Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Women and Patenting in Nanotechnology: Scale, Scope and Equity

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Nanotechnology and the Challenges of Equity, Equality and Development

Part of the book series: Yearbook of Nanotechnology in Society ((YNTS,volume 2))

Abstract

There are many ways to determine the diversity of the nanotechnology workforce. None of them is perfect, but they can all be telling in some way. In this chapter Yu Meng and Philip Shapira delve into data in one of the areas Smith-Doerr highlights, namely, patenting. Using a comprehensive data set, these authors report the discouraging, but familiar, statistics: very few women are patenting in nanotechnology. Only 17% of the patents in their dataset had only female inventors; twice as many have only male inventors. But the gap between the two figures has gradually been closing over the period studied. Although women’s patents are broader in scope than those of male inventors, female patent applicants are concentrated in a few subfields of nanotechnology, especially those with life science connections.

This chapter was peer reviewed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Allison, P.D., and S.J. Long. 1987. Inter-university mobility of academic scientists. American Sociological Review 52: 643–652.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Astin, H.S. 1969. The women doctorate in America. New York, NY: Russell Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baird, D., and A. Shew. 2004. Probing the history of scanning tunneling microscopy. In discovering the nanoscale, ed. D. Baird, A. Nordmann, and J. Schummer, 145–156. Amsterdam: IOS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barinaga, M. 1993. Is there a “female style” in Science? Science 260: 384–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bayer, A.E., and J.C. Smart. 1991. Career publication patterns and collaborative “style” in American academic science. The Journal of Higher Education 62: 613–636.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cameron, S.W. 1978. Women faculty in academia: Sponsorship, informal networks, and scholarly success. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cameron, S.W., and R.T. Blackburn. 1981. Sponsorship and academic career success. The Journal of Higher Education 52: 369–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chubin, D.E. 1974. Sociological manpower and womanpower: Sex differences in career patterns of two cohorts of American doctorate scientists. American Sociologist 9: 83–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cole, J.R., and H. Zuckerman. 1984. The productivity puzzle: Persistence and change in patterns of publication of men and women scientists. Advances in Motivation and Achievement 2: 217–258.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corley, E. 2005. How do career strategies, gender, and work environment affect faculty productivity in university-based science centers? Review of Policy Research 22: 637–655.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Creamer, E.G. 1998. Assessing faculty publication productivity: Issues of equity. ASCHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No.26. Washington, DC: ASHE-ERIC/Georgie Washington University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crewson, P.E. 1995. A comparative analysis of public and private sector entrant quality. American Journal of Political Science 39: 628–639.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ding, W.W, F. Murrary, and T.E. Stuart. 2006. Gender differences in patenting in the academic life science. Science 313: 665–667.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Durden, G., and T. Perri. 1995. Coauthorship and publication efficiency. Atlantic Economic Journal 23: 69–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evetts, J. 1996. Gender and career in science and engineering. London: Taylor and Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox, M.F. 1983. Publication Productivity among Scientists: A Critical Review. Social Studies of Science 13: 285–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fox, M.F. 1999. Gender, hierarchy, and science. In Handbook of the sociology of gender, ed. J.S. Chafetz, 441–457. New York, NY: Kluwer/Plenum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox, M.F. 2001. Women, science, and academia: Graduate education and careers. Gender and Society 15: 654–666.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fox, M.F., and P.E. Stephan. 2001. Careers of young scientists: Preferences, prospects and realities by gender field. Social Studies of Science 31: 109–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frietsch, R, I. Haller, M. Vrohlings, and H. Grupp. 2009. Gender-specific patterns in patenting and publishing. Research Policy 38: 590–599.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, M. 1980. A critical reassessment of inferred relations between multiple authorship, scientific collaboration, the production of papers and their acceptance for publication. Scientometrics 2: 193–201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haier, R.J., R.E. Jung, R.A. Yeo, K. Head, and M.T. Alkire. 2005. The neuroanatomy of general intelligence: Sex matters. NeuroImage 25: 320–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, E.R. 2001. A new look at women's learning. New Directions in Adult and Continuing Education 89: 35–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hollis, A. 2001. Co-authorship and the output of academic economists. Labour Economics 8: 503–530.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunter, L., and E. Leahey. 2008. Collaborative research in sociology: Trends and contributing factors. The American Sociologist 39: 290–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaffe, A.B., and M. Trajtenberg. 2002. Patents, citations, and innovations: A window on the knowledge economy. Cambridge, MA: MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaufman, D.R. 1995. Professional women: How real are the recent gains. In Women: A feminist perspective. ed. J. Freeman. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kay, L., and P. Shapira. 2009. Developing nanotechnology in Latin America. Journal of Nanoparticle Research 11: 259–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khan, B.Z. 2000. “Not for ornament”: Patenting activity by nineteenth-century women inventors. Journal of Interdisciplinary History 16: 159–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kyvik, S., and M. Teigen. 1996. Child care, research collaboration, and gender differences in scientific productivity. Science, Technology, and Human Values 21: 54–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leahey, E. 2006. Gender differences in productivity: Research specialization as a missing link. Gender and Society 20: 754–780.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, S., and B. Bozeman. 2005. The impact of research collaboration on scientific productivity. Social Studies of Science 35: 673–702.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levin, S., and P.E. Stephan. 1991. Research productivity over the life cycle: Evidence for academic scientists. American Economic Review 81: 114–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levin, S., and P.E. Stephan. 1998. Gender differences in the rewards to publishing in academe: Science in the 1970s. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research 38: 1049–1064.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindsey, L.L. 1997. Gender role: A sociological perspective. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Long, S.J. 1992. Measures of sex differences in scientific productivity. Social Forces 71: 159–178.

