Page 31 - T-I JOURNAL19 4

GENDER DATA GAP 679

not considered gender tracking to be an import- capability of their software to track gender
ant demographic to collect from those who submit • A feeling that they could access the data
invention disclosures, while 11% reported that they through another campus resource if they
did not know why their offices did not track gender needed or wanted
in their systems (Figure 3). • No one has previously asked the TTO for this
Additional details were provided by 21 of the total particular metric
respondents as to why they did not currently track • Resource constraints limiting the office from
gender (Figure 4). These responses include: tracking

• Concerns over liability of tracking gender and/ • A sense that the university is so small that the
or their internal human resource policies TTO staff was already familiar with the inven-
• No perceived benefit to tracking gender tors, so formal tracking was unnecessary
• A perception that tracking gender was or would • Consideration or actual planning was taking
be difficult to implement or concerns with the place in the office to begin tracking gender

50 50

Respondents (Total Number) Respondents (Total Number) 30 30
40
40

20
20
10
10
0
Had not really considered it Not sure Other
0
Figure 3. Rationale for not tracking gender. Reasoning provided by non-tracking universities as to why they have not been
Not sure
Had not really considered it
Other
tracking gender.
6
6 4

Respondents (Total Number) 4 Respondents (Total Number) 2

2
0
Implementation
Metric not
Resource
Other ways of
Planning to
Uncertain of
Liability/HR
getting data
Concerns
benefits
difficulties
institution
0
Metric not
Resource
Liability/HR Uncertain of Implementation Other ways of track in future required by constraints
Planning to
Concerns benefits difficulties getting data track in future required by constraints
institution
Figure 4. Additional reasons cited for not tracking gender.