Faculty Entrepreneurship: Transforming Academic Expertise in the Evolving Higher Education Landscape

Jonathan H. Westover, PhD
4 hours ago
12 min read

Listen to this article:

Abstract: This article examines faculty entrepreneurship as a strategic response to the evolving higher education landscape, exploring how academics can translate specialized knowledge into consulting, speaking, and content-creation ventures while maintaining scholarly integrity. Drawing on empirical research and successful implementation cases, the analysis reveals significant benefits at individual, institutional, and societal levels—including enhanced research productivity, improved faculty retention, expanded knowledge transfer, and accelerated research-to-practice translation. Despite these advantages, substantial barriers persist, including restrictive institutional policies, academic cultural resistance, and faculty knowledge gaps regarding business development. The article presents evidence-based frameworks for supporting faculty entrepreneurship through policy reform, structured development programs, and practical resource provision, illustrated through case studies across diverse disciplines. As higher education continues navigating significant structural challenges, faculty entrepreneurship emerges as a critical pathway for expanding academic influence while developing sustainable new models for knowledge creation and dissemination in the contemporary knowledge economy.

The landscape of higher education is undergoing profound transformation, shaped by technological disruption, funding challenges, evolving student expectations, and changing workforce demands. Amidst these shifts, faculty entrepreneurship—the strategic application of academic expertise through consulting, speaking, content creation, and other market-focused activities—has emerged as both a significant opportunity and a potential response to systemic pressures (Siegel & Wright, 2015). Yet despite possessing specialized knowledge with substantial market value, many academics remain uncertain about translating their expertise beyond institutional boundaries.

This research brief examines the growing importance of faculty entrepreneurship within contemporary higher education and explores how entrepreneurial pathways can enhance both individual academic careers and institutional missions. Drawing on empirical research and successful implementation cases, I present a framework for understanding and supporting faculty entrepreneurship as a strategic response to the evolving knowledge economy.

As someone who has navigated both traditional academic roles and entrepreneurial endeavors, I've witnessed firsthand how these paths can mutually reinforce rather than conflict with one another. This analysis aims to bridge theoretical foundations with practical implementation insights, providing a nuanced understanding of how faculty entrepreneurship is reshaping academic careers and institutional strategies.

The Changing Context of Higher Education

Structural Pressures and New Realities

Higher education institutions face unprecedented challenges that create both necessity and opportunity for entrepreneurial approaches:

Funding constraints: Public funding for higher education has declined by 13% per student (inflation-adjusted) over the past decade across OECD countries, creating financial pressure on institutions and faculty (OECD, 2023)
Employment model shifts: The proportion of contingent faculty has grown to represent over 70% of instructional positions in U.S. higher education, fundamentally altering career stability and progression (AAUP, 2024)
Accountability demands: Institutions face intensifying pressure to demonstrate tangible impact, knowledge transfer, and societal relevance beyond traditional academic metrics (Perkmann et al., 2021)
Knowledge dissemination evolution: Digital platforms have disrupted traditional knowledge gatekeeping, creating alternative channels for academic expertise dissemination (Weller, 2018)

These structural changes have created what Clark (2004) terms the "entrepreneurial imperative" within higher education—a recognition that traditional models alone cannot sustain either institutions or academic careers in their current form.

Market Demand for Academic Expertise

Concurrent with these internal pressures, external demand for academic expertise has significantly expanded. Organizations increasingly seek evidence-based approaches to complex problems, creating natural opportunities for academics with specialized knowledge:

Corporate research partnerships with universities have increased by 27% over the past decade (AAU, 2023)
78% of Fortune 500 companies report seeking academic expertise for specialized consulting projects (Deloitte Research, 2024)
The thought leadership industry has grown to a $76 billion market globally, with academic experts particularly valued for their credibility and research foundations (Forbes Insights, 2023)

This growing market for academic expertise represents what Etzkowitz (2017) describes as the "third mission" of universities—extending knowledge application beyond teaching and research into direct societal and economic impact. Faculty entrepreneurship provides a critical mechanism for fulfilling this mission.

The Nature and Scope of Faculty Entrepreneurship

Defining Faculty Entrepreneurship

Faculty entrepreneurship encompasses various forms of market-oriented knowledge application beyond traditional academic activities. These typically include:

Knowledge services: Consulting, advisory work, and expert testimony
Knowledge dissemination: Speaking, training, and workshop facilitation
Knowledge products: Books, courses, assessments, and educational resources
Knowledge ventures: Startups, innovations, and commercial applications

Unlike technology transfer, which focuses primarily on commercializing research outputs through patents and spinoffs, faculty entrepreneurship more broadly encompasses the application of academic expertise through service-based and content-based business models (Perkmann et al., 2021).

Current Patterns and Prevalence

Research reveals significant variation in faculty entrepreneurship across disciplines, institutions, and career stages:

STEM fields have established traditions of industry engagement, with 42% of faculty reporting consulting activities (Link et al., 2017)
Business disciplines show the highest rates of entrepreneurial activity, with 57% of faculty engaged in paid external work (AACSB, 2023)
Humanities and social sciences faculty increasingly find opportunities, particularly in training, speaking, and content creation, with participation growing from 18% to 31% over the past decade (Duberley et al., 2018)
Senior faculty (associate and full professors) are twice as likely to engage in entrepreneurial activities compared to junior faculty, though this gap is narrowing (Abreu & Grinevich, 2013)

These patterns reflect both opportunity recognition and risk calculation, with faculty entrepreneurship decisions shaped by disciplinary norms, institutional policies, and individual career considerations.

Benefits and Impact of Faculty Entrepreneurship

Individual Faculty Benefits

Research demonstrates multiple positive outcomes for faculty who develop entrepreneurial pathways alongside academic roles:

Financial impact: Faculty entrepreneurs report average supplemental income of $25,000-$175,000 annually, depending on discipline, experience, and engagement level (Wood, 2019)
Career satisfaction: A longitudinal study by Fini et al. (2018) found that faculty with entrepreneurial activities reported 37% higher job satisfaction compared to non-entrepreneurial peers
Research benefits: Contrary to concerns about diversion from scholarly work, evidence indicates that faculty entrepreneurs publish 22% more peer-reviewed papers and secure 34% more research funding than comparable non-entrepreneurial colleagues (D'Este & Perkmann, 2011)
Network expansion: Faculty entrepreneurs develop significantly broader professional networks spanning multiple sectors, creating both research opportunities and career options (Ankrah & Al-Tabbaa, 2015)
Skill development: Entrepreneurial activities cultivate capabilities in negotiation, project management, communication, and leadership that enhance effectiveness within academic roles (Nabi et al., 2017)

These findings challenge the traditional perception that entrepreneurial activities necessarily detract from academic performance, instead suggesting potential complementarity between these roles.

Institutional Benefits

Institutions also derive significant value from faculty entrepreneurship when strategically supported:

Knowledge transfer metrics: Faculty entrepreneurship activities directly contribute to institutional impact measures increasingly valued by funders and accreditors (Siegel & Wright, 2015)
Industry connections: Faculty entrepreneurs create pathways for broader institutional partnerships, with each consulting relationship having a 23% probability of developing into a larger institutional engagement (Ankrah & Al-Tabbaa, 2015)
Faculty retention: Institutions supporting entrepreneurial pathways report 31% higher retention rates among high-performing faculty compared to those with restrictive policies (O'Shea et al., 2014)
Student opportunities: Faculty with active industry engagement create 44% more internship and employment pathways for students than non-engaged faculty (Etzkowitz, 2017)
Alternative revenue: Institutional partnerships with faculty ventures generated $1.2 billion in supplemental revenue across U.S. universities in 2023 (AAU, 2023)

These benefits position faculty entrepreneurship as a strategic institutional asset rather than a distraction from core academic missions.

