for water, just as they have been in the last century
over oil23
. Wise, integrated and technically rigorous understanding of water resources, on the other
hand, can serve to feed people and bring peace. Groundwater in particular serves as a lifeline to
much of the World’s population in places where surface water cannot be relied on all the year
round. It is also a more resilient water resource than surface water, mitigating against the impacts
of climate change, and it should not be thought that the UK is immune from these pressures. The
authors ask the University of Birmingham to think beyond their campus and their research statistics
to consider their role in protecting and feeding people. The Hydrogeology Group has a proven track
record of highly relevant and important research in water resources and should be considered an
asset for future generations.
23
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/water-shortages-to-be-new-cause-of-wars-1595148.html
Please make your views and queries known to the Change Management Group or the
University of Birmingham Executive Board. The former may be contacted at:
hydrogeology@contacts.bham.ac.uk
Additionally, you can comment on the online petition at: https://www.change.org/p/prof-
david-hannah-save-the-university-of-birmingham-msc-hydrogeology-course

28
Appendix A: REF2014 analysis of Water Sciences outputs
Title
Journal
Journalimpact
factor
Year
Citationsat
REF2014
Citationsnow
Group1
Group2
Impacts of river-bed gas on the
hydraulic and thermal dynamics of
the hyporheic zone
Advances in Water
Resources
3.417 2011 8 16 Hydrogeology
³⁴S tracer study of pollutant sulfate
behaviour in a lowland peatland Biogeochemistry 3.488 2009 10 11 Hydrology
A field and modelling study of
fractured rock permeability reduction
using microbially induced calcite
precipitation
Environmental
Science and
Technology
Combining unsaturated and saturated
hydraulic observations to understand
and estimate groundwater recharge
through glacial till
Journal of Hydrology 3.053 2010 10 17 Hydrogeology
Comparison of rates of ureolysis
between Sporosarcina pasteurii and
an indigenous groundwater
community under conditions required
to precipitate large volumes of calcite
Geochimica et
Cosmochimica Acta
Controls on the formation and
stability of gas hydrate-related
bottom-simulating reflectors (BSRs):
A case study from the west Svalbard
continental slope
Journal of
Geophysical Research
3.426 2008 27 22 Geophysics Hydrogeology
Controls on the rate of ureolysis and
the morphology of carbonate
precipitated by S-Pasteurii biofilms
and limits due to bacterial
encapsulation
Ecological
Engineering
Convergent tracer tests in
multilayered aquifers: The
importance of vertical flow in the
injection borehole
Water Resources
Research
Isotopic composition of sulfate as a tracer of
natural and anthropogenic influences on
groundwater geochemistry in an urban
sandstone aquifer, Birmingham, UK
Applied
Geochemistry
Paleo-roothole facilitated transport of
aromatic hydrocarbons through a
Holocene clay bed
Environmental
Science and
Technology
Preliminary indications from atomic
force microscopy of the presence of
rapidly-formed nanoscale films on
aquifer material surfaces
Journal of
Contaminant
Hydrology
2.204 2009 6 6 Environmental
Health
Hydrogeology
Sandstones of unexpectedly high
diffusibility Journal of
Contaminant
Hydrology
Stochastic simulations of regional
scale advective transport in fractured
rock masses using block upscaled
hydro-mechanical rock property data
The legacy of chlorinated solvents in the
Birmingham aquifer, UK: Observations
spanning three decades and the challenge of
future urban groundwater development
Journal of
Contaminant
Hydrology
Uptake of Sr2+ and Co2+ into
Biogenic Hydroxyapatite:
Implications for Biomineral Ion
Exchange Synthesis
Environmental
Science and
Technology
5.33 2011 9 21 Hydrogeology Biosciences;
Metallurgy
and Minerals
Urban groundwater baseflow influence upon
inorganic river-water quality: The River Tame
headwaters catchment in the City of
Birmingham, UK
Using regional groundwater flow models for
prediction of regional wellwater quality
distributions
A comparison of forest and moorland
stream microlclimate, heat
exchanges and thermal dynamics
Hydrological
Processes
2.677 2008 NA 54 Hydrology
An isotopic and modelling study of flow paths
and storage in Quaternary calcarenite, SW
Australia: implications for speleothem
paleoclimate records
Quaternary Science
Reviews
Application of heat pulse injections for
investigating shallow hyporheic flow in a Water Resources 3.549 2012 NA 5 Sedimentology

29
lowland river
Research
Biodiversity under threat in glacier-fed
river systems Nature Climate
Change
NA 2012 NA 57 Hydroecology
Can we distinguish flood frequency and
magnitude in the sedimentological record of
rivers?
Geology 4.884 2010 NA 26 Sedimentology
Characterization of peat structure using X-ray
computed tomography and its control on the
ebullition of biogenic gas bubbles
Journal of
3.426 2011 NA 8 Hydroecology
Decimeter-scale in situ mapping of modern
cross-bedded dune deposits using parametric
echo sounding: A new method for linking river
processes and their deposits
Letters
4.196 2013 NA 1 Sedimentology
Drought alters the structure and functioning of
complex food webs Nature Climate
Change
Ebullition events monitored from northern
peatlands using electrical imaging Journal of
Food web complexity and allometric scaling
relationships in stream mesocosms:
implications for experimentation
Journal of Animal
Ecology
Habitat Composition and Connectivity Predicts
Bat Presence and Activity at Foraging Sites in a
Large UK Conurbation
Plos One NA 2012 NA 12 Hydroecology
Hydrological modeling of stalagmite δ18O
response to glacial-interglacial transitions Geophysical Research
Letters
Hydrological uncertainties in the
modelling of cave drip-water delta O-
18 and the implications for
stalagmite palaeoclimate
reconstructions
Quaternary Science
Reviews
Impact of simulated drought on ecosystem
biomass production: an experimental test in
stream mesocosms
Global Change
Biology
Investigating patterns and controls of
groundwater up-welling in a lowland river by
combining Fibre-optic Distributed
Temperature Sensing with observations of
vertical hydraulic gradients
Hydrology and Earth
System Sciences
NA 2012 NA 26 Sedimentology
Large-scale climate, precipitation and British
river flows: Identifying hydroclimatological
connections and dynamics
Journal of Hydrology 3.053 2010 NA 17 Hydroecology
Loss of small glaciers will diminish beta
diversity in Pyrenean streams at two levels of
biological organization
Global Ecology and
Biogeography
Major flood disturbance alters river ecosystem
evolution Nature Climate
Change
Modification of climate–river flow associations
by basin properties Journal of Hydrology 3.053 2010 NA 26 Hydroecology
Nitrate concentration changes at the
groundwater-surface water interface of a
small Cumbrian river
Hydrological
Processes
Ocean–Atmosphere Forcing of Summer
Streamflow Drought in Great Britain Conference
contribution
0 2013 0 0 Hydroecology
Quantification of the relation between surface
morphodynamics and subsurface
sedimentological product in sandy braided
rivers : Braided river morphodynamics and
associated sedimentology
Sedimentology 2.948 2012 NA 5 Sedimentology
Quantifying the dynamics of flow within a
permeable bed using time-resolved
endoscopic particle imaging velocimetry (EPIV)
Experiments in Fluids 1.67 2012 NA 3 Sedimentology Environmental Health
Rapid loss of glacial ice reveals stream
community assembly processes Global Change
Biology
Responses to river inundation pressures
control prey selection of riparian beetles Plos One NA 2013 NA 5 Hydroecology
Simulating the thermal behavior of northern
peatlands with a 3-D microtopography Journal of
Streambed nitrogen cycling beyond the
hyporheic zone: Flow controls on horizontal
patterns and depth distribution of nitrate and
dissolved oxygen in the upwelling
groundwater of a lowland river
Journal of
The ecohydrology of forested peatlands:
simulating the effects of tree shading on moss
evaporation and species composition
Journal of
Bedmap2: Improved ice bed, surface and
thickness datasets for Antarctica Cryosphere 2013 NA 203 Environmental
Change
Mid- to Late Holocene climate change: an
overview Quaternary Science 4.572 2008 NA 527 Environmental

30
Reviews Change
Millennial-length forward models and
pseudoproxies of stalagmite δ18O: an example
from NW Scotland
Climate of the Past 3.382 2012 NA 12 Hydrology Geosystems
Palaeo-seasonality of the last two millennia
reconstructed from the oxygen isotope
composition of carbonates and diatom silica
from Nar Gölü, central Turkey
Quaternary Science
Reviews
4.572 2013 NA 8 Environmental
Change
Reanalysis suggests long-term upward trends
in European storminess since 1871 Geophysical Research
Letters
Change
Stable isotope records of Late Quaternary
climate and hydrology from Mediterranean
lakes: the ISOMED synthesis
Quaternary Science
Reviews
Change
Sustained rapid shrinkage of Yukon glaciers
since the 1957–1958 International Geophysical
Year
Letters
Change
Tephrostratigraphy, chronology and climatic
events of the Mediterranean basin during the
Holocene: An overview
The Holocene 2.283 2011 NA 61 Environmental
Change
Trends in Antarctic Peninsula surface melting
conditions from observations and regional
climate modeling
Journal of
Change
Using data assimilation to study extratropical
Northern Hemisphere climate over the last
millennium
Climate of the Past 3.382 2010 NA 13 Environmental
Change
Changing Northern Hemisphere Storm Tracks
in an Ensemble of IPCC Climate Change
Simulations
Journal of Climate NA 2008 NA 143 Environmental
Change
Factors contributing to the development of
extreme North Atlantic cyclones and their
relationship with the NAO
Climate Dynamics 4.673 2008 NA 61 Environmental
Change
Historical SAM Variability. Part I: Century-
Length Seasonal Reconstructions Journal of Climate NA 2009 NA 50 Environmental
Change
Historical landscape change in Cappadocia
(central Turkey): a palaeoecological
investigation of annually laminated sediments
from Nar lake
The Holocene 2.283 2008 NA 24 Environmental
Change
IMILAST: A Community Effort to Intercompare
Extratropical Cyclone Detection and Tracking
Algorithms
Journal of Climate NA 2013 NA 95 Environmental
Change

31
Appendix B: Research Groups of Water Sciences Research Staff
Surname Research Group
Barrand Environmental
Change
Bartlett Hydrology
Bickerton Hydroecology
Bradley Hydrology
Cuthbert Hydrogeology
Dixon Sedimentology
Eastwood Environmental
Change
Garner Hydrology
Hadley-Sidhu Hydrogeology
Hannah Hydroecology
Herbert Hydrogeology
Johannes Befort Environmental
Change
Kettridge Hydroecology
Khamis Hydroecology
Klaar Hydroecology
Krause Sedimentology
Leckebusch Environmental
Change
Ledger Hydroecology
Mao Hydroecology
Milner Hydroecology
Phillips Environmental
Change
Rangecroft Hydrology
Renshaw Hydrogeology
Riley Hydrogeology
Rivett Hydrogeology
Sadler Hydroecology
Sambrook-
Smith
Sedimentology
Tellam Hydrogeology
Widmann Environmental
Change

