Advertisement

Gender in Inventions and Innovations

  • Seppo Poutanen
  • Anne Kovalainen
Chapter

Abstract

The chapter first highlights the long history of how gender has become involved in the invention of the household appliances, for example washing machine. The complex relationships between household economy and market economy are here detailed, showing the presence of economy even in mundane household activities. Next, the pervasive gender inequalities in science, research and technology are put into a global focus from the perspective of patenting activities, in both academic and business contexts. Some remedies for improving women’s relatively weak position concerning the gendered nature of patenting activities are then evaluated. Need to reform educational systems from early childhood education to academy is obvious, but strong and general cultural association of STEM subjects with masculinity makes the task difficult. Lastly, widening the field to include, for example, social innovations directs attention to complex questions of research policy and gender.

Keywords

Innovation Activity Gender Disparity Household Work International Patent Classification Woman Entrepreneur 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Abels, G. (2012) Research by, for and about women: gendering science and research policy. In G. Abels & J. M. Mushaben (eds.) Gendering the European Union: New Approaches to Old Democratic Deficits. Gender and Politics Series. London: Palgrave MacMillan. 187–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abreu, M., & Grinevitch, V. (2017) Gender patterns in academic entrepreneurship. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 1–46, doi:  10.1007/s10961-016-9543-y.
  3. Agrawal, A., & Henderson, R. (2002) Putting patents in context: exploring knowledge transfer from MIT. Management Science, 48(1): 44–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. AHAM (2016) Association for home appliance manufacturers. www.aham.org. Retrieved 4.10.2016.
  5. Alsos, G., Ljunggren, E., & Hytti, U. (2013) Gender and innovation. International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, 5(3): 236–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Andersson, S., Berglund, K., Gunnarsson, E., & Sundin, E. (2012) Introduction. In S. Andersson, K. Berglund, E. Gunnarsson, & E. Sundin (eds.) Promoting Innovation. Policies, practices and procedures. Vinnova Report VR 2012:08. Stockholm: Vinnova.Google Scholar
  7. Ashcraft, C., & Breitzman, A. (2007) Who Invents IT? An Analysis of Women’s Participation in Information Technology Patenting. Boulder, CO: National Center for Women & Information Technology.Google Scholar
  8. Ashcraft, C., & Breitzman, A. (2012) Who Invents IT? An Analysis of Women’s Participation in Information Technology Patenting, 2012 Update. Boulder, CO: National Center for Women & Information Technology.Google Scholar
  9. Aubert, J. (2014) Women Entrepreneur Revolution: Ready! Set! Launch!. Bloomington, IN: Balboa Press.Google Scholar
  10. Autio, E., Broström, A., D’Este, P., Fini, R., Geuna, A., Grimaldi, R., Hughes, A., Krabel, S., Kitson, M., Llerena, P., Lissoni, F., Salter, A., & Sobrero, M. (2013) Academic engagement and commercialisation: a review of the literature on university–industry relations. Research Policy, 42(2): 423–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bentley, P. (2011) Gender differences and factors affecting publication productivity among Australian university academics. Journal of Sociology, 48(11): 85–103.Google Scholar
  12. Berkun, S. (2010) The Myths of Innovation. New York: O´Reilly Media.Google Scholar
  13. Bessen, J., & Meurer, M. J. (2009) Patent Failure: How Judges, Bureaucrats, and Lawyers Put Innovators at Risk. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Best, K., Sinell, A., Heidingsfelder, M. L., & Schraudner, M. (2016) The gender dimension in knowledge and technology transfer – the German case. European Journal of Innovation Management, 19(1): 2–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bijedic, T., Brink, S., Ettl, K., Kriwoluzky, S., & Welter, F. (2016) Women’s innovation in Germany – empirical facts and conceptual explanations. In A. Alsos, U. Hytti, & E. Ljunggren (eds.) Research Handbook on Gender and Innovation. Cheltenham, UK, Northampton, USA: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  16. Blickenstaff, J. C. (2005) Women and science careers: leaky pipeline or gender filter?. Gender and Education, 17(4): 369–386.Google Scholar
  17. Boardman, P. C. (2008) Beyond the stars: the impact of affiliation with university biotechnology centers on the industrial involvement of university scientists. Technovation, 28(2008): 291–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Bose, C. (1979) Technology and changes in the division of labor in the American home. Women’s Studies International Quarterly, 2: 295–304.Google Scholar
  19. Bozeman, M., & Gaughan, M. (2007) Impacts of grants and contracts on academic researchers’ interactions with industry. Research Policy, 36(85): 694–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Bozeman, M., & Gaughan, M. (2011) Job satisfaction among university faculty: individual, work, and institutional determinants. The Journal of Higher Education, 82(2): 154–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Breakthrough Prize (2016) General introduction. www.breakthroughhprize.org. Retrieved 25.5.2016.
