The Breimer Committee’s report concerning CoRPS
Introduction
This is the Breimer Committee report concerning CoRPS. The Committee members are Professor Douwe
Breimer (chair, Leiden University), Professor Joost Dekker (VU University Medical Center) and Professor
Andrew Steptoe (University College London). The Committee is supported by secretary Hylke Annema
MSc. This report includes a recommendation to the Executive Board of Tilburg University on the
question of whether the multidisciplinary research center CoRPS should be eligible for the status of
Center of Excellence at Tilburg University.
In order to provide a detailed explanation of its recommendations, the Committee has taken account of
the relevant evaluation reports from the institute in question and held interviews with the most
important individuals involved at CoRPS.
The following documents were studied:
1. Memo to the University Council regarding Centers of Excellence, in which the background of this
procedure is described, including evaluation criteria
2. A motivated request by CoRPS to acquire the Center of Excellence status
3. A report with the following elements:
a. CoRPS mid-term review report 2008-2010
b. CoRPS end-term review report 2008-2012
c. QANU research review report (April 2012; relevant pages)
d. CoRPS own additional evaluation criteria
e. Future vision for CoRPS
f. Benchmarking of CoRPS
g. Financial overview and earning capacity
The following individuals were interviewed during the site visit on 1 and 2 June 2014:
1. Prof. Philip Eijlander, Rector Magnificus of Tilburg University
2. Prof. Klaas Sijtsma, Dean of Tilburg School of Social and Behavioral Sciences
3. Management: Johan Denollet (director), Jan Anne Roukema (deputy director), Jolanda de Vries
(chair of department of medical and clinical psychology), Kitty Boermans (general manager)
4. Program coordinators: Wijo Kop (cardiovascular disorders), Lonneke van de Poll-Franse
(oncology), Frans Pouwer (diabetes mellitus), Margriet Sitskoorn (clinical neuropsychology)
5. Delegation of research staff: Karin Gehring (clinical neuropsychology), Olga Husson (oncology),
Nina Kupper (cardiovascular disorders), Giesje Nefs (diabetes mellitus), Ivan Nyklicek (biological
psychology)
6. Delegation of PhD students: Lisanne Huis in 't Veld (clinical neuropsychology), Dionne Kessing
(cardiovascular disorders), Kim Nicolaije (oncology), Loes Smeijers (cardiovascular disorders),
Marjan Traa (oncology)
1
Main conclusions
The Committee takes the view that CoRPS meets all of Tilburg University’s criteria for becoming a Center
of Excellence. The Committee therefore gives a positive recommendation to the Executive Board on the
question of granting this status to CoRPS and providing the associated follow-up funding.
The Committee was impressed by the flawless organization of the site visit and the documents provided
by CoRPS. Given the limited number of staff at the institute, the Committee considered that the results
they have achieved in only five years are remarkable. The quality of the output is very high and ranks
among the best in its discipline internationally. CoRPS finds itself in a very unique position, with an
original focus, not only connecting psychology and the medical sciences, but also managing this for very
different disease groups.
The researchers take a planned approach when choosing journals in which to publish, looking at the
target audience and not just the quality of the journal. The researchers succeed in publishing in highquality journals while remaining true to their approach, though they could be more ambitious in their
journal choices. Furthermore, the Committee is impressed by the way CoRPS handles the issue of
research integrity and how this is debated and taken up by all members of the research staff.
The Committee is impressed by the amount of external funding CoRPS researchers have attracted from
the NWO and the ‘collectebusfondsen’ (e.g., Dutch Cancer Society, Dutch Heart Foundation). This
includes both personal research grants from the Innovational Research Incentives Scheme and grants
that are more or less aimed at societal relevance. Participating in Horizon 2020, both in the ERC and in
the Societal Challenges program, should form part of the future funding strategy of CoRPS.
The main task at hand for CoRPS is the transition from a disease-based orientation to a method and
theory-based orientation which the institute has set as its goal for the coming years. Although the
Committee considers it an excellent idea to change the research focus in this way, it will mean a massive
change, requiring commitment from all parties involved. However, with the current management and
research staff the Committee feels it will be feasible. Management should remain proactive in setting
out a strategy to achieve this goal.
