Tag: Primer

  • A TNE policy primer for anyone seeking new funding streams

    A TNE policy primer for anyone seeking new funding streams

    Keir Starmer’s trade mission to India this week sees the Prime Minister accompanied by 14 vice chancellors and other university representatives.

    They have joined the delegation, according to Number 10,

    in recognition of the explosion in demand for higher education in India – with 70 million places needed by 2035, which has created a huge opportunity for UK universities seeking new funding streams.

    The last couple of years have seen a loosening of restrictions on overseas campuses in India and a corresponding piling in from universities in the UK, US, Australia and elsewhere, in particular within the new Edu City development in Navi Mumbai. On the UK side, Southampton, Surrey, York, Aberdeen, Bristol and Liverpool have either opened a new campus or received the go-ahead from India’s University Grants Commission to move forward with plans for one, whether in the new education hub area or elsewhere.

    The government seems keen to trumpet UK higher education’s growing overseas presence as an economic win for the country and the institutions involved. It has also shrewdly observed that some UK universities are indeed “seeking new funding streams.” The future looks bright for TNE then – right?

    Overdue refreshments

    There’s a school of thought which says the government’s long-delayed international education strategy refresh will lean into transnational education, although exactly what this would entail is unclear – probably more trade delegations and better intertwining of the sector’s efforts with wider diplomatic work, rather than anything as flashy as a student number target.

    Jacqui Smith suggested this would be the case in remarks to the House of Lords back in December – admittedly this was when the updated strategy was due to arrive in “early spring”:

    If we look, for example, at the value of transnational education, where UK universities have sites in or relationships with other countries, we see a growing sector, and these are all areas that we will want to look at in the international education strategy.

    This way of thinking is perhaps stimulated by the unlikelihood of Labour’s vision for the strategy being particularly bullish in any other area. A new international student number target is surely off the cards, and while there may be aspirations around overall education export totals, such a large slice of this comes from international students’ fees and living expenses that it’s tricky to be realistic about increases if numbers don’t return to growth.

    About the only thing we do know at this point about the new strategy is that it will be co-led by the Foreign Office as well as DfE and the Department for Business and Trade (the Home Office still doesn’t seem to be closely involved with the strategy – history suggests that it will suddenly have thoughts at a later date).

    And while the UK trade strategy, launched just before the summer, made only passing reference to education, more recently the business department has continued funding for the QAA to address “regulatory barriers to the growth of UK higher education in priority nations.”

    Doing things leanly

    The future regulatory environment has begun to look more promising too, with new Office for Students chair Edward Peck telling the education committee back in March that increased scrutiny of TNE would not be a priority:

    I think there may be ways of doing things more leanly, which is why I want to explore the legal framework, as I noted. There may be some things that at the moment just are not a priority. The one that has been raised with me by the sector is the interest in more regulatory activity around transnational education. I would want to explore with the OfS why that was thought to be a priority at this moment, given everything else that is going on.

    The regulator’s draft free speech guidance had left the territorial extent of the new requirements somewhat vague, leading to some pointed consultation responses from sector representatives as to why they should very much not apply elsewhere in the world. But the finalised guidance in June 2025 put it bluntly:

    HERA does not require providers or constituent institutions to take steps to secure freedom of speech in respect of their activities outside England.

    Plus earlier this year OfS (and Medr) announced that providers would not be required to submit individualised TNE learner data to the HESA student record “until further notice”, backtracking on earlier plans intended to provide a better understanding of the quality and standards of TNE provision and thus assist the regulator to “more effectively protect the interests of these students.” The regulatory outlook for TNE looks light-touch for the foreseeable future.

    The Industry and Regulators Committee inquiry into OfS was told that the regulator’s falling-out with the QAA was putting at risk future transnational education partnerships involving English providers. But the recent glut of new campuses and programmes seems to bely these fears.

    Sovereign glut

    To pick out a few recent examples, the last year or so has seen new overseas campuses (opening or announced) involving Exeter in Egypt, Lancaster in Indonesia, Keele and York in Greece, and all the ones in India mentioned above. There is plenty more action besides – and plenty of TNE which doesn’t follow the more eye-catching branch campus model.

    Around 20 per cent of UG and PGT students registered for a higher education award are now based overseas in one form or another of TNE. We’re rapidly approaching the inflection point where there are more TNE students in UK higher education than there are international students travelling over here (in fact we may have already passed this important moment, we just don’t have timely enough data to tell us).

