Why academics should do more consulting — and how to make it work
Summary
This Nature Comment argues that academic consulting is an underused route for universities to deliver societal impact, diversify income and build partnerships. The authors show that consulting can benefit institutions, academics and society, but institutional policies, inconsistent recognition and slow administration limit take-up. Using UK data, they document a decline in the number of academic consultancy contracts even as total income has risen modestly, and call for universities to make consulting easier to do and better supported.
Key Points
- Consulting is a direct, scalable way for academics to apply research in industry, government and civil society and to bring in flexible income for universities.
- Less than 10% of academic staff (on average) engage in consulting; consultancy contracts fell by 38% between 2014–15 and 2023–24 in the UK.
- Academic consulting income rose to about £566 million in 2023–24, but growth lags the wider management-consulting sector.
- Institutional barriers — patchy policies, variable permitted consulting time, administrative delays and institutional fees (10–40%) — discourage academics or push them to outside providers.
- Some universities capture substantial revenue (17 UK universities earned >£10m in 2023–24) and offer models that could be scaled and adapted.
Content summary
The article outlines universities’ three missions (research, teaching, societal impact) and notes the recent emphasis on commercialisation via licences and spin-outs. By contrast, consulting — a faster, often lower-friction route to impact — is underdeveloped. The authors combine sector data, surveys and interviews to show that consulting activity has contracted in volume, even if contract values have risen, and that a fragmented policy landscape creates uneven opportunities and incentives.
Practical problems identified include restrictive or inconsistent consulting allowances, high institutional takeings, slow contract approvals and uneven support services (insurance, negotiation, contracting). These problems mean small, rapid projects are often won by private consultancies rather than universities, representing a lost chance to apply public research to societal challenges.
Context and relevance
This piece sits alongside wider debates about how universities translate research into real-world outcomes. It highlights a gap between the growth in spin-outs and IP income and the stagnation (or decline) in academic consulting. For university leaders, technology-transfer offices and policy-makers, the article signals that simpler, clearer consulting policies and support infrastructure could unlock impact, income and career development pathways between academia and the wider economy.
Why should I read this?
Short version: if you care about making research matter (or you manage a uni or research group), this is the wake-up call. It shows where money and influence are leaking to private consultancies and spells out practical barriers your institution can fix fast. We’ve saved you the slog — it’s a quick read with concrete evidence and a clear ask: tidy up policy, speed up contracts, and stop leaving small, useful projects on the table.
Author style
Punchy — the authors combine data and direct recommendations intended to nudge university leaders and research offices into practical reform. The tone underscores the urgency of making consulting an easier, recognised route to impact.