The Committee would also like to make a note about the benchmark with other leading institutions that
formed input for the site visit. In the Committee’s opinion, the question of whether or not CoRPS
actually belongs in the top three within Europe has not been fully answered. It is beyond doubt that
CoRPS could become Europe’s leading institute in its field, and the Center of Excellence funding would
certainly help them in this mission. The Committee feels more ambition is needed regarding the role of
CoRPS within the Netherlands and Europe, instead of exhibiting the all too common Dutch
moderateness. The institute should become known in the Netherlands as the place to turn to for
knowledge on subjects that are central to CoRPS research, not only fellow academics, but also
politicians, policymakers and the media.
2
Detailed report
1. Research focus
According to the Committee the most notable section of the application letter is the proposed change in
research focus “from a disease-based orientation to a method and theory-based orientation that can be
used to explain and intervene on psychological and behavioral factors across the targeted diseases,” as
this will pose big challenges for the research institute. The decision to take this new direction was based
on recommendations from previous evaluations and reviews of both research and teaching. Since its
start, the institute’s aim has been to include as many elements from the medical sciences as possible. As
it currently seems to be established at that level, the main question after five years concerned the
direction in which to continue. Originally, CoRPS staff mainly focused on observational research, but
after five years it was apparent that the institute was ready for the next, more in-depth, step. The goal
now is to create interventions in the clinical context, both in terms of quality and clinical relevance.
Patients and doctors need to know how they can apply the research results. All in all, CoRPS’ strategy
will be hybrid, focusing on both interventions and the original research.
The Committee notes that the proposed change in research focus might be difficult for CoRPS to realize.
The CoRPS management team noted that it might indeed be quite a challenge for the psychologists, but
not so much for the doctors, who will greatly benefit from this change. Internally, CoRPS is actively
working on bringing together the different streams within the institute, organizing sessions in which
they can exchange views and ideas. The strategy is to actively guide the staff towards the new research
focus. The researchers agree with this new focus and note that while current expertise mainly lies in
methodology, insight into interventions has been on the rise, with the recognition that this is needed to
take the research further. It was also noted, however, that increased cooperation between the different
research themes within CoRPS will be necessary to achieve the new goals.
Another important question was whether or not the staff is sufficiently equipped to carry out this new
mission. Some of the researchers have already oriented themselves towards the new strategy and this is
expected to be the case for all in the near future. Some staff members have part-time appointments in
the clinical setting, which will make the transition easier, but it will obviously also require some
refocusing of the staff. The Center of Excellence funding would be used to hire new people who can
explore the implementation of the interventions. The new research focus will also play a large role in the
Master’s program in Medical Psychology.
2. Research impact
The CoRPS research themes seem to have been made for explicating impact on society. However, the
Committee feels the goals concerning research impact could be made much clearer than presently
stated in the supporting documents. The management team indicated that when CoRPS was
established, no one believed that doctors would be interested in psychology. Today, this has changed
drastically, because the doctors have seen that the CoRPS research results actually work for their
3
patients. CoRPS researchers also publish articles in non-scientific magazines, and many relationships
have been developed with healthcare practitioners and insurance companies. It is apparent that the
patient is increasingly becoming the center of the research activities. Patient groups are also playing an
important role in this. Other forms of research impact can be found in the cooperation with industry; for
example in the development of cell phone apps or other products. Last but not least, the Master’s
program in Medical Psychology (which includes an internship) is also a very important way in which
CoRPS works on valorization.
The Committee wonders whether the research results of CoRPS could have an impact at a higher level,
for example by influencing national policy. CoRPS uses regular communication channels to bring
research results to the media. In addition, the quality of Dutch cancer research is so high that it is
currently rewriting existing international policies. CoRPS is also involved in this initiative. Cooperation
with a large number of hospitals in the Netherlands is paramount for this type of impact. CoRPS is also
building a website for patients and science practitioners, which should become a large national platform
fostering increasing cooperation between patients and doctors.
CoRPS researchers all agree that it would be ideal if their research results had a positive impact on
patients’ lives. It is unclear, however, how this influence might be measured and how well CoRPS
achieves this goal in comparison with other research institutes. This is a more general observation of the
Committee, which also applies to other aspects of CoRPS’ activities. The excellent results of CoRPS could
be much better publicized to the non-scientific community. This could also be achieved by quantifying
results, for example by using metrics.
