Making SOS-TIPS happen

Training (WP6)

Training is one of the cornerstones of MSCA IFs; it is one of the most important goals in the grant. Thus, the training WP not only needs to serve the achievement of the proposed project, but should also prepare the fellow for future employment (or however they image their post-grant life) and all this should be coherently represented in the career development plan within the proposal (section 2.1).
At submission, I had the idealistic plan of beginning my grant period in Berlin, at a company that manufactures eye-tracking hardware and develops open source software for it as well. I wanted to learn first-hand about this gear and how obtained information is processed. Yet, because COVID was still a serious threat at the start of the grant period, and because I had to spend a month working at my EU Host institution before I could set out, the plan changed, practically right at the start of the grant. Thus, training on eye-tracking must be remote and I am still in the process of negotiating it. I planned on taking certain courses at the two universities and receiving hands-on training in various areas. More specifically:

As the beginning of the semester was approaching, I looked at the course catalogue, identified the courses in my proposal & other relevant courses, and reached out to professors to ask if I could audit. As I did the same thing at UCSD during my Fulbright, I anticipated no problems. I should not have assumed that universities work the same way. Professors had contacted their respective Departments about rules on auditing, and then written back to me saying that unfortunately, I cannot audit courses unless I become an official auditor (which entails paying a "reduced tuition fee"). Every time the distinct Departments cited a University policy. I looked into the policy and it was set by the Board of Regents, University of Wisconsin System, indeed forbidding those under 60 years of age to just "sit in" and listen to lectures. This is how I phrased what I wanted...just "sit in"....I didn't need to have access to course materials, didn't need to be enrolled in Canvas, don't want to submit assignments and have them graded. Just wanted to sit in a big lecture hall and listen to the lecture. It costs absolutely nothing for the University. I was baffled that I had been denied this.
The interesting thing for me is (I mean, aside from the fact that such a policy forbids those who are affiliated with the University to learn things from their colleagues) that I received a university card, an ID for accessing the library and all its resources, the university-wide wifi system, a university email address, LinkedIn courses access, etc, etc...these all have very precise monetary value. As do course syllabi. Yet I was given a card and ID, and I was sent the syllabi by the professors without even asking for it...why give me access to all these services and academic artifacts, but not allow me to listen to lectures?
I really don't want to seem ungrateful. I will create a diagram explaining all the wonderful things you gain access to once you are affiliated with a university...but this, not being able to observe courses, I can't wrap my head around. Also, a consequence of this...again, I have to modify things in my initial MSCA proposal because I simply cannot complete some of the things I promised to. The School of Education has offered to help me out in attending courses, and I have been referred to LinkedIn courses as well, which is great. Also, I will be able to complete my hands-on training at the Lab.
I guess the main take-away here is: make sure to check the university policies (and practices) concerning auditing before you put specific courses in your proposal. Because...you DO have to put specific courses / training in your proposal. Just do more than take a look at the course catalogue...go the extra mile and write professors and/or departments, tell them about your grant, and ask if they would give you permission to audit.

About 2 years ago I applied for a Hungarian national scholarship that would've allowed me to come to Madison and work with the Epistemic Analytics Lab on a new piece of software...which is, basically one of my WPs now. The main critique in my review/evaluation for the scholarship then was that there is no need for me to actually go to the location in the US, we could just develop the software in our respective locations. Of course, I could begin critiquing the critique with considerations like time differences, needed infrastructure on both ends, etc. Yet, I'm starting to realize this is an easily understandable way to explain the importance of co-location, but there is a more powerful underlying reality that is challenging to put into words. The MSCA call uses the term "hands-on training" to describe a situation where you are working in a lab abroad, collaborating with others, learning in informal ways. I used to think it's just a fancy word for working together and learning-by-doing. This is true, but it's more than that. This aspect of the training offers you a different dimension of working together. As I mentioned in other blog entries, I've been collaborating with this Lab since 2017, and we've worked on a variety of projects, but nothing compares to being in a shared space, with a shared existential backdrop. For example, talking shop during lunch, pausing in the doorway to listen in on a work-related conversation other colleagues are having, seeing how a lab like this functions on an everyday basis with the undergraduate and graduate students, observing / providing / receiving mentorship...all these things are so difficult to put into words, and yet this active participation in a lab is the key benefit of training in MSCA. And just to circle back to how I began this entry: someone in a widening country may not understand the importance of co-location right away. In today's world, sure, you can do most anything virtually, even develop software, conduct studies, etc., but nothing really replaces face-to-face interactions and informal ways of learning. Thinking like this reviewer, in such a strict utilitarian way, is a loss to the field...whether I'm laying down the foundations of my future employment abroad, or university-scale long-lasting collaborations beyond the grant, or facilitating knowledge exchange in best practices, co-location is going to be crucial. So, bumping a proposal is fine, but don't do it because the applicant's presence in the other country is "unnecessary". This is a great strength of the MSCA IFs...understanding and valuing this manner of building professional relationships and learning.