I have been working on describing the FLEx software eco-system (for both a blog post and an info-graphic). In the process I googled Language documentation workflow and was promptly directed to resources created for InField and aggregated via ctldc.org. For example, http://www.ctldc.org/clearing-house/item/65-principles-and-multimedia-tools-for-sustainable-language-documentation-maintenance-and-revitalization An amazing set of resources. the ctldc.org website is well put together and the content from InField 2010 and 2008 is amazing - I wish I could have been there. They incorporate new technologies and methods in ways that SIL fieldwork programs do not attempt to do.
I can’t imagine that there is a very large student base for these kinds of summer schools (competency exchanges). Therefore, I am almost convinced that most SIL staff pursuing linguistic fieldwork should just go to InField… To do that effectivly, SIL would need to provide teachers and content to these various summer training programs. It means that SIL would need to organize itself more modularly around the course, rather than around the course-set or program. On the other hand, it is true that InField seems to be targeted at someone who has had more than one semester of linguistics training. SIL schools seem to be constructed at taking someone with zero linguistic background.