The entrepreneurial PhD: A new paradigm for higher education

In this episode, we dive into the future of doctoral education with Hélène de Burgh-Woodman, Pro Vice-Chancellor for Research Training at the University of Western Australia.

Drawing on her work on entrepreneurial doctorates and her contribution to the latest Future of Universities Thoughtbook | Entrepreneurial Edition, we explore why the traditional PhD model is under pressure, how universities can better prepare researchers for complex, real-world challenges, and what it takes to expand doctoral pathways without compromising rigor or the core principle of original knowledge.

You can read a summary below, and listen to the full interview in our podcast:

Also available on:

Summary

Few university structures carry as much prestige as the PhD. Yet as research careers diversify, public expectations of universities sharpen, and societies demand answers to ever more complex challenges, the doctoral model is under new pressure. Hélène de Burgh-Woodman, Pro Vice-Chancellor for Research Training at the University of Western Australia, argues that this pressure should not be resisted, and instead should be taken seriously as a chance to rethink what doctoral education can produce.

Hélène’s case for the entrepreneurial PhD is not an argument for replacing scholarship with start-up culture. It is a challenge to widen what counts as a rigorous and original contribution to knowledge, especially at a time when universities are being asked to deliver social impact, economic value, and deep expertise far beyond academia. The question now is not whether doctoral education should evolve, but how.

A doctorate built for wicked problems

For Hélène, the debate begins with the university’s public role. Institutions are increasingly expected to help society grapple with complex issues that cut across disciplines, sectors, and national borders. That shift changes what doctoral education needs to prepare people for.

We are working in a global context of very wicked problems.

In that context, the PhD cannot remain locked into a single pathway or a single imagined destination. Many doctoral graduates are no longer heading into academic careers alone; they are moving into industry, government, and social sectors as high-level experts.

If universities want to produce people who can interrogate and respond to major challenges, they need doctoral models that attract different kinds of candidates and support different kinds of outcomes.

Original knowledge is still the red line

For all her openness to new formats, Hélène is clear about what cannot be lost. A PhD must still be anchored in original knowledge. Entrepreneurial models do not lower the bar; they only change the form through which a contribution is made visible and assessed.

The point of a PhD is this idea of the significant contribution to knowledge, and that’s really the unassailable principle that has to remain intact.

That principle is what protects the integrity of doctoral education. A startup, prototype, technological solution, or creative artifact can be a legitimate doctoral outcome, but only if it clearly advances understanding, capability, or possibility in a meaningful way. The doctorate’s defining standard remains the same even when its output looks different.

Rigor is not owned by one format

A key strength of Hélène’s argument is the way she reframes rigor. Too often, rigor is treated as if it naturally belongs to the traditional thesis and nowhere else. But in her view, rigor is really about whether research is reliable, coherent, and capable of standing up against what is already known.

When we talk about rigor, we’re really talking about a fundamental commitment to trying to describe, capture and make visible some reality that we can rely on for future endeavour as we move forward.

As Hélène notes, universities are operating in a research environment shaped by rising retractions, concerns about data reliability, and the growing role of AI in academic work. In that setting, the question is not whether rigor should remain central, but how it is demonstrated.

Artefact-based or venture-based doctoral work may, in some cases, make that demonstration more tangible by producing outcomes that can be tested, interrogated, and evaluated in the real world. At the same time, she warns against losing the frontier spirit of curiosity-driven research that has long powered intellectual discovery. The future PhD must widen the canon, not flatten it.

What an entrepreneurial PhD looks like in practice

Drawing on work at the University of Technology Sydney, Hélène describes an entrepreneurial PhD designed for serious, high-potential innovation in areas such as deep tech, med tech, ad tech, and energy transition. Selection is critical, and originality must be evident from the outset.

The artefact that goes forward is the tech or the object that they develop, and that’s accompanied by an exegesis that positions that in the field, positions that in the industry, and enables the examiners to understand why this is such a significant contribution to knowledge.

In practice, that means candidates are supported with more than academic supervision alone by receiving entrepreneurial training, including intellectual property, funding systems, industry context, and basic management capability. Supervision panels still matter, but so do examiners who can evaluate innovation on its own terms rather than through the lens of a conventional thesis alone.

Done well, this model strengthens not only the candidate’s project, but also the university’s commercialisation and tech-transfer pipeline.

Readiness matters more than imitation

Not every university can or should build this kind of program in the same way. Hélène emphasises that institutional context matters. Universities with strong applied research cultures, industry connections, and outward-facing academic communities may be better positioned to move quickly. Others will need to take a more gradual route.

The goal is not to make every doctorate entrepreneurial. It is to create a broader doctoral ecosystem in which multiple models can coexist and where universities can respond more intelligently to changing demands.

Conclusion

The entrepreneurial PhD is not a rejection of doctoral tradition. In Hélène de Burgh-Woodman’s view, it is a way of renewing that tradition by keeping original knowledge at the center while expanding the forms through which it can be created, tested, and applied. The universities that move well on this front will be the ones that protect scholarly depth while designing doctoral pathways that matter in the world beyond the campus.

Ready for more?

If Hélène de Burgh-Woodman’s reflections on the future of universities sparked your curiosity, you can explore his ideas in more depth in the Future of Universities Thoughtbook | Entrepreneurial Edition. In the book, Hélène joins 34 other global experts from academia, industry, and policy who share their perspectives on how universities must evolve to foster entrepreneurship, innovation, and real-world impact.

UIIN members have full access to the complete Thoughtbook here, while non-members can download a preview here to discover some of the insights and ideas shaping the entrepreneurial university of the future.

Stay tuned for the next episode on this series and don’t forget to follow us on your preferred podcast platform!