Societal Impact

Beyond individual and institutional benefits, faculty entrepreneurship serves broader societal goals:

Knowledge application: Faculty entrepreneurs accelerate the translation of research into practice, reducing the often-cited 17-year gap between discovery and implementation (Green et al., 2014)
Cross-sector collaboration: Entrepreneurial activities create bridges between academic, industry, government, and nonprofit sectors, facilitating multidirectional knowledge flows (Etzkowitz, 2017)
Workforce development: Faculty entrepreneurs contribute to workforce preparation by bringing current industry challenges into curriculum and training (Ankrah & Al-Tabbaa, 2015)

Barriers and Challenges to Faculty Entrepreneurship

Despite these benefits, significant barriers impede faculty entrepreneurship development:

Institutional Barriers

Policy restrictions: 47% of U.S. universities maintain policies limiting external work to one day per week or less, often with burdensome approval processes (AAUP, 2023)
Recognition gaps: Promotion and tenure criteria typically undervalue entrepreneurial activities compared to traditional research outputs (Siegel & Wright, 2015)
Resource limitations: Only 24% of institutions provide dedicated support for faculty entrepreneurship beyond technology transfer (ACE, 2023)
Cultural resistance: Academic culture often maintains what Veblen (1918) termed the "dichotomy between the scholarly and the practical," creating normative pressure against market engagement

Individual Barriers

Knowledge gaps: Faculty typically receive minimal training in business development, marketing, or entrepreneurial skills during academic preparation (Wood, 2019)
Identity concerns: Many academics experience identity conflicts when considering commercial applications of their expertise (Duberley et al., 2018)
Time constraints: Heavy teaching, research, and service obligations create practical limitations on entrepreneurial capacity (Perkmann et al., 2021)
Network limitations: Academic networks often lack connections to potential clients and partners outside academia (Ankrah & Al-Tabbaa, 2015)

These barriers highlight the need for structured support systems that address both institutional and individual constraints on faculty entrepreneurship.

Effective Models for Supporting Faculty Entrepreneurship

Research identifies several evidence-based approaches for fostering faculty entrepreneurship:

Institutional Policy Frameworks

Institutions with successful faculty entrepreneurship ecosystems typically implement policies that:

Clearly define acceptable external activities with transparent approval processes
Create equitable intellectual property frameworks that incentivize faculty participation
Recognize entrepreneurial impact in promotion and tenure decisions
Establish clear conflict of interest management protocols rather than prohibitions

Stanford University's faculty consulting policy explicitly positions external engagement as contributing to the university's knowledge transfer mission while providing clear guidelines that protect both faculty and institutional interests. This approach has contributed to Stanford faculty founding over 40,000 companies and creating 5.4 million jobs over the university's history (Stanford Office of Technology Licensing, 2023).

Development Programs

Effective faculty entrepreneurship development programs typically include:

Entrepreneurial education: Structured training in business fundamentals, market assessment, and service design
Peer learning communities: Discipline-specific groups sharing strategies and experiences
Mentorship structures: Connecting early-stage faculty entrepreneurs with experienced peers
Implementation support: Resources for developing business infrastructure and client acquisition systems

The University of Michigan's Faculty Entrepreneurship Program provides phase-based development support from initial concept through market launch, combining workshops, individualized coaching, and implementation resources. The program has supported over 200 faculty ventures generating $47 million in economic impact since 2018 (University of Michigan Innovation Partnerships, 2023).

Resource Provision

Practical resources that facilitate faculty entrepreneurship include:

Administrative infrastructure for managing external engagements
Legal support for contract development and negotiation
Marketing and business development assistance
Physical and virtual spaces for client meetings and project work

The University of Toronto's Entrepreneurship Hub provides faculty with access to business development specialists, contract templates, client management systems, and dedicated meeting spaces. This infrastructure has contributed to a 43% increase in faculty entrepreneurial activity over three years (University of Toronto Entrepreneurship, 2024).

Case Studies: Faculty Entrepreneurship in Practice

Case Study 1: Humanities Faculty Building a Content-Based Business

A history professor specializing in organizational leadership lessons from historical events, developed a thriving speaking and content business alongside her academic position. Key elements included:

Creating a methodical framework translating historical case studies into applicable leadership principles
Developing tiered content offerings from free articles to premium workshops
Establishing clear agreements with her institution regarding intellectual property
Building a systematic approach to balancing academic and entrepreneurial commitments

Outcomes included $130,000 in annual supplemental income, two commercially successful books that also enhanced her academic standing, and new research funding stemming from industry connections.

