Gender distinctions in patenting: Does nanotechnology make a difference?
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.
KeywordsGender Patenting Nanotechnology Collaboration Scientific workforce
This study was supported by the Program in Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy (STIP) at Georgia Institute of Technology. Special gratitude is extended to Philip Shapira, Rainer Frietsch, and Peter Neuhäusler for their insightful suggestions on data use as well as method and framework development. Thanks also go the two anonymous reviewers for their instructive comments. All errors and omissions remain to the author.
- Ashcraft, C., & Breitzman, A. (2007). Who invents IT: An analysis of women’s participation in information technology patenting. Mount Laurel, NJ: National Center for Women & Information Technology.Google Scholar
- Cohen, W. M., Nelson, R. R., et al. (2000). Protecting their intellectual assets: Appropriability conditions and why U.S. manufacturing firms patent (or not). NBER working paper #7552.Google Scholar
- Cole, J. R., & Zuckerman, H. (1984). The productivity puzzle. In M. L. Maehr & M. W. Steincamp (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
- Ding, W. W., Murray, F., et al. (2005). Commercial science: A new arena for gender stratification in scientific careers. In Annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, Montreal, QC.Google Scholar
- Elsevier. (2017). Gender in the global research landscape: Analysis of research performance through a gender lens across 20 years. Available online: https://www.elsevier.com/research-intelligence/campaigns/gender-17. Accessed 11 Oct 2017.
- Ibarra, H. (1993). Personal networks of women and minorities in management: A conceptual framework. The Academy of Management Review, 18(1), 56–78.Google Scholar
- Kerr, W. R. (2007). The ethnic composition of US inventors. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School.Google Scholar
- Lee, H., & Pollitzer, E. (2016). Gender in science and innovation as component of inclusive socioeconomic growth. Second report of the Gender Summit. London: Portia Ltd.Google Scholar
- Mauleón, E., & Bordons, M. (2009). Inter-gender differences in technological activity: Male and female contribution to patents in the Spanish OEPM database. In Proceedings of ISSI.Google Scholar
- Mckinsey & Company. (2016). Women in the workplace 2016. Report available online: http://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/organization/our-insights/women-in-the-workplace-2016. Accessed 11 Oct 2017.
- Naldi, F., Luzi, D., et al. (2004). Scientific and technological performance by gender. In H. F. Moed, W. Glanzel, & U. Schmoch (Eds.), Handbook of quantitative science and technology research (pp. 299–314). Boston, London: Kluwer.Google Scholar
- Naldi, F., & Parenti, V. (2002). Scientific and technological performance by gender (Vol. I and II). Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
- National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) website. Accessed on September 28, 2016 from http://www.nano.gov/about-nni/what/funding.
- National Research Council. (2004). Facilitating interdisciplinary research. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
- Schiebinger, L. (2008). Gendered innovations in science and engineering. (Ed.) Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
- Shapira, P., Wang, J., et al. (2010). United States. In D. Guston & J. G. Golson (Eds.), Encyclopedia of nanotechnology and society. Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
- Smith-Doerr, L. (2010). Contexts of equity: Thinking about organizational and technoscience contexts for gender equity in biotechnology and nanotechnology. In S. Cozzens & J. M. Wetmore (Eds.), Nanotechnology and the challenges of equity, equality and development (pp. 3–22). London, New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Tarafdar, J. C., Sharma, S., & Raliya, R. (2013). Nanotechnology: Interdisciplinary science of applications. African Journal of Biotechnology, 12(3), 219–226.Google Scholar
- USPTO. (2003). U.S. patenting by women. Washington, DC: USPTO.Google Scholar
- Youtie, J., Porter, A., Shapira, P., & Newman, N. (2016). Lessons from ten years of nanotechnology bibliometric analysis. Working paper available online https://smartech.gatech.edu/handle/1853/55931. Accessed 1 Sept 2017.