Gemma Elizabeth Derrick

Brunel University
Health Economics Research Group

Health Economics Research Group
Brunel University
Uxbridge, London
United Kingdom
UB8 3PH
gemma.derrick@ccbrunel.ac.uk

Search Google Scholar
Search for Google Scholar Profile

My research profile combines my unique expertise in public health and research policy for the formation of relevant evaluation policies for public health research. I employ a mixed-methods approach to my research which includes the combination of interviews, observation studies, bibliometrics and/or social network analysis. I also translate my knowledge of these issues in public health research policy to other scientific disciplines and the development of relevant innovation policies.

Citation:
Citation:
Haynes AS, Derrick GE, Chapman S, Redman S, Hall WD, Gillespie J, Sturk H. 2011. "From 'Our World' to the 'Real World': Exploring the Views and Behaviour of Policy-Influential Australian Public Health Researchers." Social Science and Medicine 72 (7):1047-1055.
Abstract: Research and researchers influence the genesis and development of public health policy in limited but essential ways. Surveys and interviews with 36 peer-nominated "highly influential" Australian public health researchers found they engaged in a breadth of strategies that included rigorous but targeted research design, multilateral collaboration, multiple methods of research dissemination and promotion (including tactical use of the media), and purposeful development of bridging relationships. Researchers' ability to understand the worlds of research, policy and the media and to speak their languages (or to work with others who fulfilled this role) was a key factor. Advocacy was seen as fundamental by some but was disparaged by others. Influential behaviours were guided by values and beliefs about the principles underlying traditional science and the contrasting ethos of contemporary research. This study may help researchers consider their own policy-related roles, strategies and relationships in the context of increasing calls for research that serves economic and/or social goals.
Citation:
Derrick GE, Haynes A, Chapman S, Hall WD. 2011. "The Association between Four Citation Metrics and Peer Rankings of Research Influence of Australian Researchers in Six Fields of Public Health." 6 (4).
Abstract: Doubt about the relevance, appropriateness and transparency of peer review has promoted the use of citation metrics as a viable adjunct or alternative in the assessment of research impact. It is also commonly acknowledged that research metrics will not replace peer review unless they are shown to correspond with the assessment of peers. This paper evaluates the relationship between researchers' influence as evaluated by their peers and various citation metrics representing different aspects of research output in 6 fields of public health in Australia. For four fields, the results showed a modest positive correlation between different research metrics and peer assessments of research influence. However, for two fields, tobacco and injury, negative or no correlations were found. This suggests a peer understanding of research influence within these fields differed from visibility in the mainstream, peer-reviewed scientific literature. This research therefore recommends the use of both peer review and metrics in a combined approach in assessing research influence. Future research evaluation frameworks intent on incorporating metrics should first analyse each field closely to determine what measures of research influence are valued highly by members of that research community. This will aid the development of comprehensive and relevant frameworks with which to fairly and transparently distribute research funds or approve promotion applications.
Citation:
Derrick GE, Sturk H, Haynes AS, Chapman S, Hall WD. 2010. "A Cautionary Bibliometric Tale of Two Cities." Scientometrics 54:317-320.
Abstract: Reliability of citation searches is a cornerstone of bibliometric research. The authors compare simultaneous search returns at two sites to demonstrate discrepancies that can occur as a result of differences in institutional subscriptions to the Web of Science and Web of Knowledge. Such discrepancies may have significant implications for the reliability of bibliometric research in general, but also for the calculation of individual and group indices used for promotion and funding decisions. The authors caution care when describing the methods used in bibliometric analysis and when evaluating researchers from different institutions. In both situations a description of the specific databases used would enable greater reliability.
Citation:
Chapman S, Derrick GE, Haynes AS, Wall WD. 2011. "Democratizing Assessment of Researchers’ Track Records: A Simple Proposal." Medical Journal of Australia 195 (3):147-8.
Citation:
Haynes AS, Derrick GE, Chapman S, Gillespie J, Redman S, Hall WD, Sturk H. 2011. "Galvanisers, Guides, Champions and Shields: The Many Ways that Policymakers Use Public Health Researchers." Milbank Quarterly 89 (4):564-598.
Abstract: Public health researchers make a limited but important contribution to policy development. Some engage with policy directly through committees, advisory boards, advocacy coalitions, ministerial briefings, intervention design consultation, and research partnerships with government, as well as by championing research-informed policy in the media. Nevertheless, the research utilization literature has paid little attention to these diverse roles and the ways that policymakers use them. This article describes how policymakers use researchers in policymaking and examines how these activities relate to models of research utilization. It also explores the extent to which policymakers’ accounts of using researchers concur with the experiences of “policy-engaged” public health researchers. Methods: We conducted semi-structured interviews with thirty-two Australian civil servants, parliamentary ministers, and ministerial advisers identified as “research-engaged” by public health researchers. We used structured and inductive coding to generate categories that we then compared with some of the major research utilization models. Findings: Policymakers were sophisticated and multifaceted users of researchers for purposes that we describe as Galvanizing Ideas, Clarification and Advice, Persuasion, and Defense. These categories overlapped but did not wholly fit with research utilization models. Despite the negative connotation, “being used” was reported as reciprocal and uncompromising, although researchers and policymakers were likely to categorize these uses differently. Policymakers countered views expressed by some researchers. That is, they sought robust dialogue and creative thinking rather than compliance, and they valued expert opinion when research was insufficient for decision making. The technical/political character of policy development shaped the ways in which researchers were used. Conclusions: Elucidating the diverse roles that public health researchers play in policymaking, and the multiple ways that policymakers use these roles, provides researchers and policymakers with a framework for negotiating and reflecting on activities that may advance the public health goals shared by both.