    Google Scholar 

  • Long, S.J. 2001. From scarcity to visibility: Gender differences in the careers of doctoral scientists and engineers. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lux Research. 2007. The nanotechnology report, 5th ed. New York, NY: Lux Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murray, F., and L. Graham. 2007. Buying science and selling science: Gender differences in the market for commercial science. Industrial and Corporate Change 16: 657–689.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Naldi, F., D. Luzi, A. Valente, and I.V. Parenti. 2004. Scientific and technological performance by gender. In Handbook of quantitative science and technology research , ed. H.F. Moed, W. Glanzel, and U. Schmoch, 299–314. Boston & London: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • NSF. 2007. Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • NSF. 2008. Thirty-three years of women in S&E faculty positions. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation, Directorate for Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinker, S. 2005. The science of gender and science: A conversation with Steven Pinker and Elizabeth Spelke. Cambridge, MA: Havard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, A.L., and J. Youtie. 2009. Where does nanotechnology belong in the map of science? Nature-Nanotechnology 4: 534–536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, A.L., J. Youtie, P. Shapira, and D.J. Schoeneck. 2008. Refining search terms for nanotechnology. Journal of Nanoparticle Research 10: 715–728.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pravdic, N., and V. Oliuic-Vukovic. 1986. Dual approach to multiple authorship in the study of collaborator/scientific output relationship. Scientometrics 10: 259–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Presser, S. 1980. Collaboration and the quality of research. Social Studies of Science 10: 95–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Price, D. J., and D. Beaver. 1966. Collaboration in an invisible college. American Psychologist 21: 1011–1018.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pripic, K. 2002. Gender and productivity differentials in science. Scientometrics 55: 27–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reskin, B. 1978a. Scientific productivity, sex, and location in the institution of science. American Journal of Sociology 83: 1235–1243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reskin, B. 1978b. Sex differentiation and the social organization of science. Sociological Inquiry 48: 491–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rhoten, D., and S. Pfirman 2007. Women in interdisciplinary science: Exploring preferences and consequences. Research Policy 36: 56–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmoch, U. 2006. Double-boom cycles and the comeback of science-push and market-pull. Research Policy 36: 1000–1015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmookler, J. 1962. Changes in industry and in the state of knowledge as determinants of industrial innovation. In The rate and direction of inventive activity: Economic and social factors, ed. National Bureau of Economic Research, 195–232. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Science Daily. 2005. Intelligence in men and women is a gray and white matter (January 22).

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, J. 1990. Disadvantage of women by the ordinary processes of science: The case of informal collaboration. In Despite the odds: Essays on Canadian women and science. ed. M. Ainley. Montreal, QC: Vehicule.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapira, P., J. Wang, and J. Youtie. 2010. United States. In Encyclopedia of nanotechnology and society, ed. D. Guston, and J.G. Golson. New York, NY: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sonnert, G., and G. Holton. 1995a. Gender differences in science careers. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sonnert, G., and G. Holton. 1995b. Who succeeds in science? The gender dimension. New Brunswick, NJ: New Rutgers University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sorensen, K.H. 1992. Towards a feminized technology? Gendered values in the construction of technology. Social Studies of Science 22: 5–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Department of Commerce. 1999. Buttons to biotech. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walsh, J,. and S. Nagaoka. 2009. Who invents? Evidence from the Japan-U.S. inventor survey. RIETI Discussion Paper Series 09-E-034. http://ideas.repec.org/p/eti/dpaper/09034.html. (accessed October 2009).

  • Whittington, K.B., and L. Smith-Doerr. 2005. Gender and commercial science: Women's patenting in the life sciences. Journal of Technology Transfer 30: 355–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, S., R. Jones, and A. Geltard. 2003. The social and economic challenges of nanotechnology. Swindon: Economic and Social Research Council.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xie, Y., and K.A. Shauman. 1998. Sex differences in research productivity: New evidence about an old puzzle. American Sociological Review 63: 847–870.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Youtie, J., P. Shapira, and A.L. Porter. 2008. Nanotechnology publications and citations by leading countries and blocs. Journal of Nanoparticle Research 10: 981–986.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zucker, L.G., and M.R. Darby. 2005. Social-economic impact of nanoscale science: Initial results and nanobank. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zuckerman, H. 1967. Nobel laureates in science: Patterns of productivity, collaboration, and authorship. American Sociological Review 32: 391–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zuckerman, H., and R.K. Merton. 1971. Patterns of evaluation in science: Institutionalization, structure and functions of the referee system. Minerva 9: 66–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Public Policy, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, USA

    Yu Meng & Philip Shapira

  2. Frauhofer Institute for Systems and Innovations Research, Karlsruhe, Germany

    Yu Meng

  3. Manchester Institute of Innovation Research, Manchester Business School, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK

    Philip Shapira

Authors
  1. Yu Meng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Philip Shapira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yu Meng .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. , School of Public Policy, Georgia Institute of Technology, Oak Brooke Way 1147, Atlanta, 30319, USA

    Susan E. Cozzens

  2. Center for Nanotechnology in Society, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, USA

    Jameson Wetmore

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2010 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Meng, Y., Shapira, P. (2010). Women and Patenting in Nanotechnology: Scale, Scope and Equity. In: Cozzens, S., Wetmore, J. (eds) Nanotechnology and the Challenges of Equity, Equality and Development. Yearbook of Nanotechnology in Society, vol 2. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9615-9_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation