From Dark Alleys into the University Light: Dilemmas of Academic Consulting
三位不同职业阶段的管理学者反思学术咨询的困境，探讨其如何影响学术信誉、诚信、影响力和职业意义，并呼吁提高透明度。
When my colleague took me aside and told me, ‘You shouldn’t do it’, a chill ran down my spine and I felt like a drug dealer in a dark alley. The problem? I showed excitement to my colleagues about engaging in a consulting opportunity.[1] Management scholars who engage in academic consulting often feel compelled to somewhat hide their activities. Academic consulting frequently takes place in the dark alleys of academia: informally, with limited transparency, and in ethical grey areas. The three of us have grappled with dilemmas related to how much we can, want to, and should engage in consulting. On the one hand, scepticism abounds: consulting is often seen as undermining academic credibility, compromising the pursuit of rigorous research, or being motivated solely by financial gain. On the other hand, consulting offers opportunities – connecting theory with practice, providing access to unique field study opportunities, and achieving tangible impact beyond teaching and publishing papers. As three management scholars at different career stages, dilemmas around consulting have affected all of us – a junior scholar wary of credibility risks, a mid-career researcher concerned about whether and how consulting fits his academic identity, and a senior scholar considering consulting’s role in his academic career. In this essay, we explore the dilemmas of academic consulting, sharing our experiences and reflections to invite a broader conversation. Our experiences reveal dilemmas in four key areas: credibility (i.e., Does consulting undermine or enhance academic rigour?), integrity (i.e., Is consulting a source of private gain or a legitimate public contribution?), impact (i.e., Is consulting a detour or a springboard to relevance?), and purpose (i.e., Is consulting a pathway to burnout or reinvigoration?). These dilemmas confront questions about the meaning of our work, the boundaries of our professional identities, and the evolving role of business schools in society. We see academic consulting as an activity in which scholars provide expert advice and services to organizations, typically in exchange for compensation (see also Perkmann and Walsh, 2008). At its core, academic consulting, for us, means stepping beyond our ivory tower to offer expertise to organizations that seek it – not only businesses, but also government agencies and non-profits. Based on our own experiences and observations, consulting can take many forms. Sometimes it is a short, one-off engagement where we as scholars provide targeted advice to solve a specific problem. Other times, it is a more sustained, process-oriented collaboration that closely connects to one’s research, offering access to industry insights or data. In some cases, consulting also supports the development and commercialization of academic insights, translating research into real-world applications. For us, academic consulting is not simply about selling expertise. It is about staying connected to organizational realities, drawing inspiration for our own research, testing the boundaries of our knowledge and skills, and fostering meaningful dialogue in which research and practice inform each other. The expertise, independent thinking, and critical perspective that scholars bring can offer unique insights in some contexts that practitioners might not develop on their own. What is striking, however, is that despite how naturally consulting seems to align with what we as management scholars do, many hesitate to engage in it – or at least to do so openly. This is surprising, given that managers increasingly seek scientific guidance to address organizational challenges. This leads to an important question: if consulting is such a natural complement to the work of management scholars, why do so many hesitate to engage in it – and why do so few schools actively encourage it? While our expertise as management scholars may seem like a natural fit for consulting work, academic consulting is often contested and frequently takes place in the dark alleys of academia. All three authors have experienced dilemmas – each in our unique way – when engaging in or considering consulting. Next, we draw on our experiences to articulate the core dilemmas. Consulting is often seen as a distraction from ‘serious’ research, reinforcing the belief that it prioritizes money over rigorous research and diverts time, attention, and expertise away from academic rigour. This socialization often begins early in PhD programmes. Consider one author’s experience: I had admired a professor at a consulting firm I worked for who seamlessly bridged academia and practice, but as I moved deeper into academic circles, I realized that his dual role was not celebrated – it was seen as a departure from ‘true’ academia. These experiences were unsettling and not an isolated incident. Later on, I read an interview in which David Teece – someone who clearly advocates for more scientific impact – reflected on his consulting activities: ‘I just kept it quiet because there would have been an immediate presumption that I wasn’t a serious researcher’ (Eckhardt, 2018). This discomfort is not unjustified. The so-called Sagan Effect (Joubert, 2019) – named after astronomer Carl Sagan – captures how scholars who visibly engage with the public are often seen as less credible by their peers, despite strong academic track records. But what if this assumption is flawed? Rather than only undermining research, consulting may open doors that purely academic work cannot. For some of us, consulting has been a gateway to more robust research by providing unique access. Organizations are often hesitant to provide ‘pure researchers’ access to their inner workings, and many managers are wary of being studied with no clear benefit to themselves. But when scholars are brought in as consultants, they gain better access to organizations, which can lead to more meaningful collaborations and richer data. One of us recalled a colleague who, through consulting, was able to propose a field experiment to evaluate interventions – a feat that would have been impossible without the consulting relationship. However, to yield these benefits, consulting often requires academics to maintain a public presence – promoting their services, building a personal brand, and actively engaging with organizations – all of which can feel at odds with the focused, modest, and inward-facing nature of academic research. While consulting offers academics the chance to apply their expertise, it raises questions about financial gain and the public role of scholarship. Colleagues may ask, even if only implicitly: ‘Should you even be allowed to do that and get paid for it? After all, you acquired this expertise, at least in part, through publicly funded universities or taxpayer-supported research’. Consulting typically involves compensation, which can sit uneasily alongside the norms of academic work in public universities. This creates a powerful tension: Are we serving the public good or private interests? Are we advancing scholarship or personal opportunity? One of us remembers being approached by an organization to help evaluate a new HR initiative. The engagement was modest in scope, but it offered the rare chance to translate research insights directly into decision-making. Yet, when a senior colleague found out, their first reaction was not curiosity, but concern: ‘Are you getting paid for this?’ The question caught us off guard, not because payment was the issue, but because it instantly reframed the activity as potentially suspect. That moment underscored just how sensitive the boundary between public service and private benefit can feel within academia. These concerns intensify in publicly funded institutions, where faculty time and resources are seen as belonging to the public. Yet even if a consulting activity does not directly benefit society, some universities channel this income into individuals’ research budgets, allowing it to be reinvested in activities aligned with the university’s mission and thereby indirectly supporting its societal goals. Moreover, it is crucial to consider that the exclusivity of many consulting arrangements – where a single organization gains privileged access to an academic’s knowledge – can appear to contradict the principle of open, public-good–oriented knowledge creation. At the same time, when knowledge from one consulting engagement spreads to other organizations, sparks impactful science communication, and generates research that makes a difference, it may ultimately serve society. Many of us entered academia to make a difference in society: to influence how organizations operate, how leaders develop, and how societies adapt to change. Consulting seems to offer a direct path to that kind of impact by enabling us to apply our expertise to real-world decisions, thereby experiencing perceived impact in ways that journal articles rarely can. Yet, academia’s reward system remains firmly anchored in publications, citations, and grants. No matter how meaningful, consulting does not fit neatly into that framework. One of us recalled an early moment of disillusionment: I had just wrapped up a consulting engagement where I worked closely with a governmental organization to improve their change management training. The experience had been exhilarating – bringing my research into practice, seeing the direct effects of my work. But when I returned to the office, I quickly realized that none of it was being recognized, not even as societal impact work. I could not list it as a publication; it did not contribute to my tenure file, and my colleagues viewed it as a questionable distraction rather than an achievement. This tension between consulting as a vehicle for real-world impact and academia’s definition of scholarly success runs deep. Should consulting remain an informal, practice-oriented side activity, or can some forms of research-driven consulting, consulting activities that are directly linked to academics’ research, (Perkmann and Walsh, 2008) be recognized as a legitimate part of our scholarly impact? What if we are misinterpreting the relationship between consulting and research? ‘I’ve seen firsthand how consulting reshapes academic questions’, one of us reflected. ‘Working with practitioners reveals gaps in our understanding and forces us to think in ways we never would in the isolation of a university office’. For us, the pressures of academia – relentless publishing cycles, grant writing, and teaching responsibilities – have at times led to disillusionment. Being invited by organizations to provide advice can be a tempting way to reconnect with the motivation that drew us to academia: using our research to make a positive difference in the world. Yet, this too comes with tensions. Does consulting offer a reprieve from burnout, or does it add another layer of complexity to an already demanding career? One of us recalled a conversation with a senior colleague: ‘After tenure’, they said, ‘you’ll finally have the freedom to do what you want’. But then they added, ‘Just make sure what you want still counts’. The remark stuck. It hinted at a deeper tension – between pursuing personal meaning and continuing to meet institutional expectations of value and legitimacy. We had seen senior scholars take different paths – some energized by new opportunities, others quietly disengaging. Consulting seemed to offer a way to reclaim purpose. This challenge is familiar to scholars at all career stages, but it often becomes most visible later in the academic trajectory. For some, consulting provides a chance to escape the monotony of academic routines – like wrestling with nitpicky Reviewer 2 over a paper that, in the end, few people may ever read – and engage directly with managers facing real organizational challenges. It is not just about extrinsic rewards like income or recognition; it is the intrinsic satisfaction of solving meaningful problems and seeing the immediate impact of your work. One of us shared: ‘I’ve seen burned-out colleagues come alive again after working with practitioners. Consulting reconnected them to the “why” of their work – the reason they entered academia in the first place’. Bringing academic consulting into the light means reflecting on how academic consulting is valued, practised, and supported. In particular, we care about research-driven consulting that originates in our core expertise and contributes to societal progress. Based on our own reflections, we see three priorities for action: (a) embracing dilemmas: a personal call to action, (b) championing plurality: a relational call to action, and (c) levelling the playing field: a structural call to action – all of which are intended to increase transparency around academic consulting. We invite fellow scholars to turn toward – not away from – the dilemmas of academic consulting. These tensions around credibility, integrity, impact, and purpose are not just abstract debates; they are deeply personal choices that shape how we live out our academic identities. Rather than choosing one side or pretending they do not exist, we encourage you to stay with the discomfort. Let these