Digital Document (pdf, doc, ppt, txt, etc.)

Growing opportunities for academic scientists to commercialize their science has led to a new commercial marketplace. Recent evidence suggests that “commercial science” participation is characterized by gender stratification. Using interviews with life science faculty at one high-status university we examine the mechanisms that instituted, reinforced, and reduced the gender gap in commercial science between 1975 and 2005. We find gender differences from processes on both the demand—(opportunity) and supply—(interest) sides; of deeper significance are the intersections between these sides of the market. Specifically, explicit early exclusion of women left them with fewer opportunities in the marketplace, weakening their socialization and skills in commercial science. This uneven opportunity structure left senior/mid-career women with fewer chances to confront the ambiguities of this new practice, resulting in their greater ambivalence. Gender differences remain significant among junior faculty but we find their decline prompted by greater gender-equality in advisor mentoring and the presence of institutional support which together have started to reshape the supply-side of commercial science.

Purpose – This chapter explores the actual situation of women as patent originators in the European Union (EU) and provides insights into the innovation climate in companies by presenting best-practice examples.

Methodology/approach – Based on a gendered secondary patent database analysis from the European Patent Office (EPO), gender-specific patent data were obtained by a first name assignment, followed by a statistical analysis and input–output comparisons with a focus on high-technology sectors. The best-practice examples are based on expert interviews with male and female inventors.

Findings – The success of women in patenting is lower than their participation in research and development would otherwise predict. The production of technological knowledge depends also on scientific subcultures with dramatic input–output gaps even in feminised sectors. Exemplarily, the case studies reveal success factors on the organisational as well as on team and individual levels which enhance women's performance in the innovation arena.

Research limitations/implications – Further qualitative research is needed to investigate factors in the innovation area which have an impact on the patenting behaviour of men and women.

Social implications – Women are contributing significantly to European patents. Yet overall, their high potential is not being fully included in the innovation process. Their under-representation in patenting should be a concern to policy makers in the EU.

Originality/value of chapter – The availability of gender-disaggregated data in innovation supports the political commitment for the long-term promotion of women's participation in science and technology.

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 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; closing it would increase U.S. GDP per capita by 2.7%.

Research comparing the leadership  styles  of  women  and  men  is  reviewed,  and  evidence  is  found  for  both  the  presence  and  the  absence  of  differences  between  the  sexes.  In  contrast  to  the  gender-ste-  reotypic  expectation  that  women  lead  in  an  interpersonally  orientedstyle  and  men  in  a  task-oriented  style,  female  and  male  leaders  did  not  differ  in  these  two  styles  in  organizationalstudies.  However,  these  aspects  of  leadership  style  were  somewhat  gender  stereotypic  in  the  two  other  classes  of  leadership  studies  investigated,  namely  (a)  laboratory  experiments  and  (b)  assessment  studies,  which  were  defined  as  research  that  assessed  the  leadership  styles  of  people  not  selected  for  occupancy  of  leadership  roles.  Consistent  with  stereotypic  expectations  about  a  different  aspect  of  leadership  style,  the  tendency  to  lead  democratically  or  autocratically,  women  tended  to  adopt  a  more  demo-  cratic  or  participative  style  and  a  less  autocratic  or  directive  style  than  did  men.  This  sex  difference  appeared  in  all  three  classes  of  leadership  studies,  including  those  conducted  in  organizations.  These  and  other  findings  are  interpreted  in  terms  of  a  social  role  theory  of  sex  differences  in  social  behavior