    Despite the occasional fears that there are reputational skeletons lurking in the overseas activities of UK universities, the media spotlight is rarely turned their way. We get the occasional scare story when the Telegraph is told the student numbers involved, or occasional deeper digging when an overseas partner becomes too involved in geopolitics – but these are relatively few and far between, as opposed to the incessant drumbeat of negative coverage for many other higher education issues.

    At the risk of breaking the unwritten Wonkhe rule of not writing up imagined HE futures for the second time in a week, you can see a world 20 years hence in which transnational higher education has gone from strength to strength, with UK universities having continued to grow their overseas offer, and the proportion of higher education students whose awards come from institutions outside their country of study ticking ever upwards.

    The UK can benefit from its huge pool of expertise in getting programmes off the ground – and plenty of experience in what can go wrong, if it’s able to learn from it. If the government leans in, the regulators stay largely unengaged, and the press generally continues to ignore the detail of what happens elsewhere in the world – it feels plausible.

    Rescue me

    But there are clearly challenges. Jisc’s new survey of staff and student digital experiences in TNE is a rare window into actual teaching and learning environments at a decent scale (more than 5,000 responses from a wide variety of countries and provision types).

    Staff and students alike reported fairly widespread problems logging into university systems, accessing e-books, journals and software, and restrictions to certain apps or websites. One-third of teaching staff said that unreliable wifi negatively affects student learning – a “significant proportion” of TNE students were found to be paying cellular data costs to access learning resources via smartphones. Of the teaching staff surveyed, only 32 per cent said that most or all students had an understanding of acceptable use of generative AI.

    It’s not all directly about tech either. Students highlighted unclear marking criteria, especially for those learning online, and some mentioned a lack of feedback. The report has two examples (both in China) of students being placed in “potential danger” from the government due to political content of their past or present assignments. There’s an example of synchronous content from the UK being packaged up as an asynchronous programme for learners abroad in a way that hardly screams high quality.

    Some of the issues that emerge are simply around the challenges of delivering university study which is ever more designed around access to tech in places which suffer from moderate to high digital poverty. But others – and it’s these you’d be interested in if prognosticating about future trends in TNE – revolve more around the extent to which the world is becoming more or less technologically, and intellectually, open. You wouldn’t want to bet the farm on models of learning which suppose that internet access internationally is going to become more open, or that the same countries’ companies will continue to enjoy the same access to developing markets that they have over the last decade or so.

    The problems aren’t all insurmountable – the Jisc report emphasises the opportunities of transnational licensing agreements and the importance of the sector setting up publisher agreements in a way that doesn’t forget that it has thousands of students in different domiciles.

    If regulators began to take a closer interest in TNE student experience (and other topics such as assessment and feedback, or academic freedom), the report spells out some areas where there would be a greater impetus for action. Though many of these issues have not really been effectively tackled for UK-based students either.

    Travelling long haul

    Practicalities of staff and student experiences aside, there are plenty of sensible reasons why TNE isn’t a policy solution to the UK higher education sector’s wider funding challenges, a claim the government seems to be flirting with in its trade deal boosterism.

    The chance to relitigate the question of how much it costs to deliver higher education, and at what fee, to students studying in their home country is an enticing one, given how the various UK governments have boxed universities in from doing so here. There may be more margin available in some instances – but there are certainly plenty of examples of institutions losing more than they put in, even if they are not public-spirited enough to fess up and enhance everyone else’s understanding of what not to do.

    The long-term stability of programmes is unclear too. The risk of big geopolitical upheaval changing the landscape in one fell swoop is fairly well-trodden ground at this point (even if it still gets ignored in planning) but smaller policy changes – take Malaysia’s recently instituted tax on international students as but one example – can also make the difference between viability and non-viability. Another clear direction of travel in global TNE is competition: countries who have typically been hosts pivoting into setting up their own initiatives. Transnational education might be ubiquitous in global HE in 2050, but this doesn’t translate to UK institutions necessarily enjoying an ever-upward trajectory.

