Entrepreneurial ventures are often resource constrained, which makes engaging with universities an attractive, cost-effective, and risk-sharing proposition. However, industry and academia frequently have very different cultures, particularly around motivations and speed of response.
In a recent paper*, David Johnson and his colleagues analysed the language used by entrepreneurs in proposals aimed at accessing university resources.
The aim was to identify how the phrasing could be optimised to improve the quality and speed of decision making by resource providers.
Engaging with universities
There are several factors that motivate ventures to engage with universities.
- Access to specialized academic knowledge, facilities, and equipment (i.e., nonfinancial capital resources) – this can enhance the ventures’ knowledge base and resources cost-effectively.
- Novel solutions to technological problems – to facilitate development of prototypes, products, or services.
- Collaborative research – where government funded initiatives, policies, and incentives require an academic partner.
Entrepreneurs are frequently time constrained. So, those that can reduce the time taken between opportunity identification and commercialization are in a better position to exploit the opportunity, create, and capture its value.
Academics, however, have different objectives and are judged by different metrics. They often prioritise research and teaching over contract research or commercial activities.
Therefore, effective communication between the two parties would be a facilitator. In particular, the use of language protocols that would persuade resource providers to make faster decisions and thus release resources quicker this would be provide competitive advantage.
Analysis: cognitive orientated language v’s entrepreneurial language
The researchers reviewed a unique dataset of 3,422 industry-initiated contract research proposals submitted to Interface, a Scottish government-funded “broker” or “intermediary” organization.
Key phrases were described as either:
- Entrepreneurial-oriented language (EOL) – phrases that highlight the ventures’ ambitions, motives, and abilities regarding the mobilization of resources, exploitation of opportunities. Use of this language informs the recipient about the potential for rewards in which resource providers can choose to accept (or reject) if they were to act on (or avoid) this proposal.
- Cognitive- oriented language (COL) – this is a narrative that includes words that are rational and intellectual. COL can provide resource providers with a more vivid understanding of an opportunity. It can increase cognitive engagement and deepen knowledge about information in a proposal.
Findings
The results of this study suggest that entrepreneurial language has a ‘robust positive association with speed to decision’ in the context of contract research proposals
David Johnson explains: “Our study reveals that entrepreneurial language can influence the speed to decision by resource providers. Specifically, we show that contract research narratives containing EOL and certain COL components provide cues to resource providers, supporting the hypothesis that EOL is an effective tool for improving access to resources.
“Indeed, language reflecting “insight” shows a negative association with decision-making speed, which is opposite to what our theorizing suggested.
“One explanation for this finding is that insight language provides a subjective assessment of the underlying opportunity, rather than providing an objective factual assessment. While, subjectivity can help emphasize the merits of the opportunity, it may also result in an increase in noisy information.”
“Our focus on the relationship between contract research language, decision-making speed, and successful contract research outcomes, advances our understanding of university–industry engagement and provides suggestions of how this can be enhanced.”
Q1. Is there a difference between the language and effectiveness of proposals where there is an offer of payment for consultancy rather than the suggestion of future benefits such as licensing?
Our wider research actually reveals something quite counterintuitive here. While you might expect that explicit financial incentives would be the key driver of academic decision-making, our findings suggest that language emphasising future benefits, particularly those that directly support academic career progression, tends to be more effective than purely transactional framing.
This aligns with what fundamentally motivates academics. Academic careers are primarily assessed through research outputs such as publications and research grants, as well as teaching quality and, increasingly, demonstrable societal impact. Promotion and tenure decisions predominately hinge on these factors rather than consultancy revenue generation. So, when academics evaluate industry collaboration opportunities, they’re naturally drawn to proposals that offer publication potential, opportunities to involve their doctoral students and research team, and projects that advance their scholarly agenda.
The implication for industry partners is that framing proposals around collaborative research opportunities and knowledge dissemination may actually be more persuasive than leading with payment terms, though of course appropriate compensation remains important. Ultimately, it is about speaking to academic motivations rather than treating the interaction as a simple commercial transaction.
Q2. Are there some ‘killer phrases’ that frequently produce good results?
Rather than specific ‘killer phrases,’ our research identifies linguistic patterns and strategies that consistently appear in successful academic-industry proposals.
- Successful proposals use greater entrepreneurial-oriented language. These are phrases that signal creativity, innovation, opportunity, and proactivity surrounding the project. This type of language provides cues about the venture’s ambitions and the potential rewards of collaboration.
- ‘Causation’ language, speeds up decision-making. This is language that explains the ‘how’ and ‘why’ of the collaborative project, it speeds up acceptance because it reduces uncertainty and helps academics understand exactly what they’re being asked to contribute and why it matters.
- Tailor the invitation. As an industry partner, it’s advisable to demonstrate that you understand the academic’s specific scientific domain. Academics are far more likely to engage when they see genuine disciplinary alignment rather than a generic request that could have been sent to anyone.
- Strategic repetition of key project information can be effective. Academics are often juggling multiple demands; reinforcing the core message of the collaborative opportunity helps reduces the cognitive effort required by academics to evaluate industry proposals.
- Mention publication opportunities and engagement possibilities for students. This tends to resonate strongly. As I mentioned earlier, these speak directly to academic career priorities.
Q3. Are there any common features in proposals that fail?
Yes, our research identifies several features associated with unsuccessful proposals.
- Excessive ‘insight’ language. When proposals are heavy on interpretation rather than clear, factual descriptions, academics must spend more time deciphering the subjective from the objective and questioning the viability of the collaborative opportunity. While some subjectivity can help emphasise the merits of an opportunity, too much reduces clarity and ultimately slows down the decision-making process, leading to a rejected proposal.
- Early emphasis on intellectual property (IP). Restrictive language about knowledge ownership and dissemination can raise concerns for academics. It’s often better to establish the collaborative relationship first and then address IP specifics once mutual interest is confirmed.
- Timing matters. Proposals submitted during peak academic periods, such as exam seasons, end of term grading, or major grant deadlines, have lower success rates than those submitted during quieter periods. Timing the collaborative approach during less intensive periods, can significantly improve the chances of success.
Q4. One of your previous roles was Commercial Director for a start-up, would you have found the findings of this research beneficial when engaging with universities?
Absolutely! These findings would have been tremendously valuable in my previous commercial roles. As Commercial Director at a biopharmaceutical strategy consultancy firm, we frequently engaged with academics to drive forwards drug commercialisation and access highly specialised scientific expertise.
In hindsight, this research provides a clear framework for understanding why some of our approaches resonated more than others. Although proposals were only one element of building successful collaborations, looking back, I can see instances where we instinctively got the language right and others where we perhaps didn’t.
With the benefit of these research insights, I would have framed collaborative approaches differently. In particular, I would have placed greater emphasis on entrepreneurial-oriented and causation language; used more technical, field-specific terminology; reinforced key information through strategic repetition; and, crucially, made alignment to academic motivations more explicit.
What excites me now, sitting at the intersection of academia and industry, is the potential for this kind of linguistic strategy research to systematically improve university-industry collaborations.
If we can help firms communicate more effectively with academics, as well as further understand how academics assess language in collaborative opportunities, we can facilitate more productive partnerships that drive innovation, knowledge transfer, science commercialisation, and ultimately societal impact. I believe that language really is a strategic capability for bridging the academic-industry divide!
To read the paper:
*“Please, hurry up!” Leveraging narratives to speed up the mobilization of resources for entrepreneurial ventures.” David Johnson, Mark Geiger, Peter T. Gianiodis, Adam J. Bock
Academy of Management Perspectives 2025, Vol. 39, No. 4, 641–666. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2023.0224