32
Appendix C: Comments of Endorsement for University of Birmingham
Hydrogeology in the Impact Case Study submitted to REF20147
Letter, Groundwater Manager, UUW, 24/7/13
Long-term security of supplies is essential, and we rely on numerical modelling of our groundwater
resources to plan developments and support the management of the resource. In the case of the
Liverpool / Manchester sandstones, we have been involved actively in developing the current (2009)
model on which the [EA] bases its abstraction licensing policy. This model is heavily dependent on
the work of the [UoB] [which] has been of considerable value to United Utilities Water
Letter, Technical Specialist (Groundwater) EA, 26/7/13
Dr Rivett’s contribution in relation to the understanding of urban recharge processes, urban runoff
removal, the geological framework and interpretation and application of geochemical and
information (sic) has resulted in greater conceptual clarity. In this role his input has been invaluable
Letter, Principal Hydrogeologist, MWH, 31/7/13
The University has had input into all of the above schemes [Resilience Projects] with the University
groundwater model, and more than 15 peer review and MSc thesis publications being used
throughout the feasibility assessments
The resilience projects referred to include:
 Re-licensing of a conjunctive use scheme to allow emergency supply direct to Birmingham.
 Development of artificial recharge boreholes.
 Development of a new supply well in Edgbaston.
With regards to the Edgbaston well, MWH also said:
The capture zones and their sensitivity simulated by the University were then directly used by MWH
to quantify risks of contamination, shortfalls in water volume (achieving 10 Ml/d) and adverse
impacts of abstraction in determining the preferred site of the new Edgbaston abstraction.
Letter, Principal Hydrogeologist, STW, 29/7/13
The historic and recent data provided by Rivett is nowadays cost prohibitive to obtain … choosing the
best design/location for a supply well is of paramount importance as a poor location may result in
expensive and unforeseen water treatment costs … or even well closure

33
Appendix D: Selected Comments from workers in the Water Industry14
Matt Tidy, ESI:
I graduated from the Hydrogeology MSc at Birmingham in 2010, I use the skills I learnt on the course
on an almost daily basis in my consultancy work, in fact a large proportion of my colleagues are also
ex-students from the course. It is the most respected course in the industry and the first place to look
for recruitment. At a time when there is demand for water resources professionals, to close the
course would be a big loss for the industry and the University.
Michael Morphy, Golder Associates:
The MSc Hydrogeology degree at the University of Birmingham is one of the most renowned courses
both nationally and globally in the field of Hydrogeology. Any consultant working within the field
knows of the course and how valuable it is to the industry. The proposal to disinvest in the course
will have serious consequences to UK hydrogeology and the future of this expertise. Having
undertaken the course in 2014/15 I am now working as a hydrogeologist for a global consultancy
thanks to the exceptional program that the course offered. Without this course dedicated solely to
this field of study, home-grown hydrogeologists in the UK will become a dying breed in an industry
where they will remain high in demand.
Kate Prior, UK:
I am proud to have been a graduate of this course and the specialist knowledge I gained from it has
been absolutely vital for my work in consultancy. This MSc (one of the few remaining) is so highly
respected and recognised as one of the best of its kind. The future of this specialism can only be
expending and the study of hydrogeology will become increasingly important in the face of various
global issues. This decision seems short sighted beyond belief and will lead to a massive skills
shortage in a range of industries where hydrogeologists will remain in high demand.
Claire Howarth, Mott MacDonald:
I am a Senior Engineering Hydrogeologist who has worked in the environmental and engineering
consultancy sectors for the past 15 years, ever since my graduation from the MSc Hydrogeology
course at Birmingham. No other course (either then or now) provides the great breadth and detailed
understanding of our subject needed to deliver confident, practical industry hydrogeologists who can
work in all aspects of the construction sector. With so many crucial engineering infrastructure and
water supply schemes to be delivered (both now and into the future), as hydrogeologists we are the
main voice to making sure groundwater risks (both safety and environmental) are properly heard and
designed for. To entertain cutting such a long-standing, internationally recognised course that
delivers what industries need from hydrogeologists is a traversty. I sincerely hope that this course is
saved - there have been too many cuts / watering down in hydrogeological teaching in the UK
already.
Paul Eastwood, Opus International Consultants Ltd:
I find it amazing and shocking that there is a proposal to cease the MSc Hydrogeology at
Birmingham. I graduated in 1989 and it has been an integral part of my career, progressing to
Director - Environment, in an international consultancy. The course is well respected both nationally
and internationally and I have always found people that have done the course to be highly skilled and
motivated, and preferred candidates for employment. I would like to add my name to the petition to