    The other point that gets largely overlooked is what this hypothetical boom in TNE looks like across the sector – it’s surely unrealistic to see all, or even most, universities with mature transnational offers a couple of decades hence, in the same way that other export industries don’t have a plethora of successful UK actors on the world stage. A more compelling prediction would be a relatively modest number of institutions getting TNE “right” for the longer-term, leaving the others to focus on all that stuff the government wants but doesn’t fund: more civic and local focus, the (re)building of links to local economies and businesses, an ever more ambitious role in enabling opportunity in the UK on a shoestring.

    So TNE might well be an enormous part of UK higher education’s future – but you’d have to predict that for many individual universities it will certainly not be, however much the government might want to trumpet its potential role as a new funding stream. This complicates any efforts to use it as a policy plug for a sector taking on water.

    Source link

  • International Student Mobility Data Sources: A Primer

    International Student Mobility Data Sources: A Primer

    Bryce Loo, Associate Director of Higher Education Research

    Part 1: Understanding the Types of Sources and Their Differences

    There has perhaps never been more of a need for data on globally mobile students than now. In 2024, there were about 6.9 million international students studying outside their home countries, a record high, and the number is projected to grow to more than 10 million by 2030. Nations all around the world count on global student mobility for a number of reasons: Sending nations benefit by sending some of their young people abroad for education, particularly when there is less capacity at home to absorb all demand. Many of those young people return to the benefit of the local job market with new skills and knowledge and with global experience, while others remain abroad and are able to contribute in other ways, including sending remittances. Host nations benefit in numerous ways, from the economic contributions of international students (in everything from tuition payments to spending in the local economy) to social and political benefits, including building soft power.

    At the same time, economic, political, and social trends worldwide challenge the current ecosystem of global educational mobility. Many top destinations of international students, including Canada and the United States, have developed heavily restrictive policies toward such students and toward migrants overall. The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated that one global challenge can upend international education, even if temporarily.

    Data plays a key role in helping those who work in or touch upon international education. All players in the space—from institutional officials and service providers to policymakers and researchers—can use global and national data sources to see trends in student flows, as well as potential changes and disruptions.

    This article is the first in a two-part series exploring global student mobility data. In this first article, I will delve into considerations that apply in examining any international student data source. In the second, forthcoming article, we will examine some of the major data sources in global student mobility, both global and national, with the latter focused on the “Big Four” host countries: the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia.

    In utilizing any global student mobility data source, it is crucial to understand some basics about each source. Here are some key questions to ask about any source and how to understand what each provides.

    Who collects the data?

    Table displaying major international student mobility data sources for trends around the world and in the "Big Four" countries.

    There are three main types of entities that collect student mobility data at a national level:

    • Government ministries or agencies: These entities are generally mandated by law or statute to collect international student data for specific purposes. Depending on the entity’s purview, such data could include student visa or permit applications and issuances, students arriving at ports of entry (such as an airport or border crossing), enrollment in an educational institution, or students registered as working during or after completing coursework.
    • Non-governmental organizations (NGOs): Non-profit entities focused on international education or related fields such as higher education or immigration may collect international student data, sometimes with funding or support from relevant government ministries. One good example is the Institute of International Education (IIE) in the U.S., which has collected data on international students and scholars since 1948, much of that time with funding and support from the U.S. Department of State.
    • Individual institutions: Of course, individual universities and colleges usually collect data on all their students, usually with specific information on international students, sometimes by government mandate. In countries such as the U.S. and Canada, these institutions must report such data to governmental ministries. They may also choose to report to non-governmental agencies, such as IIE. Such data may or may not otherwise be publicly available.

    At the international level, the main data sources are generally an aggregation of data from national sources. There are three main efforts:

    How are the data collected?

    The method in which mobility data are collected affects the level of accuracy of such data. The sources that collect data internationally or on multiple countries, such as UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS) and IIE’s Project Atlas, are primarily aggregators. They collect the data from national sources, either government ministries or international education organizations, such as the British Council or the Canadian Bureau for International Education (CBIE).