  22. Busolt, U., & Kugele, K. (2009) The gender innovation and productivity gap in Europe. International Journal of Innovation and Sustainable Development, 4(2/3): 109–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Campbell, L. G., Mehtani, S., Dozier, M. E., & Rinehart, J. (2013) Gender-heterogeneous working groups produce higher quality science. PLOS One, 8(10): e79147. doi:  10.1371/journal.pone.0079147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Chen, A., Patton, D., & Kenney, M. (2016) University technology transfer in China: a literature review and taxonomy. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 41: 891–929.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Cole, J. R., & Zuckerman, H. (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
  26. Deem, R., Kovalainen, A., & Poutanen, S. (2015) Words and Money –Ethnography of Science Evaluation in Austere Times. Paper presented at 4S Conference San Diego, US. November 11-14.Google Scholar
  27. Dummer, G. W. A. (1997) Electronic Inventions and Discoveries: Electronics from Its Earliest Beginnings to the Present Day. 4th ed. Bristol, UK: Arrowsmith Ltd.Google Scholar
  28. Dunaway, W. A. (2014) Bringing commodity chain analysis back to its world-systems roots: rediscovering women’s work and households. Journal of World-Systems Research, 20(1): 64–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Esporta (2013) Evolution of washing. www.esporta.ca. Retrieved 21.6.2016.
  30. Etzkowitz, H., Kemelgor, C., & Uzzi, B. (2000) Athena Unbound: The Advancement of Women in Science and Technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. European Commission (2013) She Figures 2012: Gender in Research and Innovation. Brussels: European Commission. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/document_library/pdf_06/she-figures-2012_en.pdf.
  32. European Commission (2016) EU Prize for Women Innovators. http://ec.europa.eu/research/innovation-union/index_en.cfm?section=women-innovators. Retrieved 10.12.2016.
  33. Fara, P. (2004) Pandora’s Breeches: Women, Science and Power in the Enlightenment. London: Pimlico.Google Scholar
  34. Faulkner, W. (2009) Doing gender in engineering workplace cultures. Gender in/authencity and the in/visibility paradox. Eng.Stud, 1: 169–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Faulkner, W. (2014) Can women engineers be ‘Real Engineers’ and ‘Real Women’? Gender in/authenticity in engineering. In E. Waltraud & I. Horwath (eds.) Gender in Science and Technology. Bielefeld: Transkript verlag. 187–204.Google Scholar
  36. Foster, J. G., Rzhestsky, A., & Evans, J. A. (2015) Tradition and innovation in scientists’ research strategies. American Sociological Review, 80(5): 875–908.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Frietsch, R., Haller, I., Funken-Vrohlings, M., & Grupp, H. (2009) Gender-specific patterns in patenting and publishing. Research Policy, 38: 590–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Gaughan, M., & Corley, E. A. (2010) Science faculty at US research universities: the impacts of university research center-affiliation and gender on industrial activities. Technovation, 30(3): 215–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Gebhard, M. (1947) Lopen uupuneelle perheenemännälle. Työtehotietoa-lehti 7–8/1947.Google Scholar
  40. Ghiasi, G., Lariviere, V., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2015) On the compliance of women engineers with a gendered scientific system. PLoS ONE, 10(12): e0145931. doi:  10.1371/journal.pone.0145931.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Gianiodis, P. (2014) A framework for investigating university-based technology transfer and commercialization. In T. Baker & F. Welter (eds.) The Routledge Companion to Entrepreneurship. London: Routldge. 207–223.Google Scholar
  42. Giuliani, E., Morrison, A., Pietrobelli, C., & Rabellotti, R. (2010) Who are the researchers that are collaborating with industry? An analysis of the wine sectors in Chile, South Africa and Italy. Research Policy, 39: 748–761.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Godin, B. (2008) Innovation: the history of a category. Working paper no 1. The project on the Intellectual History of Innovation. Montreal: INRS.Google Scholar
  44. Godin, B. (2015) Models of innovation: why models of innovation are models, or what work is being done in calling them models? Project on the intellectual history of innovation. Social Studies of Science, 45(4): 570–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Gray, D. O., Tornatzky, L. G., & Rideout, E. (2014) Introduction. In L. G. Tornatzky & E. Rideout (eds.) Innovation U 2.0: Reinventing University Roles in a Knowledge Economy. Raleigh, NC: Southern Growth Policy BoardGoogle Scholar
  46. Greatest Engineering Achievements (2016) Household appliances history, part 3 – vacuums and fans. http://www.greatachievements.org/?id=3775. Retrieved 1.3.2016.