3. External funding
CoRPS researchers have been very successful in attracting external funding from the NWO and the
‘collectebusfondsen’ (e.g., Dutch Cancer Society, Dutch Heart Foundation), but less so at the European
level. CoRPS has a number of applications running in Horizon 2020, both from the ERC and in the
Societal Challenges program. Other than that there is not a lot of European experience. The main
reason, it seems, is that there are so many other opportunities for research funding, meaning the need
to explore potential European sources is not strongly felt. In general, it is believed that it is tough to start
a European consortium without any experience in Europe. The strategy is to slowly discover the
opportunities and be active as a partner in consortia first, before becoming a coordinator.
The younger researchers, however, have a more positive outlook on Europe. They are heavily involved in
international collaborations (e.g., in the form of publications or PhD supervision) which could potentially
lead to European grant applications in the future. CoRPS offers young researchers ample opportunity, in
the form of both time and money, to become part of international networks, which is felt to be very
beneficial.
4
Questioning the dean concerning the modest ambitions regarding European funding, he also stated that
CoRPS has been concentrating on NWO and other national funding. This has provided them with a lot of
funding, which, as stated above, made them less concerned with Europe. Consequently, the lack of
European funding is mainly due to success in other grant competitions. This is not an exclusive CoRPS
issue, but can also be seen in other departments of the Tilburg School for Social and Behavioral Sciences.
However, participation in European programs is now being stimulated by a new policy which requires all
tenured staff to apply for one source of research funding (including Horizon 2020) annually. To support
the researchers, the School has hired a full-time research grant advisor.
The Committee feels CoRPS could be more proactive on the European level. Colleagues around Europe
are becoming increasingly active in Europe and CoRPS cannot lag behind, not only with regard to ERC
grants, but also in collaborative projects. Researchers do not need to explore every available option, but
should be selective in choosing their projects. This would require a more active Europe strategy by both
the CoRPS management and the School, including ambitious goals. The Committee thinks there are no
barriers to CoRPS becoming a coordinator of a European project, especially when it ranks among the
best in Europe.
4. Relationship with hospitals and research strategy
CoRPS’ research activities require an excellent relationship with its partner hospitals; it can even be
considered vital, as the University does not have a medical center. From the start, doctors from both
partner hospitals have been involved in the institute’s Master’s program. This has created very strong
ties between the parties. The hospitals also fund the appointment of Prof. Roukema for two days a week
and it is expected that other staff will be funded in this way in the future. CoRPS researchers work with
doctors on an almost daily basis, which in co-creation can help define new research areas. One new
development is that medical disciplines that are not yet involved (e.g., urology) are now becoming
interested in cooperating with the institute. This provides new opportunities to further increase
connections between academia and the hospitals. Finally, CoRPS also provides a means for doctors to
obtain a PhD.
Regarding the content of their research activities, staff report that management rarely says ‘no’ based
on content or ideas, as they have their own fields of expertise and a large degree of autonomy. As long
as the research does not stray too much from the CoRPS label, investigating new areas is not a problem.
Money obviously can be an issue regarding these choices. The reliance on external funding makes
researchers relatively dependent. Twice a year all research staff have discussions with the management
team to decide on their short-term future strategy. Most decisions about the research strategy are
made at a group level, however, and not at the level of individual researchers. Some projects are driven
by theoretical developments, some by developments within the field.
5
Having studied the list of publications, the Committee notes that there are quite a large number of
articles in high-impact journals, but also quite a few in medium-impact journals. This raised the question
of whether CoRPS has a publication strategy. It seems that the choice of journal is based on an
assessment of both the target audience and the impact of the journal. Researchers consider the journals
that could potentially be interested in an article, and generally adopt the strategy of not aiming too high.
In response to the obvious question of whether or not CoRPS should aim higher, the general feeling is
that the researchers could at times aim higher. There are no strict rules for deciding on a journal.
5. Identity
One of the questions the Breimer Committee has asked at all previous assessments of Tilburg
University’s research institutes is whether the staff identify primarily with the institute or with the
department. In general, CoRPS researchers identify themselves with their department in relation to their
teaching and managerial tasks and with CoRPS in relation to their research activities. All of the research
of associated staff is also labeled as CoRPS research output.
Although the University encourages young researchers to go abroad to work at other universities, most
prefer to stay at Tilburg University as it offers a very stimulating research and working environment. It is
becoming increasingly difficult, however, to find sufficient funding to retain all of the young researchers,
as CoRPS is becoming increasingly dependent on the second and third funding streams. Nevertheless,
the management and research leaders work very hard to help talented researchers stay in Tilburg.