    For primary data collection, there are three main methods:

    • Mandatory reporting: Certain government entities collect data by law or regulation. Data are naturally collected as part of processing and granting student visas or permits, as the S. State Department and Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) do. In other cases, postsecondary institutions are required to track and report on their international students—from application to graduation and sometimes on to post-graduation work programs. This is the case in the U.S. through SEVIS (the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System), overseen by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), through which deputized institutional officials track all international students. The data from this system are reported regularly by DHS. In other cases, data are collected annually, often through a survey form, as Statistics Canada does through its Postsecondary Student Information System (PSIS).
    • Census: Some non-profit organizations attempt to have all postsecondary institutions report their data, often through an online questionnaire. This is the method by which IIE obtains data for its annual Open Doors Report, which tracks both international students in the U.S. and students enrolled in U.S. institutions studying abroad short-term in other countries.
    • Survey: A survey gathers data from a sample, preferably representative, of the overall population—in this case, higher education institutions—to form inferences about the international student population. (This should not be confused with the “surveys” issued by government agencies, usually referring to a questionnaire form, typically online nowadays, through which institutions are required to report data.) This method is used in IIE’s snapshot surveys in the fall and spring of each year, intended to provide an up-to-date picture of international student enrollment as a complement to Open Doors, which reflects information on international students from the previous academic year.

    When are the data collected and reported?

    Chart showing the data collection and reporting practices of major global, U.S., and Canadian international student datasets.

    In considering data sources, it is important to know when the data were collected and what time periods they reflect. Government data sources are typically the most up-to-date due to their mandatory nature. Data are often collected continuously in real time, such as when a student visa is approved or when an international student officially starts a course of study. However, each ministry releases data at differing intervals. Australia’s Department of Education, for example, is well known for releasing new data almost every month. USCIS and IRCC tend to release data roughly quarterly, though both provide monthly breakdowns of their data in some cases.

    Non-governmental entities generally do not collect data continuously. Instead, they may collect data annually, semiannually, or even less frequently. IIE’s Open Doors collects data annually for the previous academic year on international students and two years prior on U.S. study abroad students. The results for both are released every November.

    The international aggregated sources receive data from national sources at widely varying times. As a result, there can be gaps in data, making comparison between or among countries challenging. Some countries don’t send data at all, often due to lack of resources for doing so. Even major host countries, notably China, send little if any data to UNESCO.

    What type of student mobility data are included in the source?

    Sources collect different types of student mobility data. One such breakdown is between inbound and outbound students—that is, those whom a country hosts versus those who leave the country to go study in other countries. Most government sources, such as IRCC, focus solely on inbound students—the international students hosted within the country— due to the organizations’ mandate and ability to collect data. Non-governmental organizations, such as IIE, often attempt to capture information on outbound (or “study abroad”) students. Many international sources, such as UNESCO UIS, capture both.

    Another important breakdown addresses whether the data included degree-seekers, students studying abroad for credit back home, or those going abroad not explicitly for study but for a related purpose, such as research or internships:

    • Degree mobility: captures data on students coming into a country or going abroad for pursuit of a full degree.
    • Credit mobility: captures information on those abroad studying short-term for academic credit with their home institution, an arrangement often called “study abroad” (particularly in the U.S. and Canada) or “educational exchange.” The length of the study abroad opportunity typically can last anywhere from one year to as little as one week. Short-duration programs, such as faculty-led study tours, have become an increasingly popular option among students looking for an international experience. In most cases, the home institution is in the student’s country of origin, but that is not always the case. For example, a Vietnamese international student might be studying for a full degree in the U.S. but as part of the coursework studies in Costa Rica for one semester.
    • Non-credit mobility: captures information on those who go abroad not for credit-earning coursework but for something highly related to a degree program, such as research, fieldwork, non-credit language study, an internship, or a volunteer opportunity. This may or may not be organized through the student’s education institution, and the parameters around this type of mobility can be blurry.

    It’s important to know what each data source includes. Most governmental data sources will include both degree and credit mobility—students coming to study for a full degree or only as part of a short-term educational exchange. The dataset may or may not distinguish between these students, which is important to know if the distinction between such students is important for the data user’s purposes.

    For outbound (“study abroad”) mobility, it’s easier for organizations to track credit mobility rather than degree mobility. IIE’s Open Doors, for example, examines only credit mobility for outbound students because it collects data through U.S. institutions, which track their outbound study abroad students and help them receive appropriate credits for their work abroad once they return. There is not a similar mechanism for U.S. degree-seekers going to other countries. That said, organizations such as IIE have attempted such research in the past, even if it is not an ongoing effort. Typically, the best way to find numbers on students from a particular country seeking full degrees abroad is to use UNESCO and sort the full global data by country of origin. UNESCO can also be used to find the numbers in a specific host country, or, in some cases, it may be better to go directly to the country’s national data source if available.

