Why I Left Academia to Build Technologies That Actually Help People
- drmarthahall
- Mar 24
- 4 min read
Updated: Apr 8

For years, academia felt like the place where I was supposed to be. It rewarded curiosity, rigor, and the pursuit of knowledge—three things I’ve always cared about deeply. I loved the research, the teaching, the sense of purpose that came from trying to push the boundaries of what we know.
But over time, I realized something uncomfortable: the work I wanted to do—the work that kept me up at night—didn’t fit neatly inside academic walls.
I wasn’t driven by theoretical questions. I was driven by people.
People with disabilities deserve clothing and devices that support their independence, agency, and dignity. Patients whose lived experiences were ignored in the design of digital health tools. Elite athletes whose bodies were pushed to extremes and needed technologies that could help them heal, recover, and thrive.
The more I tried to pursue this work inside academia, the more I felt the constraints tightening. Eventually, I had to make a choice: stay in a system that wasn’t built for the kind of impact I wanted to create or take the leap to build something new.
I chose the latter.
Academia Rewarded Knowledge—But I Wanted to Build Solutions for Real-World Health Problems
In academia, innovation often stops at publication. You can spend years developing an idea, only to see it live and die inside a journal article. That wasn’t enough for me.
I wanted to build technologies that people could actually use.
I wanted to design wearables and augmented apparel that helped people with disabilities move through the world with more ease, confidence, and independence. I wanted to create digital health tools that didn’t treat patients as data points, but as humans with stories, fears, and goals. I wanted to engineer custom devices for elite athletes that supported healing and recovery in ways traditional equipment never could.
But academia wasn’t built for that kind of work. It wasn’t built for rapid iteration, interdisciplinary experimentation, or deeply human-centered design. It wasn’t built for co-creation with patients, athletes, or people with disabilities.
Entrepreneurship was.
I Needed the Freedom to Design With Empathy, Not Just Publish With Rigor
One of the biggest reasons I left academia was driven by empathy.
In academic research, empathy is often treated as a soft skill—nice to have, but not essential. In my work, empathy is the foundation. You cannot design for someone’s body, health, or lived experience without listening to them, learning from them, and letting their needs shape the solution.
I wanted to sit with patients and ask them what actually mattered in their daily lives. I wanted to collaborate with people with disabilities and design apparel that adapted to them—not the other way around. I wanted to work with athletes and understand the physical and emotional toll of injury, recovery, and performance pressure.
These conversations don’t fit neatly into grant proposals or academic timelines. But they are essential to building technologies that genuinely help people.
Entrepreneurship gave me the freedom to center empathy—not as an afterthought, but as the core design principle.
Impact Became Tangible, Not Theoretical
In academia, impact is measured in citations. In my work now, impact is measured in moments. A patient telling me that a device finally makes them feel seen. An athlete recovering faster because their wearable adapts to their body’s healing process. A person with a disability putting on a garment that supports their independence instead of restricting it.
These moments are why I left.
I didn’t want my work to live in papers. I wanted it to live in people’s lives.
I Wanted to Build Technology That Honors the Body—All Bodies
Academia often treats the human body as an object of study. But in my work, the body is a partner. A collaborator. A source of wisdom.
People with disabilities have been excluded from mainstream design for far too long.
Patients have been handed technologies that ignore their lived realities. Athletes have been given tools that prioritize performance over long-term wellness.
I wanted to build something different.
Technologies that adapt to the body instead of forcing the body to adapt to them. Wearables that support healing, not just monitoring. Apparel that enhances dignity, not just function. Digital health tools that are co-designed with the people who will use them.
Entrepreneurship gave me the space to build a culture—and a company—where this philosophy isn’t radical. It’s the baseline.
Leaving Academia Was Hard—But Staying Would Have Been Harder
Walking away from academia meant walking away from a clear path, a familiar identity, and a community I cared about. But staying would have meant compromising the work I felt called to do.
I didn’t leave because I stopped believing in research. I left because I wanted research to become reality.
I wanted to build technologies that help people heal, move, recover, and live with more agency. I wanted to create tools that honor the complexity of the human body and the diversity of human experience. I wanted to work at the intersection of science, engineering, design, and humanity.
Entrepreneurship wasn’t the easy choice. It was the necessary one.
I Didn’t Leave Academia — I Expanded Beyond It
I still value the rigor, discipline, and curiosity that academia gave me. But I no longer believe that academia is the only place where meaningful innovation happens.
Leaving wasn’t an abandonment. It was an expansion.
I took everything I learned—scientific rigor, critical thinking, systems-level problem-solving—and brought it into a space where I could build technologies that genuinely improve people’s lives.
Now, I get to design wearables that empower people with disabilities. I get to build digital health tools shaped by patient voices. I get to engineer devices that help elite athletes heal and thrive.
This is the work I was meant to do. And I couldn’t have done it if I stayed.
.png)



Comments