IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v114y2018i3d10.1007_s11192-017-2607-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Gender distinctions in patenting: Does nanotechnology make a difference?

Author

Listed:
  • Yu Meng

    (Institute of Water Technology and Policy, Xiamen University)

Abstract

Analyzing the domestic patent records filed with the United State Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) in the 16-year time period from 1990 to 2005, this study benchmarks the collaboration patterns and gender-specific performance in patenting nanotechnology, a newly emerging field, with those in the general area across all technological fields (thereafter the overall tech area, a proxy of traditional technological fields). Going beyond what has been discovered in a previous study that women’s involvement in patenting is lower than their male peers in nanotechnology, the empirical evidence reported here suggests that the gap to women’s disadvantage was smaller in nanotechnology than in the overall tech area in the studied period. The major finding of this study is that, while more than 90% of patents across fields were from industry where patenting is least likely to be collaborative, nano-patents have more diverse origins (79% from industry and 21 from universities, government, public institutions, and cross-sectoral collaboration) and are more likely to be collaborative outcomes (including those from industry). The profile of nanotechnology patents in terms of workforce sectors has the implication that nanotechnology presents an environment where women are more able to catch collaborative opportunities and engage in patenting. Implications for future research are discussed correspondingly.

Suggested Citation

  • Yu Meng, 2018. "Gender distinctions in patenting: Does nanotechnology make a difference?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 114(3), pages 971-992, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:114:y:2018:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-017-2607-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-017-2607-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-017-2607-4
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-017-2607-4?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. Bozeman, Barry & Gaughan, Monica, 2011. "How do men and women differ in research collaborations? An analysis of the collaborative motives and strategies of academic researchers," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(10), pages 1393-1402.
    2. 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.
    3. Philip Shapira & Jue Wang, 2010. "Follow the money," Nature, Nature, vol. 468(7324), pages 627-628, December.
    4. Julia Melkers & Fang Xiao, 2012. "Boundary-spanning in emerging technology research: determinants of funding success for academic scientists," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 37(3), pages 251-270, June.
    5. Pierre Azoulay & Waverly Ding & Toby Stuart, 2007. "The Determinants of Faculty Patenting Behavior: Demographics or Opportunities?," NBER Chapters, in: Academic Science and Entrepreneurship: Dual Engines of Growth, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. Jung, Taehyun & Ejermo, Olof, 2014. "Demographic patterns and trends in patenting: Gender, age, and education of inventors," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 110-124.
    7. Rhoten, Diana & Pfirman, Stephanie, 2007. "Women in interdisciplinary science: Exploring preferences and consequences," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 56-75, February.
    8. 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.
    9. Wesley M. Cohen & Richard R. Nelson & John P. Walsh, 2000. "Protecting Their Intellectual Assets: Appropriability Conditions and Why U.S. Manufacturing Firms Patent (or Not)," NBER Working Papers 7552, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. Can Huang & Ad Notten & Nico Rasters, 2011. "Nanoscience and technology publications and patents: a review of social science studies and search strategies," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 36(2), pages 145-172, April.
    11. Elizabeth Corley & Monica Gaughan, 2005. "Scientists’ Participation in University Research Centers: What are the Gender Differences?," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 30(4), pages 371-381, October.
    12. 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.
    13. Elba Mauleón & María Bordons, 2010. "Male and female involvement in patenting activity in Spain," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 83(3), pages 605-621, June.
    14. 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.
    15. Azoulay, Pierre & Ding, Waverly & Stuart, Toby, 2007. "The determinants of faculty patenting behavior: Demographics or opportunities?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 63(4), pages 599-623, August.
    16. William R. Kerr, 2007. "The Ethnic Composition of US Inventors," Harvard Business School Working Papers 08-006, Harvard Business School.
    17. Meng, Yu, 2016. "Collaboration patterns and patenting: Exploring gender distinctions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 56-67.
    18. Katz, J. Sylvan & Martin, Ben R., 1997. "What is research collaboration?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 1-18, March.
    19. James P. Walsh, 2015. "The impact of foreign-born scientists and engineers on American nanoscience research," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 42(1), pages 107-120.
    20. Richard C. Levin & Alvin K. Klevorick & Richard R. Nelson & Sidney G. Winter, 1987. "Appropriating the Returns from Industrial Research and Development," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 18(3, Specia), pages 783-832.
    21. Alan L Porter & David J Roessner & Anne E Heberger, 2008. "How interdisciplinary is a given body of research?," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 17(4), pages 273-282, December.
    22. Paula Stephan & Asmaa El-Ganainy, 2007. "The entrepreneurial puzzle: explaining the gender gap," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 32(5), pages 475-487, October.
    23. Jerry Thursby & Marie Thursby, 2011. "University-industry linkages in nanotechnology and biotechnology: evidence on collaborative patterns for new methods of inventing," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 36(6), pages 605-623, December.
    24. G. Steven McMillan, 2009. "Gender differences in patenting activity: An examination of the US biotechnology industry," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 80(3), pages 683-691, September.
    25. Jia Zheng & Zhi-yun Zhao & Xu Zhang & Dar-zen Chen & Mu-hsuan Huang, 2014. "International collaboration development in nanotechnology: a perspective of patent network analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(1), pages 683-702, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Pilar Beneito & Maria E. Rochina-Barrachina & Amparo Sanchis, 2023. "Female R&D teams and patents as quality signals in innovative firms," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(7), pages 891-922, October.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Loarne-Lemaire, Séverine Le & Bertrand, Gaël & Razgallah, Meriam & Maalaoui, Adnane & Kallmuenzer, Andreas, 2021. "Women in innovation processes as a solution to climate change: A systematic literature review and an agenda for future research," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 164(C).

    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. Meng, Yu, 2016. "Collaboration patterns and patenting: Exploring gender distinctions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 56-67.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    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. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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).
    9. Edoardo Ferrucci & Francesco Lissoni & Ernest Miguelez, 2020. "Coming from afar and picking a man’s job:Women immigrant inventors in the United States," Working Papers hal-03098102, HAL.
    10. Tanya Araújo & Elsa Fontainha, 2018. "Are scientific memes inherited differently from gendered authorship?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(2), pages 953-972, November.
    11. Jing Xia & Wei Liu & Sang-Bing Tsai & Guodong Li & Chien-Chi Chu & Kai Wang, 2018. "A System Dynamics Framework for Academic Entrepreneurship," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-25, July.
    12. Blind, Knut & Pohlisch, Jakob & Zi, Aikaterini, 2018. "Publishing, patenting, and standardization: Motives and barriers of scientists," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(7), pages 1185-1197.
    13. Mendonça, Joana & Reis, Anabela, 2020. "Exploring the mechanisms of gender effects in user innovation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).
    14. Pilar Beneito & Maria E. Rochina-Barrachina & Amparo Sanchis, 2023. "Female R&D teams and patents as quality signals in innovative firms," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(7), pages 891-922, October.
    15. Tartari, Valentina & Salter, Ammon, 2015. "The engagement gap:," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(6), pages 1176-1191.
    16. Mojgan Samandar Ali Eshtehardi & Seyed Kamran Bagheri, 2015. "Gender Gap in Patenting Activities: Evidence from Iran," LEM Papers Series 2015/22, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.
    17. Krabel, Stefan & Mueller, Pamela, 2009. "What drives scientists to start their own company?: An empirical investigation of Max Planck Society scientists," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(6), pages 947-956, July.
    18. Rajeev Goel & Devrim Göktepe-Hultén, 2013. "Nascent entrepreneurship and inventive activity: a somewhat new perspective," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 38(4), pages 471-485, August.
    19. Giovanni Abramo & Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo, 2022. "Drivers of academic engagement in public–private research collaboration: an empirical study," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 47(6), pages 1861-1884, December.
    20. Igna, Ioana A., 2018. "The effects of educational mismatch on inventor productivity. Evidence from Sweden, 2003-2010," Papers in Innovation Studies 2018/8, Lund University, CIRCLE - Centre for Innovation Research.

    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:spr:scient:v:114:y:2018:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-017-2607-4. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.