Page 26 - T-I JOURNAL19 4

674 SOHAR ET AL.

the predominantly male-coded environment these Benefits
women face. Murray and Graham (10) identified sev- It has been established that “[b]oth pecuniary
eral barriers to female inventors, including a sense of and non-pecuniary benefits accrue to inventors;
exclusion, limited opportunities, the perception that women disproportionately are not inventors in most
male scientists and engineers were highly regarded, fields, and therefore fewer women than men experi-
and a “boys’ club” environment. These barriers were ence these benefits” (9). These benefits can include
particularly evident when controls for other metrics preferential treatment in forms of better research
(publications, industry collaborations, and patents) opportunities, access to lab space and equipment,
were included in the methodology. Gender socializa- investment funding, personal earnings, access to
tion also affects the unequal distribution of home and networks, and enhanced reputation (9).
caregiving responsibilities, which limits the amount Access to networks and resources are import-
of time women have to devote to patenting and other ant to moving new ideas forward. Men draw on
commercialization activities (10). broad-reaching networks, including industry con-
Implicit bias in the patent office, for example, can tacts, for advice from multiple perspectives and for
have an impact upon the likelihood of patent issu- invitations to join high-level teams, whereas women
ance. A 2011 study found that U.S. patent examiners tend to join smaller networks with strong relations
expressed disdain for female-generated inventions and, potentially, have access to fewer influential ties
and refused to provide support via feedback to female in their networks (9,12).
inventors, while, at the same time, they were will- Women are disadvantaged by a limited number
ing to provide feedback to male inventors (9). Such of connections. Women receive fewer invitations to
biases can have severe implications for female partic- join teams and are typically invited to join compa-
ipation in patenting and entrepreneurial activities. In rable peers rather than high-level teams (12). The
another study of U.S. patent examiners, Garber (11) exclusion of female scientists early on leaves them
found the existence of implicit bias in granting pat- with a smaller network and fewer market opportuni-
ents to women inventors on the part of both male ties, resulting in female inventors being less prepared
and female patent examiners, finding that, overall, and less confident than their male counterparts (10).
patent examiners are less likely to grant patents to Patenting often leads to investment, as venture
women inventors. capital investors frequently consider patents in their
Implicit bias exists in the academic world as well. funding decisions. Women’s access to this type of
Ding et al. (12) conducted an analysis of patenting investment is constrained by low rates of patenting
activities in academic life sciences fields and found (8) and can be further inhibited by lack of access to
that, while controlling for several variables (includ- professional networks (13). Thus, gender differences
ing productivity, networks, field, quality of research, in patenting may be amplified in public versus pri-
and employer attributes), women’s work is of equal or vate settings due to variations in (a) the differing
higher quality compared to men’s; regardless, female network positions of men and women and (b) the
life scientists are patenting at 40% of the rate of their varying importance of network position on produc-
male peers. Their analysis also reveals gendered pat- tivity in industry and academia (13).
terns in attitudes toward patenting among faculty:
Women see formidable challenges in balancing pat- Environmental, Legal, and Policy Factors
enting with other career and life obligations and, The lack of economic means influences innova-
differently from their male colleagues, have con- tion, and the gender disparity issue is most serious
cerns that these tradeoffs could negatively affect their in non-egalitarian environments, where domestic
teaching roles and access to laboratories and other finances are frequently controlled by men, thus lim-
equipment or may be perceived as interfering with iting women’s autonomy and decision capacity. This
other academic duties (12).
can block innovation initiatives of entrepreneurial
women (14). As Kahler notes: