Intrapreneurship in academia has been defined as “innovative activities extending beyond teaching and research roles, entailing risk, and potentially leading to financial or reputational gains” (Huang et al., 2024). This work can be initiated by “any university employee who takes initiative beyond regular duties to serve a wider purpose within the academic environment” (Huang et al., 2024).

Accordingly, faculty who engage in academic intrapreneurship are often innovating in areas that do not neatly align, in a traditional sense, with their primary job responsibilities of teaching and research.

However, the inception and development of innovative ideas is critical for individual and institutional growth, relevance, and sustainability.

So, how can intrapreneurial faculty navigate institutional systems, processes, and structures to realize innovative and sustainable initiatives?

I agree with Huang et al. (2024), that collaboration, resource mobilization, and strategies for managing resistance can be instrumental.

In what follows, I will share some of the challenges and successes I have experienced while engaging in academic intrapreneurship over the past five years.

In 2018, after teaching English as a Second Language (ESL) for 10 years at a large, public university, I recognized a need for an intentional living space focused on bringing together international and domestic students who were interested in immersive cross-cultural exchange.

So, I began the process of researching and navigating the existing processes for establishing a new residential Living-Learning Community (LLC) on campus. And, in 2019, the Global Engagement Community (GEC) was established and added to the list of LLC options for undergraduate students.

Although one of my long-term goals for the community is to have a space that is more conducive to intercultural exchange than designating part of an existing dormitory on campus as an LLC, I have found that creating change in a large institution is often more successful if it is incremental and retains some component of the status quo, at least initially.

In terms of successes, below are several examples of milestones that the GEC has achieved to date:

• Created a Recognized Student Organization (RSO) with an active executive board of student leaders
• Established a 1-credit Global Engagement Community Seminar Course (APLNG 297) for GEC students that is offered each semester
• Created a website and social media channels

• Developed a Wordmark/Logo (lots of red tape on this one!)
• Hosted over 40 on campus and community events in support of the GEC Mission
• Supported other globally-minded RSOs on campus through financial and human resources
• Received IRB approval to conduct pre- and post-surveys and interviews to learn more about GEC student experiences
• Increased GEC membership from 10 students to 90+ students

As noted above, achieving these milestones depended upon collaboration, resource mobilization, and managing resistance.

Collaboration has been critical to the success of the GEC. As the Faculty Advisor (FA) for the GEC since its launch, I have worked closely with interested colleagues in my academic department in Applied Linguistics, student services office on campus, residence life and housing office staff, undergraduate and graduate students, the university’s office of global programs, various volunteer organizations, and many other groups to grow the GEC and support its mission.

To mobilize resources, students have had to learn to navigate the various channels and application processes that are available to RSOs. Likewise, as the FA for the GEC, I have worked closely with Global Programs and Residence Life to secure sustainable funding streams that can support our annual programming offerings.

Resistance has come in many forms over the past five years; most often it arises because the goals of the GEC cannot always be achieved through the existing university structures and processes. It is difficult for large, complex, institutions to change, and change requires an investment of time and resources. Accordingly, both institutional culture and tangible incentives for supporting intrapreneurial activities are paramount if we want to foster innovative and sustainable initiatives in academia.

Huang, L. Engzell, J., Karabag, S. F., & Yström, A. (2024). Academic intrapreneurs navigating multiple institutional logics: An integrative framework for understanding and supporting intrapreneurship in universities. Technovation, 129, 102892. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2023.102892