IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/respol/v42y2013i4p831-843.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Why are women underrepresented amongst patentees?

Author

Listed:
  • Hunt, Jennifer
  • Garant, Jean-Philippe
  • Herman, Hannah
  • Munroe, David J.

Abstract

We investigate women's underrepresentation among holders of commercialized patents: only 5.5% of holders of such patents are female. Using the National Survey of College Graduates 2003, we find only 7% of the gap in patenting rates is accounted for by women's lower probability of holding any science or engineering degree, because women with such a degree are scarcely more likely to patent than women without. Differences among those without a science or engineering degree account for 15%, while 78% is accounted for by differences among those with a science or engineering degree. For the latter group, we find that women's underrepresentation in engineering and in jobs involving development and design explain much of the gap.

Suggested Citation

  • Hunt, Jennifer & Garant, Jean-Philippe & Herman, Hannah & Munroe, David J., 2013. "Why are women underrepresented amongst patentees?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(4), pages 831-843.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:42:y:2013:i:4:p:831-843
    DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2012.11.004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733312002594
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.respol.2012.11.004?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Frietsch, Rainer & Haller, Inna & Funken-Vrohlings, Melanie & Grupp, Hariolf, 2009. "Gender-specific patterns in patenting and publishing," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(4), pages 590-599, May.
    2. Jennifer Hunt, 2016. "Why do Women Leave Science and Engineering?," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 69(1), pages 199-226, January.
    3. Fiona Murray & Leigh Graham, 2007. "Buying science and selling science: gender differences in the market for commercial science," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 16(4), pages 657-689, August.
    4. Michael J. Boskin & Lawrence J. Lau, 2000. "Generalized Solow-Neutral Technical Progress and Postwar Economic Growth," NBER Working Papers 8023, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. Todd R. Stinebrickner & Ralph Stinebrickner, 2011. "Math or Science? Using Longitudinal Expectations Data to Examine the Process of Choosing a College Major," NBER Working Papers 16869, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. Jerry Thursby & Marie Thursby, 2005. "Gender Patterns of Research and Licensing Activity of Science and Engineering Faculty," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 30(4), pages 343-353, October.
    7. Lisa D. Cook & Chaleampong Kongcharoen, 2010. "The Idea Gap in Pink and Black," NBER Working Papers 16331, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. Francine D. Blau & Janet M. Currie & Rachel T. A. Croson & Donna K. Ginther, 2010. "Can Mentoring Help Female Assistant Professors? Interim Results from a Randomized Trial," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(2), pages 348-352, May.
    9. Kjersten Whittington & Laurel Smith-Doerr, 2005. "Gender and Commercial Science: Women’s Patenting in the Life Sciences," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 30(4), pages 355-370, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hunt, Jennifer & Garant, Jean-Philippe & Herman, Hannah & Munroe, David J., 2012. "Why Don't Women Patent?," IZA Discussion Papers 6886, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    2. Jussi Heikkilä, 2019. "IPR gender gaps: a first look at utility model, design right and trademark filings," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(3), pages 869-883, March.
    3. Meng, Yu, 2016. "Collaboration patterns and patenting: Exploring gender distinctions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 56-67.
    4. Yu Meng, 2018. "Gender distinctions in patenting: Does nanotechnology make a difference?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 114(3), pages 971-992, March.
    5. Whittington, Kjersten Bunker, 2018. "“A tie is a tie? Gender and network positioning in life science inventor collaboration”," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(2), pages 511-526.
    6. Maria Abreu & Vadim Grinevich, 2017. "Gender patterns in academic entrepreneurship," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 42(4), pages 763-794, August.
    7. Paola Giuri & Rosa Grimaldi & Anna Kochenkova & Federico Munari & Laura Toschi, 2020. "The effects of university-level policies on women’s participation in academic patenting in Italy," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 45(1), pages 122-150, February.
    8. Scott Shane & Sharon Dolmans & Joseph Jankowski & Isabelle Reymen & A. Romme, 2015. "Academic entrepreneurship: Which inventors do technology licensing officers prefer for spinoffs?," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 40(2), pages 273-292, April.
    9. Walter, Sascha G. & Schmidt, Arne & Walter, Achim, 2010. "The Patenting Behavior of Academic Founders," EconStor Preprints 37083, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    10. Domingo Sifontes & Rosa Morales, 2020. "Gender differences and patenting in Latin America: understanding female participation in commercial science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(3), pages 2009-2036, September.
    11. Muscio, Alessandro & Vallanti, Giovanna, 2024. "The gender gap in PhD entrepreneurship: Why balancing employment in academia really matters," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(1).
    12. Abreu, Maria & Grinevich, Vadim, 2013. "The nature of academic entrepreneurship in the UK: Widening the focus on entrepreneurial activities," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 408-422.
    13. Halilem, Norrin & De Silva, Muthu & Amara, Nabil, 2022. "Fairly assessing unfairness: An exploration of gender disparities in informal entrepreneurship amongst academics in business schools," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 174(C).
    14. Desai, Pranav, 2021. "Essays in corporate finance and innovation," Other publications TiSEM 1ef5fdc6-9c52-43df-be1a-d, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    15. Gaule, Patrick & Piacentini, Mario, 2017. "An Advisor Like Me? Advisor Gender and Post-Graduate Careers in Science," IZA Discussion Papers 10828, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    16. Tartari, Valentina & Salter, Ammon, 2015. "The engagement gap:," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(6), pages 1176-1191.
    17. Gaule, Patrick & Piacentini, Mario, 2018. "An advisor like me? Advisor gender and post-graduate careers in science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(4), pages 805-813.
    18. Alex Bell & Raj Chetty & Xavier Jaravel & Neviana Petkova & John Van Reenen, 2019. "Who Becomes an Inventor in America? The Importance of Exposure to Innovation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 134(2), pages 647-713.
    19. Julian Kolev & Yuly Fuentes-Medel & Fiona Murray, 2019. "Is Blinded Review Enough? How Gendered Outcomes Arise Even Under Anonymous Evaluation," NBER Working Papers 25759, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    20. Munari, Federico & Toschi, Laura, 2021. "The impact of public funding on science valorisation: an analysis of the ERC Proof-of-Concept Programme," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(6).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:42:y:2013:i:4:p:831-843. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/respol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.