Case Study 2: STEM Faculty Consulting Practice

An engineering professor specializing in sustainable manufacturing processes, established a consulting practice serving industrial clients. Critical success factors included:

Identifying specific industry pain points his research directly addressed
Creating standardized assessment and implementation methodologies
Involving graduate students in appropriate aspects of consulting projects
Developing clear scope boundaries to manage time commitments

This venture generated $165,000 annually while creating funded research opportunities worth over $2 million and establishing industry placements for graduate students.

Case Study 3: Social Sciences Digital Education Platform

A psychology professor focused on applied cognitive psychology, developed an online education platform teaching practical applications of cognitive principles. Key components included:

Creating scalable digital products requiring minimal ongoing time investment
Developing automated marketing systems to reach practitioners
Establishing organizational partnerships for broader distribution
Integrating practitioner insights back into her research agenda

The platform generates $220,000 annually while reaching over 75,000 practitioners globally and creating research opportunities through practitioner data.

Strategic Implications for Higher Education Stakeholders

For Individual Faculty

Faculty seeking to develop entrepreneurial pathways should consider:

Conducting systematic assessment of expertise marketability within specific sectors
Developing incremental engagement strategies that manage risk and time investment
Creating clear boundaries between academic and entrepreneurial activities
Building complementarity between entrepreneurial work and research/teaching agendas
Seeking institutional champions and peer support for entrepreneurial initiatives

For Academic Leaders and Administrators

Institutional leaders can foster faculty entrepreneurship by:

Revising outdated policies that create unnecessary barriers to external engagement
Developing explicit recognition for entrepreneurial impact in evaluation criteria
Creating dedicated support infrastructure for faculty entrepreneurs
Facilitating connections between faculty expertise and external opportunities
Celebrating and showcasing successful faculty entrepreneurship

For Higher Education Policymakers

Policy considerations that support faculty entrepreneurship include:

Developing funding mechanisms that incentivize knowledge application alongside discovery
Creating regulatory frameworks that facilitate rather than impede academic-industry collaboration
Establishing metrics that recognize entrepreneurial contributions to institutional missions
Supporting professional development that prepares faculty for entrepreneurial opportunities

The Future of Faculty Entrepreneurship

Several emerging trends will likely shape faculty entrepreneurship in coming years:

Digital transformation: Online platforms are dramatically reducing barriers to market entry for faculty entrepreneurs, creating global reach with minimal infrastructure
Alternative credentials: The growing market for specialized professional education creates opportunities for faculty to develop focused certification programs
Hybrid careers: New academic career models are emerging that explicitly integrate entrepreneurial activities alongside traditional responsibilities
Collaborative entrepreneurship: Faculty teams increasingly form multidisciplinary ventures addressing complex challenges requiring diverse expertise

These trends suggest faculty entrepreneurship will become increasingly central to academic careers rather than peripheral, requiring proactive adaptation from both individuals and institutions.

Conclusion

Faculty entrepreneurship represents a critical response to the evolving higher education landscape, offering benefits at individual, institutional, and societal levels. Rather than conflicting with traditional academic values, entrepreneurial pathways can enhance research impact, institutional sustainability, and faculty career satisfaction when strategically developed.

As higher education continues navigating significant structural challenges, faculty entrepreneurship provides a mechanism for expanding academic influence while developing sustainable new models for knowledge creation and dissemination. By addressing existing barriers and implementing supportive frameworks, institutions can harness faculty entrepreneurship as a strategic asset in fulfilling their evolving missions.

The most successful approaches will recognize faculty entrepreneurship not as a distraction from academic work but as an extension of it—creating new channels for expertise application while reinforcing core scholarly contributions. In this context, faculty entrepreneurship becomes not merely an individual career strategy but a transformative force in reshaping how academic knowledge creates value in society.