    Non-credit mobility has been the least studied form of student mobility, largely because it is difficult to capture due to its amorphous nature. Nevertheless, some organizations, like IIE, have made one-off or periodic attempts to capture it.

    Who is captured in the data source? How is “international student” defined?

    Each data source may define the type of globally mobile student within the dataset differently. Chiefly, it’s important to recognize whether the source captures only data on international students in the strictest sense (based on that specific legal status) or on others who are not citizens of the host country. The latter could include permanent immigrants (such as permanent residents), temporary workers, and refugees or asylum seekers. The terms used can vary, from “foreign student” to a “nonresident” (sometimes “nonresident alien”), as some U.S. government sources use. It’s important to check the specific definition of the students for whom information is captured.

    Most of the major student mobility data sources capture only data on international students as strictly defined by the host country. Here are the definitions of “international student” for the Big Four:

    • United States: A non-immigrant resident holding an F-1, M-1, or certain types of J-1 (The J-1 visa is an exchange visa that includes but is not limited to students and can include individuals working in youth summer programs or working as au pairs, for example.)
    • Canada: A temporary resident holding a study permit from a designated learning institution (DLI)
    • United Kingdom: An individual on a Student visa
    • Australia: An individual who is not an Australian citizen or permanent resident or who is not a citizen of New Zealand, studying in Australia on a temporary visa

    Some countries make a distinction between international students enrolled in academic programs, such as at a university, versus those studying a trade or in a vocational school; there might also be distinct categorization for those attending language training. For example, in the U.S., M-1 visas are for international students studying in vocational education programs and may not be captured in some data sources, notably Open Doors.

    Understanding the terminology used for international students helps in obtaining the right type of data. For example, one of the primary methods of obtaining data on international students in Canada is through IRCC data held on the Government of Canada’s Open Government Portal. But you won’t find any such dataset on “international students.” Instead, you need to search for “study permit holders.”

    Does the data source include students studying online or at a branch campus abroad, or who are otherwise physically residing outside the host country?

    Some universities and colleges have robust online programs that include significant numbers of students studying physically in other countries. (This was also true for many institutions during the pandemic. As a result, in the U.S., IIE temporarily included non-U.S. students studying at a U.S. institution online from elsewhere.) Other institutions have branch campuses or other such transnational programs that blur the line between international and domestic students. So, it’s important to ask: Does the data source include those not physically present in the institution’s country? The terminology for each country can vary. For example, in Australia, where such practices are very prominent, the term usually used to refer to students studying in Australian institutions but not physically in Australia is “offshore students.”

    What levels of study are included in the dataset?

    The focus of this article is postsecondary education, but some data sources do include primary and secondary students (“K-12 students” in the U.S. and Canada). IRCC’s study permit holder data includes students at all levels, including K-12 students. The ministry does provide some data broken down by level of study and other variables, such as country of citizenship and province or territory.

    What about data on international students who are working?

    Many host countries collect data and report on international students who are employed or participating in paid or unpaid internships during or immediately after their coursework. The specifics vary from country to country depending on how such opportunities for international students are structured and which government agencies are charged with overseeing such efforts. For example, in the U.S., the main work opportunities for most international students both during study (under Curricular Practical Training, or CPT) and after study (usually under Optional Practical Training, or OPT) are overseen by the student’s institution and reported via SEVIS. IIE’s Open Doors tracks students specifically for OPT but not CPT. By contrast, the main opportunity for international students to work in Canada after graduating from a Canadian institution is through the post-graduation work permit (PGWP). Students transfer to a new legal status in Canada, in contrast with U.S.-based international students under OPT, who remain on their student visa until their work opportunity ends. As a result, IRCC reports separate data on graduate students working under the PGWP, though data are relatively scant.

    At some point, students who are able to and make the choice to stay and work beyond such opportunities in their new country transition to new legal statuses, such as the H-1B visa (a specialty-occupation temporary work visa) in the U.S., or directly to permanent residency in many countries. The data required to examine these individuals varies.

    What about data beyond demographics?