  47. Harhoff, D. (2011) The role of patents and licenses in securing external finance for innovation. In D. B. Audretsch, O. Falk, S. Heblich, & A. Lederer (eds.) Handbook of Research on Innovation and Entrepreneurship. Cheltenham: Edvard Elgar. 55–73.Google Scholar
  48. Hasse, C. (2008) Draw the Line! Universities as Workplaces for Male and Female Researchers in Europe. UPGEM project. Tartu: Tartu University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Hauge, T. (2016) Academic capitalism in the age of globalization. Higher Education Research & Development, 35(4): 865–867.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Horizon (2013) Interview of the laureate of the 2013 FEBS/EMBO Women in Science Award, Dr. Almouzni. The EU research and innovation magazine. https://horizon-magazine.eu/. Retrieved 15.5.2016.
  51. Hughes, T. B. (1999) Edison and electric light. In D. MacKenzie & J. Wajcman (eds.) The Social Shaping of Technology. Buckingham: Open University Press. 50–63.Google Scholar
  52. Hunt, J., Garant, J.-P., Herman, H., & Munroe, D. J. (2013) Why are women underrepresented amongst patentees?. Research Policy, 42(3013): 831–842.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Joshi, A. (2014) By whom and when is women’s expertise recognized? The interactive effects of gender and education in science and engineering teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 59(2): 202–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Jung, T., & Ejermo, O. (2014) Demographic patterns and trends in patenting: gender, age and education of inventors. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 86: 110–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Kanter, R. M. (2000) When a thousand flowers bloom: structural, collective and social conditions for innovation in organization. In R. Swedberg (ed.) Entrepreneurship. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 167–210.Google Scholar
  56. Kanter, R. M. (2001) Evolve! Succeeding in the Digital Culture of Tomorrow. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  57. Kariv, D. (2013) Female Entrepreneurship and the New Venture Creation: An international overview. New York: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  58. Klofsten, M., & Jones-Evans, D. (2000) Comparing academic entrepreneurship in Europe -The case of Sweden and Ireland. Small Business Economics, 14(4): 299–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Knorr-Cetina, K. (1999) Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge. Cambridge Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Kovalainen, A. (1995) At the Margins of the Economy: Women’s Self-Employment in Finland, 1960–1990. Ashgate: Avebury.Google Scholar
  61. Kugele, K. (2010) Analysis of women’s participation in high-technology patenting. In S. Marlow and P. Wynarczyk (eds.), Innovating Women: Contributions to Technological Advancement, Contemporary Issues in Entrepreneurship Research, Vol. 1. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing. 123–151.Google Scholar
  62. Ladd, A. L. (2014) Let’s talk about sex, baby: gendered innovations in orthopaedic science. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 472: 793–795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Landau, E. (2006) The History of Everyday Life. Minneapolis: Twenty-First Century Books.Google Scholar
  64. Lariviere, V., Ni, C., Gingras, Y., Cronin, B., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2013) Global gender disparities in science. Nature, 12(504): 211–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Larkin, J. (1989) The Reshaping of Everyday Life: 1790–1840. New York: Harper Perennial.Google Scholar
  66. Lee, N., & Motzkau, J. (2012) The biosocial event: responding to innovation in the life science. Sociology, 46(3): 426–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Lindberg, M., Danilda, I., & Torstensson, B.-M. (2012) Women Resource Centres – A Creative Knowledge Environment of Quadruple Helix. Journal of Knowledge Economy, 3: 36–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Lissoni, F., Llerena, P., McKelvey, M., & Sanditov, B. (2008) Academic patenting in Europe: new evidence from the KEINS database. Research Evaluation, 17(2): 87–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Longino, H. E. (1994) The fate of knowledge in social theories of science. In F. F. Schmitt (ed.) Socializing Epistemology: The Social Dimensions of Knowledge. Lanham: Rowman Littlefield.Google Scholar