34
keep this excellent course. It would be such a loss as there are not many such courses in the UK and
there is a demand for hydrogeologists in industry. Why stop such a successful course?
Andy Salmon, Environment Agency:
As an environmental regulator working for the Environment Agency Groundwater and Contaminated
Land team, we require well educated hydrogeologists in industry and in public sector to ensure that
our groundwater is protected. Closing this course will not help in the already sparse number of wel-
educated hydrogeologists in this country. Please save this course for the best interests of our
environment. We will need more hydrogeologists moving forward, not less! With the advances of the
Government push for Brownfield development, shale gas exploitation, nuclear waste disposal, carbon
capture and storage in addition to our already stressed water resource catchments and vulnerable
groundwater quality. We need more keen graduates with a genuine understanding of hydrogeology.
Doug Brown, PIHA PTY Ltd, Australia:
The Birmingham Masters course has long been a benchmark of global applied groundwater training
and research. The course has continued to attract strong international participation and in return
has graduated hydrogeologists who have been able to immediately address and communicate the
increasingly complex groundwater management challenges faced by engineers, miners and
environmental and water resource managers. As an employer of hydrogeologists for the last 28
years I believe the loss of Masters graduates from the Birmingham Hydrogeology course will leave a
significant gap in the future of global groundwater management.

35
Appendix E: E-mail notification to PhD students about the GEES
proposal, 22/10/2015
Dear [named recipient],
We are writing to inform you of a proposal regarding changes to research and some aspects of
teaching activity within the School of Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences (GEES) in the
College of Life and Environmental Sciences. These proposed changes would primarily affect teaching
and learning within Earth Sciences, particularly the MSc Hydrogeology.
The School of Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences delivers world-leading research to
address natural and social sciences questions of global importance. To strengthen our research
standing, and to ensure that investment is prioritised around key areas of research excellence, we
propose to organise the School’s research activity into four complimentary themes: Environmental
Health Sciences; Geosystems; Physical Geography; and Human Geography (including the Centre for
Urban and Regional Planning).
These research themes focus on areas of demonstrable strength and enable strong collaboration
within the School and across the wider academic community. As part of this reprioritisation, key
proposed changes include the appointment of new staff in Geosystems and reducing investment in
the area of Hydrogeology research, including discontinuing the MSc Hydrogeology programme with
effect from 2016/17. Teaching and supervision on the MSc Hydrogeology programme will continue
to be delivered for the current cohort of MSc Hydrogeology students. More broadly, we continue to
invest in our infrastructure and facilities including the £2.5m redevelopment of the Lapworth
Museum of Geology due for completion in 2016 and the creation of a new outdoor environmental
experimental facility, the ECOLAB.
The proposal highlights the importance of maintaining the highest standards of teaching and
supervision across the School’s portfolio of undergraduate and postgraduate programmes, and we
are committed to ensuring that your study as a Doctoral Researcher is not adversely affected by any
changes. This includes ensuring that your supervision will continue to be delivered by academic staff
within the University / NERC CENTA Doctoral Training Partnership. We understand that these
proposed changes will be unsettling and will concern you. Those directly affected by the proposal
are undergoing a formal consultation process. A final decision on this proposal will be taken in
January, upon the conclusion of this period of consultation.
We encourage engagement in the process and welcome communication and feedback from all
groups. Please email any questions or queries to hydrogeology@contacts.bham.ac.uk
We will be providing regular communications to staff, students and other stakeholders throughout
the process and have created an intranet page for further information:
https://intranet.birmingham.ac.uk/les/gees/research-vision/index.aspx
We would also like to invite you and your fellow Doctoral Researchers to meet us tomorrow (Friday
23rd
October) at 15:00 in room SG18 in the Biosciences building. If we do not see you there, please
do not hesitate to be in contact using the email address above. Should you wish, we would also be

36
happy to meet you in person. Please make an appointment via Charlotte Jones
(c.k.jones@bham.ac.uk).
Best regards,
Professor David Hannah
Head of the School of Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences
Professor Myra Nimmo
Pro-Vice-Chancellor
Head of the College of Life and Environmental Sciences

CaseForHGv4

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (18)

Similar to CaseForHGv4

Similar to CaseForHGv4 (20)

CaseForHGv4