    While most international student datasets focus on numbers and demographic breakdowns, some datasets and other related research focus on such topics as the contributions of international students to national and local economies. For example, NAFSA: Association of International Educators, the main professional association for international educators in the U.S., maintains the International Student Economic Value Tool, which quantifies the dollar amounts that international students contribute to the U.S. at large, individual states, and congressional districts. Part of the intention behind this is to provide a tool for policy advocacy in Washington, D.C., and in state and local governments.

    How can I contextualize international student numbers within the broader higher education context of a country?

    Many countries collect and publish higher education data and other research. Each country assigns this function to different ministries or agencies. For example, in Canada, most such data are collected and published by Statistics Canada (StatCan), which is charged with data collection and research broadly for the country. In the U.S., this function falls under the Department of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), which runs a major higher education data bank known as IPEDS, the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System. StatCan does provide some data on international students, while IPEDS in the U.S. reports numbers of “nonresident” students, defined as “a person who is not a citizen or national of the United States and who is in this country on a visa or temporary basis and does not have the right to remain indefinitely.” This term likely encompasses mostly those on international student visas.

    I will discuss some of these higher education data sources in Part 2 of this series.

    How do I learn what I need to know about each individual dataset?

    Each major data source typically provides a glossary, methodology section, and/or appendix that helps users understand the dataset. In Part 2 of this series, we will examine some of the major international and national data sources, including where to locate further such information for each.

    It’s critical for users of student mobility data sources to understand these nuances in order to accurately and appropriately utilize the data. In the second part of this series, we will examine several prominent data sources.

    Source link

  • A Primer on Commercialization Postdocs (opinion)

    A Primer on Commercialization Postdocs (opinion)

    When you finish a Ph.D., it often feels like you’re standing at a professional fork in the road: stay in academia or go into industry. But what if the real opportunity lies not on either of those well-worn paths, but at their intersection?

    That’s where commercialization postdoctoral programs come in—an option many early-career researchers don’t know exists but for which you may be ideally suited.

    These programs provide the tools to turn your research into real-world impact. They explore how discoveries made in the lab can become products, services or systems that solve real problems. And they teach you how to think like an entrepreneur, even if you don’t plan to start your own company, which many postdocs find helps them become more competitive for faculty and industry roles.

    If you’re curious about how your work could make a broader impact or simply what technology transfer, commercialization or innovation looks like from inside the university, this is your invitation to learn more.

    What Are Commercialization Postdocs?

    At a basic level, commercialization postdoc programs support Ph.D.s learning how to move research from discovery to application. These programs fall into two general categories:

    1. Technology transfer fellowships train you to manage intellectual property (IP), evaluate market potential and support licensing processes.
    2. Entrepreneurial and IP commercialization fellowships let you work hands-on with university-owned (or your own) innovations to develop them for real-world use.

    Both paths expand your skill set well beyond most traditional academic training and do so in a way that positions you to lead innovation in any field or sector.

    Why This Training Matters

    Here’s a truth we don’t talk about enough—Ph.D.s are already practicing innovation.

    You’re trained to identify gaps, solve problems and produce new knowledge. Commercialization programs help you understand how to apply those same skills in ways that create value beyond the lab or scholarly community.

    Even if you don’t see yourself launching a start-up, learning to assess market needs, build relationships across disciplines and effectively communicate your research vision and unique value proposition can open doors to new kinds of funding, partnerships and diverse career prospects.

    From Mindset to Practice: A Case Study in Entrepreneurial Thinking

    In spring 2024, Virginia Tech worked with Archer Career to develop a program focused on helping postdocs adopt an entrepreneurial mindset. Through online modules and a full-day, in-person workshop, 19 postdocs from across multiple disciplines engaged in activities including:

    • Crafting elevator pitches
    • Identifying the innovative aspects of their research
    • Mapping and mobilizing their personal and professional networks

    Those that attended the program said they felt it filled a gap in their knowledge and appreciated hearing from current Ph.D. entrepreneurs and connecting with peers. They also realized they weren’t alone in their questions about research commercialization and start-up company creation, and that there was space for conversations about innovation that didn’t require giving up their scholarly identities. This event also demonstrated the need for more discussions about the value of an entrepreneurial mindset among academics.

    Where Commercialization Postdoc Programs Live

    While commercialization postdoc programs are still emerging, there’s a growing list of opportunities across the U.S. that support Ph.D.s building critical technology transfer and entrepreneurial skills.