dilemmas sharpen your sense of what matters most to you. Embracing dilemmas begins with naming them clearly. Ask yourself: What values are in tension for me? What am I afraid of losing – or eager to gain – by engaging in consulting? Perhaps it is the fear of compromising academic rigour. Perhaps it is the hope of making research matter outside university walls. Identifying these tensions can reveal what is truly at stake – not just professionally, but also personally. This reflection may lead you down different paths. You may decide to walk the path of the scholarly purist – choosing not to engage in consulting to protect academic independence, focus, and integrity. You may become a boundary-spanning researcher – selectively engaging in consulting that tightly links to your research agenda or serves a public mission. Or you may embrace the identity of a pracademic (Lau et al., 2025) – someone who actively and continuously bridges research and practice, working within both domains to co-create knowledge and generate real-world impact informed by scholarly inquiry. None of these paths are inherently right or wrong, as long as they conform with institutional rules and laws. What matters is that your choice is deliberate. Don’t let your consulting activity (or inactivity) be shaped by fear of judgement. Make your own values the compass. And don’t walk this path alone. Talk to trusted mentors or peers who have faced similar crossroads. Their stories can open up perspectives you had not considered. Above all, resist binary thinking. It doesn’t have to be consulting or research. It doesn’t have to be purity or impact. Often, the most meaningful academic lives are lived in the messy, fertile space between. Sit with the tensions. Let them stretch you. And when you act, do so with transparency and intention. That honesty – about what you do and why – can model the kind of reflective scholarship our field needs more of. Academic cultures often scrutinize colleagues who engage in consulting, varied across career stages, gender, and majority versus minority groups. Power and privilege shape who gets to take risks and who bears the costs. Senior scholars and those in secure positions may feel freer to consult openly. For others, the stakes are higher. The scepticism typically stems from concerns about compromised academic integrity or a perceived weakening of scholarly commitment. However, the sceptical reactions to consulting also reveal norms and narrow definitions of what constitutes academic value creation. We call for a shift from scrutiny to championing plurality. Instead of asking ‘Is this still serious scholarship?’, we might ask ‘What can I learn from how they’re bridging worlds?’ Embracing a pluralistic view of academic contribution means recognizing that research, teaching, public engagement, and consulting can coexist – and enrich each other. Increasingly, we see individuals breaking away from the rigid academic or consulting silos, showing that you can, in fact, do both. Academic consulting does not have to dilute scholarly identity; it can deepen it by revealing new questions, testing ideas, and fostering relevance. Recognizing this is essential to building a more inclusive academic community – one where plurality is not only tolerated but valued. Championing plurality begins with more positive role models – those who openly share how they navigate the complexities of academic consulting and candidly discuss the challenges they encounter along the way. As senior you can and junior not only by providing access to opportunities but also by them from the dilemmas we in with rather than you can the for others and an where and transparency are the This not only the academic community but also that scholars feel and to their own dilemmas of academic consulting with In many cases, consulting has been tolerated in the dark alleys of academia – quietly but rarely celebrated or supported. may what in fact, why universities hesitate to consulting into core academic concerns about academic integrity, and the of boundaries between public and private However, we that, for some academic consulting could open up new opportunities, in a where and is to some of their core and We call on university leaders to on the role academic consulting could in their and to structural for it – if aligned with their mission. some business schools have to encourage faculty to engage in For those who see a place for structural is Consulting needs to be with and – not in or Rather than scholars to with dilemmas can develop and and and offer a this is how you can do both. clear consulting remains at times, a junior one of us I entered a new there was no no no for consulting work at my colleagues do it the but that only the sense that to not at I also to ask about the of this up some to within my This of for those with less them to navigate ethical concerns and career risks in what can universities do to bring consulting into the few have like consulting or where faculty and organizations address real-world challenges in are models to for time on or industry These what is from these we propose and that faculty to consulting not to but to transparency and their provide access to institutional and ethical and consider or that the and value of this work. the right academic consulting can out of the and into the university’s core – not as a to but as a of academic engagement that connects research with real-world relevance. Academic consulting does not have to remain in the dark alleys of academia. When approached with transparency, and academic consulting can offer a meaningful – but not – pathway for scholars to their expertise with societal the real dilemmas around credibility, integrity, impact, and purpose is not to but to space for informed and Bringing consulting into the light means recognizing it as one of ways scholars may contribute to the societal value of academic work. us to offer a of what this may a university where consulting is not away in a dark but an for as part of university In this consulting takes place in a in the light of the and can with practitioners who come both scientific expertise and the This serves as an away from for both quiet and are by professional and clear that consulting as part of their academic – if they to engage in are to scholarly with Their to consulting are in and contribute to the university take in the real-world impact by these activities – and sharing openly. Consulting becomes a visible and of university both the and the broader community it We and for their of this which a role in and the of this We also deeply the from and with and which to the of this work.