  70. Longino, H. E. (2002) The Fate of Knowledge. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  71. Lungeanu, A., & Norshir, S. C. (2015) The effects of diversity and network ties on innovations: the emergence of a new scientific field. American Behavioral Scientist, 59(5): 548–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Mavriplis, C., Heller, R., Beil, C., Dam, K., Yassinskaya, N., Shaw, M., & Sorensen, C. (2010) Mind the gap: women in STEM career breaks. Journal of Technology, Management & Innovation, 5(1): 140–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Maxwell, L. M. (2003) Save Womens Lives: History of Washing Machines. Eaton: Oldewash.Google Scholar
  74. McKelvey, M., & Holmén, M. (2009) Learning to Compete in European Universities: From Social Institution to Knowledge Business. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Meng, Y. (2016) Collaboration patterns and patenting: exploring gender distinctions. Research Policy, 45: 56–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Meng, Y., & Shapira, P. (2011) Women and patenting in nanotechnology: scale, scope and equity. In S. E. Cozzens & J. M. Wetmore (eds.) Nanotechnology and the Challenges of Equity, Equality and Development. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  77. Merton, R. K. (1968) The Matthew effect in science. The reward and communication systems of science are considered. Science, 159: 56–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Milli, J., Williams-Baron, E., Berlan, M., Xia, J., & Gault, B. (2016) Equity in Innovation: Women Inventors and Patents. IWPR C448. Washington: Institute for Women’s Policy Research.Google Scholar
  79. Mui, C., & Carroll, P. B. (2013) The New Killer Apps: How Large Companies Can Out-Innovate Start-Ups. New York: Cornerloft Press.Google Scholar
  80. Murray, F., & Graham, L. (2007) Buying science and selling science: gender differences in the market for commercial science. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(4): 657–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Murray, F., & Stern, S. (2014) Do formal intellectual property rights hinder the free flow of scientific knowledge? An empirical test of the anti-commons hypothesis. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 63(4): 648–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Museums Victoria (2016) Item ST 26358 Washing Machine – Bendix, Automatic, circa 195. Museums Victoria Collections http://collections.museumvictoria.com.au/items/415562. Accessed 28 November 2016.
  83. Nager, A., Hart, D. M., Ezell, S., & Atkinson, R. D. (2016) The demographics of innovation in the United States. ITIF. Web-version: http://www2.itif.org/2016-demographics-of-innovation.pdf?_ga=1.194345133.1854841563.1452803793. Retrieved 12.March 2016.
  84. Nählinder, J. (2013) Understanding innovation in a municipal context: a conceptual discussion. Innovation: Management, Policy & Practice, 15(4): 315–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Nählinder, J., & Tillmar, M. (2013) Towards a gender-aware understanding of innovation: a three-dimensional route. International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, 7(1): 66–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Nählinder, J., Tillmar, M., & Wigren-Kristoferson, C. (2012) Are Female and male entrepreneurs equally innovative? – Reducing the gender bias of operationalisations and industries studied. In S. Andersson, K. Berglund, E. Gunnarsson, & E. Sundin (eds.) Promoting Innovation. Policies, Practices and Procedures. Vinnova Report VR 2012:08. Stockholm: Vinnova.Google Scholar
  87. Naldi, F., Luzi, D., Valente, A., & Vannini-Parenti, I. (2005) Scientific and technological performance by gender. In H. Moed, W. Glänzel, & U. Schmoch (eds.) Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology Research. Netherlands: Springer. 299–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Nobel Prize (2016) Prizes and Laureates. www.nobel.org, accessed 15.1.2016.