Citation:
Chapman S, Derrick G. 2012. "Bibliographic Analysis of Papers and Authors Published in Tobacco Control 1998-August 2011." Tobacco Control 2012 21:198-201.
Abstract: In the present work, the top 20 cited papers published in Tobacco Control between 1998 and 15 September 2011, the top 10 cited papers published after 2008 and the 50 authors whose papers have been most cited in the journal are reported. US authors dominated the most cited papers and the most cited authors, with Australian authors in second place. Papers on youth and secondhand smoke dominated the top 20 papers, although harm reduction and packaging papers appeared in the post 2008 leading cited papers.
Citation:
Haynes AS, Derrick GE, Redman S, Hall WD, Gillespie JA, Chapman S, Sturk H. 2012. "Identifying Experts: The Ways that Policymakers Find and Assess Public Health Researchers for Consultation and Collaboration."
Abstract: This paper reports data from semi-structured interviews on how 26 Australian civil servants, ministers and ministerial advisors find and evaluate researchers with whom they wish to consult or collaborate. Policymakers valued researchers who had credibility across the three attributes seen as contributing to trustworthiness: competence (an exemplary academic reputation complemented by pragmatism, understanding of government processes, and effective collaboration and communication skills); integrity (independence, “authenticity”, and faithful reporting of research); and benevolence (commitment to the policy reform agenda). The emphases given to these assessment criteria appeared to be shaped in part by policymakers' roles and the type and phase of policy development in which they were engaged. Policymakers are encouraged to reassess their methods for engaging researchers and to maximise information flow and support in these relationships. Researchers who wish to influence policy are advised to develop relationships across the policy community, but also to engage in other complementary strategies for promoting research-informed policy, including the strategic use of mass media.
Citation:
Jonkers, K. Derrick, G.E. 2012. "The Bibliometric Bandwagon: Characteristics of Bibliometric Articles Outside the Field Literature." Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 63 (4):829–836.
Abstract: The controversial use of bibliometrics in scientific decision making has necessitated the need for researchers to remain informed and engaged about bibliometrics. Glänzel and Schoepflin first raised the issue of bibliometric standards in bibliometric research and this concern has been echoed by several additional bibliometric researchers over time: Braun; Glänzel; Abbott; Cyranoski; Jones; Maher; Schiermeier & van Noorden; Lane; Nature; van Noorden; and Wallin. We compare the characteristics of articles published within and outside the Library and Information Science LIS field, including the relative impact and the affiliation of the contributing authors. We find that although the visibility of bibliometric articles within LIS is higher, it is not significant. However, a statistically significant growth in the number of articles written by authors without a bibliometric affiliation was found. This article provides an independent empirical investigation of publication trends potentially underlying Glänzel and Schoepflin's concerns regarding the misuse of bibliometric results, and the inaccurate dissemination of concepts, results, and methods outside of the bibliometric field.
Citation:
Derrick G, Hayen A, Chapman S, Haynes AS, Webster B. 2012. "A Bibliometric Analysis of Research on Indigenous Health in Australia, 1972–2008." Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health 36 (3):269-273.
Abstract: To determine the growth patterns and citation volume of research publications referring to Indigenous health in Australia from 1972 to 2008 compared to seven selected health fields. Methods: Web of Science was used to identify all publications referring to the health of Indigenous Australians authored by Australian researchers, 1972 to 2008. Citations for each publication were also captured. Growth was compared with selected health fields as well as with overall Australian research publications. Results: Research publications referring to Indigenous health, while remaining relatively small in number, grew at an average annual rate of 14.1%, compared with 8.2% across all fields of Australian research. The growth rate shown was equal second highest in our seven categories of health and medical research. However, Indigenous publications were cited significantly less than the Australian average. Conclusions: While there has been positive growth in publications referring to Indigenous health, the attention paid to this research through citations remains disappointingly low. Implications: Given that research concentration and impact can be an index of how seriously a nation considers a health problem, the low visibility of Australian research examining Indigenous health does not demonstrate a level of concern commensurate with the gravity of Indigenous health problems. Further investigation for the reasons for lower citations may identify potential intervention strategies.
Citation:
Derrick, GE. 2011. "Trends and Recent Changes in the Funding Arrangements of Australian University Research." In: Informe CYD 2010, La contribución de las universidades españolas al desarrollo. Fundacion Conocimiento y Desarrollo (CYD), p. 133-134.

Substantive Focus:
Health Policy SECONDARY
Science and Technology Policy PRIMARY

Theoretical Focus:
Policy Process Theory
Agenda-Setting, Adoption, and Implementation
Policy Analysis and Evaluation PRIMARY

Keywords

RESEARCH EVALUATION HEALTH POLICY INNOVATION POLICY BIBLIOMETRICS DIFFUSION OF INNOVATIONS EVALUATION FRAMEWORKS EVIDENCE BASED POLICYMAKING SOCIETAL IMPACT RESEARCH UTILIZATION