Fortunately, most people on a tenure track will ultimately become tenured. In the past, CoRPS has seen
some younger people leave for other universities. However, this was mainly due to Dutch labor laws, as
the institute did not have enough tenured positions available. The management sees this as only of
minor concern.
Despite the fact that a large number of current young researchers obtained their PhD at CoRPS, the
institute always hires the best person for the job, regardless of whether they are internal or external
candidates. For some job positions, the institute has had excellent applicants from world-renowned
universities such as Harvard. It is believed that this international interest says something about the
quality of the institute.
6. Research integrity
The Committee is of the opinion that research integrity is one of the most important issues facing
academia. In Tilburg, especially within psychology, this issue is obviously even more important. The
CoRPS researchers stated that it is almost second nature to follow the national, international and
University rules and regulations regarding integrity. The School also has its own internal ethics
committee, where ‘gray’ areas can be discussed in an open way. Of course, the complete prevention of
malpractice is impossible, but the institute strives to create an open atmosphere between colleagues,
stimulating open dialog. The current internal debate is about working with open data protocols, through
which others can duplicate CoRPS research results. The management team stated that the training of
6
young researchers and students is also very important, as you cannot start early enough in explaining
what research integrity entails. Some of the researchers mentioned that a lot of the research is grant
related and because hypotheses must be formulated as part of the application, a clear framework that
must be adhered to by the researcher is established from the start.
The issue of research integrity was also discussed with a delegation of PhD candidates. They agreed that
the issue is talked about a lot both within the institute and the School. There are very active discussions
on various integrity issues, including data use and related problems. The PhD candidates felt that the
attention paid to this subject is even too much at times. However, it has created a high level of
awareness, which is beneficial when performing research. For example, PhD candidates must be fully
open about what they intend to do at all steps in their research. According to the PhD candidates, this
increased attention has not led to mistrust. When asked whether it might not sometimes be tempting to
change hypotheses if the results are unsatisfactory, they answered with a determined ‘no’. This would
not only be unethical, but would ultimately lead to unpublishable articles and damage to their career.
Overall, the Committee was impressed by the strong emphasis on research integrity, and the consistent
approach aiming at maintaining research integrity.
7. Meeting with delegation of PhD candidates
In general, the PhD candidates are very satisfied with their affiliation with CoRPS, and are quite proud of
the ‘CoRPS brand’, actively profiling themselves as part of CoRPS when abroad or at conferences. They
feel that the institute is well known abroad, especially regarding research-related activities. Because the
PhD candidates all work in the same building, and often even in the same rooms, they meet on a daily
basis. The close proximity also stimulates collaboration between the different ‘disease groups’ within
CoRPS and allows them to easily share experiences. PhD candidates also actively help each other with
technical or methodological/statistical questions, which are often similar in all groups. To further
enhance the group feeling between PhDs, CoRPS organizes monthly drinks, lunches and dinners.
The PhD candidates are very satisfied with their relationship with their supervisors. As could be
expected, it was mentioned that they can be very demanding, but they are never pushy. They like the
structure offered, having both a supervisor and a co-supervisor, as this ensures that there is always
someone to approach with any questions. Each PhD candidate must create an outline of the trajectory
of their project in the first year, including a strategy for publication (how many articles, aimed at what
journals, which coauthors, etc.). This offers a lot of structure and is a good means to ensure success.
The PhD candidates agreed that research impact is very important today and they actively attempt to
contribute. They also feel that it would be a waste if the research results only appeared in academic
publications and were not used in society at large. PhD candidates are therefore encouraged to create
intervention studies based on their theoretical research results. Fortunately, CoRPS also provides them
with the time to do this. To further assist them, the Graduate School provides courses in media training.
7
It was noted by some PhD candidates that labor market prospects are problematic at this particular
time, especially if one wants to pursue a career outside academia. They agreed that the University could
offer more courses in career development. The PhD candidates seem rather keen on staying in Tilburg
after completing their PhD. The Committee is of the opinion that going abroad is very good for young
academic staff as a means to broaden their academic horizon. International experience could be
promoted more by CoRPS management, with the European Marie Skłodowska-Curie grants possibly
being a good way to achieve this.
Professor Douwe Breimer, chair
Professor Joost Dekker
Professor Andrew Steptoe
Hylke Annema, MSc, secretary
August 2014
8