  89. Perkmann, M., & Walsh, K. (2008) Engaging the scholar: three types of academic consulting and their impact on universities and industry. Research Policy, 37(10): 1884–1891.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Perkmann, M., Tartarik, V., McKelvey, M., Autio, E., Broström, A., D’Este, P., Fini, R., Geunae, A., Grimaldi, R., Hughes, A., Krabel, S., Kitson, M., Llerena, P., Lissoni, P., Salter, A., & Sobrero, M. (2013) Academic engagement and commercialisation: a review of the literature on university–industry relations. Research Policy, 42(2): 423–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Peterson Mcintery, M. (2010) Bara den inte blir rosa, genus design och consumption i ett svenskt industriprojekt. Stockholm: Mara Förlag.Google Scholar
  92. Polkowska, D. (2013) Women scientists in the leaking pipeline: barriers to the commercialisation of scientific knowledge by women. Journal of Technology Management and Innovation, 8(2): 156–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Poutanen, S., & Kovalainen, A. (2013) Gendering innovation process in an industrial plant – revisiting tokenism, gender and innovation. International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, 5(3): 257–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Poutanen, S., & Kovalainen, A. (2016) Professionalism and entrepreneurialism. In M. Dent, I. Lynn Bourgeault, J.-L. Denis, & E. Kuhlmann (eds.) The Routledge Companion to the Professions and Professionalism. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  95. Pulma, P. (1984) Työtehoseuran kuusi vuosikymmentä 1924–1984. Helsinki: Työtehoseuran julkaisuja 260.Google Scholar
  96. Pursell, C. (1995) The Machine in America: A Social History of Technology. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  97. Ranga, M., & Etzkowitz, H. (2010) Athena in the world of techne: the gender dimension of technology, innovation and entrepreneurship. Journal of Technology, Management and Innovation, 5(1): 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Ranga, M., Gupta, N., & Etzkowitz, H. (2012) Gender Effects in Research Funding.A review of the scientific discussion on the gender-specific aspects of the evaluation of funding proposals and the awarding of funding. Bonn: DFG, Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft.Google Scholar
  99. Rommes, E., Bath, C., & Maass, S. (2012) Methods for intervention: gender analysis and feminist design of ICT. Science, Technology & Human Values, 37(6): 653–662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Rosser, S. V. (2009) The gender gap in patenting. Is technology transfer a feminist issue?. NWSA Journal, 21(2): 65–84.Google Scholar
  101. Rosser, S. V. (2012) Breaking into the Lab: Engineering Progress for Women in Science. New York: New York University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Sandberg, S. (2013) Lean In: Women, Work and the Will to lead. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
  103. Sang, K. J. C., Dainty, A. R. J., & Ison, S. G. (2014) Gender in the UK architectural profession: (re)producing and challenging hegemonic masculinity. Work, employment and society, 28(4): 247–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Schiebinger, L. & Klinge, I. (2013) Gendered Innovations. How Gender analysis Contributes to Research. Directorate General for Research & Innovation. European Comission. Accessed on 14th February 2016 from http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/genderedinnovations/index_en.cfm.
  105. Schiebinger, L., & Schraudner, M. (2011) Interdisciplinary approaches to achieving gendered innovations in science, medicine and engineering. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 36(2): 154–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Schmidt, B. (2014) Women, research and universities: excellence without gender bias. In B. Thege, S. Popescu-Willigmann, R. Pioch, & S. Badri-Höher (eds.) Paths to Career and Success for Women in Science. Findings from International Research. Wiesbaden: Springer Verlag. 93–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Shen, H. (2013) Inequality quantified: mind the gender gap. Nature, 495: 22–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Simard, C., & Gammal, D. L. (2012) Solutions to recruit technical women. In Anita Borg Institute Solutions Series, Anita Borg Institute for Women and Technology. Palo Alto: Anita Borg Institute.Google Scholar
  109. Sims, S. T., Stefanick, M. L., Kronenberg, F., Sahcedina, N. A., & Schiebinger, L. (2010) Gendered Innovations: a new approach for nursing science. Biological Research for Nursing, 12(2): 156–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Slater, D. (2014) Who made that? Windshield Wiper, New York Times Magazine, September 14, 2014, p. 22.Google Scholar
  111. Smith-Lawton, H., Chapman, D., Wood, P., Barnes, T., & Romano, S. (2014) Entrepreneurial academics and regional innovation systems: the case of spin-offs from London’s universities. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 32: 341–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Sproule, A. (2000) Thomas A. Edison, The World’s Greatest Inventor. Woodbridge, CT: Blackbirch Press Inc.Google Scholar
  113. Statistics Finland (2016) Employment Statistics. www.stat.fi. Retrieved 12.6.2016.
  114. Stephan, P. E., & El-Ganainy, A. (2007) The entrepreneurial puzzle: explaining the gender gap. Journal of Technology Transfer, 32: 475–487. doi:  10.1007/s10961-007-9033-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Stuart, T. E., & Ding, W. (2006) When do scientists become entrepreneurs?. American Journal of Sociology, 112(1): 97–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Sugimoto, C. R., Ni, C., West, J. D., & Larivière, V. (2015a) The academic advantage: gender disparities in patenting. PLoS ONE, 10(5): e0128000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Sugimoto, C. R., Ni, C., & Lariviere, V. (2015b) On the relationship between gender disparities in scholarly communication and country-level development indicators. Science and Public Policy, 42(6): 789–810.Google Scholar
  118. Technology Academy Finland (2016) Introduction and prizes. www.tat.fi. Retrieved 25.5.2016.
  119. The Economist (2014) Innovation awards: and the winners are…The Economist 6.12.2014. www.theeconomist.com. Retrieved 12.10.2016.
  120. Trask, B. S. (2014) Women, Work and Globalization: Challenges and Opportunities. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  121. Truss, C., Conway, E., d’Amato, A., Kelly, G., Monks, K., Hannon, E., & Flood, P. C. (2012) Knowledge work: gender-blind or gender-biased?. Work Employment & Society, 26(5): 735–754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. Työtehoseura (2016) Työtehoseuran historiaa. http://www.tts.fi/tts-1/tts90vuotta. Retrieved 10.5.2016.
  123. Valtonen, J. (2014) The Serpent House – Protection and Reparation of Cultural-Historically Valuable Building. Unpublished Master’s thesis. Helsinki: University of Aalto.Google Scholar
  124. Waltraud, E. (2014) Diffraction patterns? Shifting gender norms in biology and technology. In E. Waltraud & I. Horwath (eds.) Gender in Science and Technology. Bielefeld: Transkript verlag. 147–164.Google Scholar
  125. Watt, H. M. G., Shapka, J. D., Morris, Z. A., Durik, A. M., Keating, D. P., & Eccles, J. S. (2012) Gendered motivational processes affecting high school mathematics participation, educational aspirations, and career plans: a comparison of samples from Australia, Canada, and the United States. Developmental Psychology, 48(6): 1594–1611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. Weber, S., Wiegel, C., & Busolt, U. (2014) The German business enterprise sector: career paths in Research and Development (R&D). In B. Thege, S. Popescu-Willigmann, R. Pioch, & S. Badri-Höher (eds.) Paths to Career and Success for Women in Science. Findings from International Research. Wiesbaden: Springer Verlag. 241–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. Wennerås, C., & Wold, A. (1997) Nepotism and sexism in peer-review. Nature, 387: 341–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. Whittington, K. B. (2011) Mothers of Inventions? Gender, motherhood and new dimensions of productivity in the science profession. Work and Occupations, 28(2011): 417–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. Whittington, K. B., & Smith-Doerr, L. (2005) Gender and commercial science: women’s patenting in the life sciences. Journal of Technology Transfer, 30: 355–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. Whittington, K. B., & Smith-Doerr, L. (2008) Women inventors in context: disparities in patenting across academia and industry. Gender and Society, 22: 194–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. Wihlman, T., Hoppe, M., Wihlman, U., & Sandmark, H. (2014) Employee-driven innovation in welfare services. Nordic Journal of Working Life Studies, 4(2): 159–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  132. Yusof, N., Kamal, E. M., Kong-Seng, L., & Iranmanesh, M. (2014) Are innovations being created or adopted in the construction industry? Exploring innovation in the construction industry. SAGE Open, July-September 2014: 1–9.Google Scholar
  133. Zmroczek, C. (1992) Dirty Linen. Women, class and washing machines, 1920s–1960s. Women’s Studies International Quarterly, 15(2): 173–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Seppo Poutanen
    • 1
  • Anne Kovalainen
    • 2
  1. 1.Turku School of EconomicsUniversity of TurkuTurkuFinland
  2. 2.Turku School of EconomicsUniversity of TurkuTurkuFinland

Personalised recommendations