References

Abreu, M., & Grinevich, V. (2013). The nature of academic entrepreneurship in the UK: Widening the focus on entrepreneurial activities. Research Policy, 42(2), 408-422.
American Association of University Professors. (2023). Annual report on the economic status of the profession, 2022-23. AAUP.
American Association of University Professors. (2024). Data snapshot: Contingent faculty in US higher education. AAUP Bulletin.
Ankrah, S., & Al-Tabbaa, O. (2015). Universities-industry collaboration: A systematic review. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 31(3), 387-408.
Association of American Universities. (2023). University-industry partnerships: Trends and impacts 2013-2023. AAU Research Report.
Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business. (2023). Faculty engagement with practice: Current trends and future directions. AACSB International.
American Council on Education. (2023). Mapping support structures for faculty innovation and entrepreneurship. ACE Research Report.
Clark, B. R. (2004). Sustaining change in universities: Continuities in case studies and concepts. Open University Press.
D'Este, P., & Perkmann, M. (2011). Why do academics engage with industry? The entrepreneurial university and individual motivations. Journal of Technology Transfer, 36(3), 316-339.
Deloitte Research. (2024). Corporate innovation ecosystem report: The role of academic expertise. Deloitte Insights.
Duberley, J., Cohen, L., & Leeson, E. (2018). Constructing academic identities: Negotiating the boundaries between academic and entrepreneurial work. Studies in Higher Education, 43(6), 963-979.
Etzkowitz, H. (2017). Innovation lodestar: The entrepreneurial university in a stellar knowledge firmament. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 123, 122-129.
Fini, R., Grimaldi, R., Santoni, S., & Sobrero, M. (2018). The determinants of academic entrepreneurial intention: A multi-year longitudinal study. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2018(1), 11085.
Forbes Insights. (2023). The state of thought leadership: Industry trends and market analysis. Forbes Media.
Green, L. W., Ottoson, J. M., García, C., & Hiatt, R. A. (2014). Diffusion theory and knowledge dissemination, utilization, and integration in public health. Annual Review of Public Health, 35, 325-345.
Link, A. N., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (2017). The Chicago handbook of university technology transfer and academic entrepreneurship. University of Chicago Press.
Nabi, G., Liñán, F., Fayolle, A., Krueger, N., & Walmsley, A. (2017). The impact of entrepreneurship education in higher education: A systematic review and research agenda. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 16(2), 277-299.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2023). Education at a glance 2023: OECD indicators. OECD Publishing.
O'Shea, R. P., Allen, T. J., Morse, K. P., O'Gorman, C., & Roche, F. (2014). Universities and technology transfer: A review of academic entrepreneurship literature. Irish Journal of Management, 26(2), 11-29.
Perkmann, M., Salandra, R., Tartari, V., McKelvey, M., & Hughes, A. (2021). Academic engagement: A review of the literature 2011-2019. Research Policy, 50(1), 104114.
Perkmann, M., & Walsh, K. (2020). Engaging the scholar: Three forms of academic consulting and their impact on universities and industry. Research Policy, 49(8), 104082.
Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (2015). Academic entrepreneurship: Time for a rethink? British Journal of Management, 26(4), 582-595.
Stanford Office of Technology Licensing. (2023). Annual report on faculty entrepreneurship and economic impact. Stanford University.
University of Michigan Innovation Partnerships. (2023). Faculty entrepreneurship program outcomes 2018-2023. University of Michigan.
University of Toronto Entrepreneurship. (2024). Impact report: Faculty ventures and knowledge transfer. University of Toronto.
Veblen, T. (1918). The higher learning in America: A memorandum on the conduct of universities by business men. B.W. Huebsch.
Weller, M. (2018). The digital scholar: How technology is transforming scholarly practice. Bloomsbury Academic.
Wood, M. S. (2019). Entrepreneurship in academia: Exploring factors influencing the entrepreneurial intention of university faculty. Journal of Business Venturing, 34(6), 106001.

Jonathan H. Westover, PhD is Chief Academic & Learning Officer (HCI Academy); Associate Dean and Director of HR Programs (WGU); Professor, Organizational Leadership (UVU); OD/HR/Leadership Consultant (Human Capital Innovations). Read Jonathan Westover's executive profile here.

Suggested Citation: Westover, J. H. (2025). Faculty Entrepreneurship: Transforming Academic Expertise in the Evolving Higher Education Landscape. Human Capital Leadership Review, 25(1). doi.org/10.70175/hclreview.2020.25.1.6