    Technology Transfer-Focused Programs

    Entrepreneurial and Start-up–Oriented Programs

    • Innovation Commercialization Fellows Program—Carnegie Mellon University: Current graduate and Ph.D. students, postdocs and research assistants at Carnegie Mellon apply to work on a start-up based on university research with a faculty member.
    • ASPIRE to Innovate Postdoctoral Fellowship Program—Vanderbilt University: Current Ph.D. students studying biomedical sciences and postdocs affiliated with Vanderbilt School of Medicine apply to receive mentorship, training and networking opportunities to learn how to launch a company and to commercialize technologies discovered at Vanderbilt.
    • Postdoctoral Entrepreneurship Program—University of Washington: This program gives strong preference to UW postdoctoral researchers or graduating Ph.D. students. It funds “commercially focused individuals” to work in UW labs on translational experiments to identify and obtain funding and to develop a business model.
    • Presidential Postdoctoral Innovation Fellowship Program—Virginia Tech: This fellowship provides up to two years of support for Ph.D.s working to commercialize Virginia Tech intellectual property alongside a faculty mentor at the university.
    • Ignite Fellow for New Ventures Program—Cornell University: The program aims to build new businesses, “grow entrepreneur scientists and engineers,” and “enrich Cornell’s venture ecosystem.” The program is open to graduating Ph.D.s or master’s students working with a faculty inventor to commercialize technology developed on a Cornell campus.
    • Activate Fellowship: This program provides two years of support, including “funding, technical resources, and unparalleled support from a network of scientists, engineers, investors, commercial partners, and fellow entrepreneurs.” The program accepts applications in the fall of each year, with the fellowship beginning in early summer the following year. Prospective fellows can apply to work in their local ecosystem or in hubs located across the U.S.:
    • Runway Startup Postdoc Program—Cornell Tech: “Part business school, part research institution, and part startup incubator,” Runway is focused on digital technologies, and Startup Postdocs are provided with training, mentorship and other resources to support their growth as entrepreneurs. Startup Postdocs arrive with ideas that require time and specialized guidance to develop. The program accepts candidates from anywhere around the world.

    Each of these programs offers something slightly different, but they share a common goal—to empower researchers to think beyond the bench and take an active role in translating ideas into action. The Activate Fellows and Runway program at Cornell Tech are especially unique, as they allow a Ph.D. to bring their own ideas with them. The Runway program, which to date has trained 55 postdocs, has also been featured in The Journal of Technology Transfer.

    One advantage of participating in a commercialization-focused postdoc program is the access to resources that support your growth. Many programs are embedded in innovation ecosystems, such as tech transfer offices, legal support, start-up incubators and translational research centers. Some even offer seed funding or business mentorship to help you move a technology forward.

    What’s Next? A Call to Action

    If you’re a postdoc or advising one, you don’t need to have a ready-to-pitch product to benefit from this kind of training. You just need to be curious.

    Ask yourself:

    • What problems does my research help solve?
    • Who beyond my field might care about this work?
    • What skills could help me turn this into something people can use?
    • What resources are available to me to learn more about commercializing research and entrepreneurship?

    Whether you want to start a company, work at the intersection of science and policy, or simply make your research more impactful, commercialization training can help you get there.

    We also need to do more, collectively, to bring visibility to commercialization programs available to Ph.D.s. This includes:

    Most importantly, we need to keep reminding ourselves and our colleagues that commercialization and entrepreneurship isn’t a detour: It’s a destination that many Ph.D.s are uniquely equipped to reach.

    Final Thoughts

    You don’t need to have a CEO title in your sights to benefit from entrepreneurial thinking. At its core, commercialization is about connecting your work to the world, and that’s something every researcher and scholar should know how to do. Whether through a fellowship, a campus workshop or self-guided exploration, now is a great time to start learning how your research can make a difference in the world.

    And who knows? You might just discover that innovation is your next career frontier.

    Chris Smith is Virginia Tech’s postdoctoral affairs program administrator. He serves on the National Postdoctoral Association’s Board of Directors and is a member of the Graduate Career Consortium—an organization providing a national voice for graduate-level career and professional development leaders.

    Tomer Joshua serves as associate director of the Runway Startup and Spinouts programs at Cornell Tech and the Jacobs Technion–Cornell Institute, where he supports deep tech and digital start-ups.

    Source link