Abstract

Evaluation results of MSCA PF consistently show that Widening countries are not as successful as their non-Widening counterparts.

Astonishingly, out of the 1,205 MSCA PF projects awarded in the 2021 call, only 91 (7,5 %) were awarded to host institutions located in Widening countries. Specifically, at our institution, Masaryk University, only a single MSCA PF was awarded out of 22 submitted proposals, while 100% of our outgoing mobilities (5 out of 5) to non-Widening countries succeeded. As we have seen this picture in many previous calls, we wonder what systematic variables might be behind.

Have you seen similar results at your (widening countries‘) institutions? Is it a result of an unconscious bias towards the Widening countries institutions, or fellowships? Or is it simply a natural consequence of an obvious handicap of Widening countries that are – on average – less excellent than the old member countries, thus falling short of many aspects inherent to the MSCA-PF template and the scheme as such? To what extent is this disadvantaged position compensated by the ERA Fellowship scheme?

We have also encountered a rather naïve, unknowing, and reproaching view that Widening countries institutions preferably employ nationals instead of foreigners – an impression that tragically ignores the fact that institutions in Widening countries are, on average, less attractive for international researchers outside Widening countries, both as target of mobility and collaborations.
We perceive the issue of feeble motivation of non-Widening countries to participate in WIDERA actions as significant, but it varies across the non-Widening countries and that is why we should give this variability a closer look.

What motivates researchers from your non-Widening country to cooperate with partners from Widening countries? To what extent the motivation to participate depends on personal relationships? Are there any governmental/institutional incentives in non-Widening (as well as in Widening) countries that support willingness to participate? Can you share information on any instruments employed in your countries? What are the typical backgrounds of widening consortia genesis?

The goal of this roundtable discussion:
- to form a group of RMAs who are not ignorant of the lower participation rates, and collect their views, experience, and data;
- to discuss and identify the actual barriers (cultural, financial, technological, other) of participation;
- to share best practices – bottom-up tools to incentivise researchers - from the communication microlevel and soft factors to systemic and institutional conditions;
- to share information on resistance to establish links and collaborations with Widening countries‘ research communities.