Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The effects of university-level policies on women’s participation in academic patenting in Italy

  • Published:
The Journal of Technology Transfer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A growing stream of the academic literature has investigated the factors that hamper the participation of women researchers in patenting and commercialization activities; however, limited research has examined the policies that address these forms of the gender gap. In this paper, we explore whether the ownership arrangements of university patents and the presence of university-level support measures such as technology transfer offices and linkages with science and technology parks are positively associated with women’s involvement in academic patenting. We test our hypotheses on a sample of 2538 academic patents by Italian inventors in the period 1996–2007. The results of our analyses highlight a positive role of university policies in addressing the gender gap in technology transfer activities.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. In the APE-INV dataset, Italian academic patents were identified through a process of name matching between disambiguated inventors of Italian EPO patents and academic personnel, and the latter's names were made available in 2000, 2005 and 2009 by the Italian Ministry of Education. This procedure produced “professor-patent” pairs that were obtained by attributing to each professor the patents that had been signed by the matched inventors. For a more detailed description of the dataset, the disambiguation process and matching algorithm, see Lissoni et al. (2013).

  2. The TASTE dataset systematically collects information on the population of 95 Italian universities, including the characteristics, in terms of economic development and innovation levels, of the 20 Italian regions in which they are located (Bolzani et al, 2014).

  3. Since 2014, ANVUR began a systematic data collection effort on third mission activities that were undertaken by Italian universities, based on a mandate of the Italian Ministry for University and Research. Such information is publicly available on the ANVUR website (under the “SUA-RD Terza Missione” section). This section includes information about the participation of the university in a science and technology park, and the year of activation of such participation.

  4. If, for a given patent, there are academic inventors from more than one university, we consider the university with the oldest date of TTO creation to build this variable.

  5. We consider the 8 main sections of IPC patent classification scheme to construct such dummy variables: Human necessities; Performing operations, Transporting; Chemistry, Metallurgy; Textiles, Paper; Fixed constructions; Mechanical engineering; Physics; Electricity. In our estimations, Human necessities is the baseline dummy.

  6. Furthermore, if we focus on the distribution of university-owned patents among universities with and without TTO, we find that, on average, the proportion of university-owned patents coming from universities without TTOs is significantly lower in respect to universities with TTOs (32.3 vs. 67.7%). This scenario is particularly pronounced from 2005, with over 93% of university-owned patents coming from universities with a TTO. This result supports the idea that TTOs act as facilitator for the development of patents owned by the mother universities. We thank an anonymous reviewer for suggesting us to point out this distinction.

  7. We use the term “university-affiliated” and “academic” interchangeably to say that an inventor comes from academia.

References

  • Baldini, N., Fini, R., Grimaldi, R., & Sobrero, M. (2010). The institutionalisation of university patenting activity in Italy: Diffusion and evolution of organisational practices. Cambridge Journal Economics (special issue) workshop “universities and the knowledge economy”, June 28–29, 2010.

  • Baldini, R., Fini, R., Grimaldi, R., & Sobrero, M. (2014). Organisational change and the institutionalisation of university patenting activity in Italy. Minerva,52(1), 27–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baldini, N., Grimaldi, R., & Sobrero, M. (2006). Institutional changes and the commercialization of academic knowledge: A study of Italian universities’ patenting activities between 1965 and 2002. Research Policy,35(4), 518–532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baldini, N., Grimaldi, R., & Sobrero, M. (2007). To patent or not to patent? A survey of Italian inventors on motivations, incentives, and obstacles to university patenting. Scientometrics,70(2), 333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bolzani, D., Fini, R., Grimaldi, R., Santoni, S., & Sobrero, M. (2014). Fifteen years of academic entrepreneurship in Italy: Evidence from the taste project. Technical report: University of Bologna, June 2014. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2460301. Accessed 28 June 2018.

  • Bozeman, B. (2000). Technology transfer and public policy: A review of research and theory. Research Policy,29(4–5), 627–655.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bradley, S. R., Hayter, C. S., & Link, A. N. (2013). Proof of concept centers in the United States: An exploratory look. Journal of Technology Transfer,38(4), 349–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chugh, H. (2004). New academic venture development: Exploring the influence of the technology transfer office on university spinouts. Working paper, Tanaka Business School, Imperial College London.

  • Corley, E., & Gaughan, M. (2005). Scientists’ participation in university research centers: What are the gender differences? The Journal of Technology Transfer,30(4), 371–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crespi, G. A., Geuna, A., Nomaler, O., & Verspagen, B. (2010). University IPRs and knowledge transfer: Is university ownership more efficient? Economics of Innovation and New Technology,19(7), 627–648.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Melo-Martín, I. (2013). Patenting and the gender gap: Should women be encouraged to patent more? Science and Engineering Ethics,19(2), 491–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Debackere, K., & Veugelers, R. (2005). The role of academic technology transfer organizations in improving industry science links. Research Policy,34(3), 321–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ding, W. W., Murray, F., & Stuart, T. E. (2006). Gender differences in patenting in the academic life sciences. Science,313, 665–667.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ding, W. W., Murray, F., & Stuart, T. E. (2013). From bench to board: Gender differences in university scientists’ participation in corporate scientific advisory boards. Academy of Management Journal,56(5), 1443–1464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dornbusch, F., Schmoch, U., Schulze, N., & Bethke, N. (2013). Identification of university-based patents: A new large-scale approach. Research Evaluation,22, 52–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Etzkowitz, H., Kemelgor, C., & Uzzi, B. (2000). Athena unbound: The advancement of women in science and technology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, M., Feller, I., Bercovitz, J., & Burton, R. (2002). Equity and the technology transfer strategies of American research universities. Management Science,48(1), 105–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferber, M., & Loeb, L. (1997). Academic couples: Problems and promise. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox, M. F., & Ferri, V. C. (1992). Women, men, and their attributions for success in academe. Social Psychology Quarterly,55, 257–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frietsch, R., Haller, I., Funken-Vrohlings, M., & Gruppa, H. (2009). Gender-specific patterns in patenting and publishing. Research Policy,38, 590–599.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geuna, A., & Nesta, L. (2006). University patenting and its effects on academic research: The emerging European evidence. Research Policy,35, 790–807.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geuna, A., & Rossi, F. (2011). Changes to university IPR regulations in Europe and the impact on academic patenting. Research Policy,40, 1068–1076.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giuri, P., Mariani, M., Brusoni, S., Crespi, G., Francoz, D., Gambardella, A., et al. (2007). Inventors and invention processes in Europe: Results from the PatVal-EU survey. Research Policy,36(8), 1107–1127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giuri, P., Munari, F., & Pasquini, M. (2013). What determines university patent commercialization? Empirical evidence on the role of university IPR ownership. Industry and Innovation,20(5), 488–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grimaldi, R., Kenney, M., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (2011). 30 years after Bayh–Dole: Reassessing academic entrepreneurship. Research Policy,40, 1045–1057.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, J., Garant, J. P., Herman, H., & Munroe, D. J. (2012). Why don’t women patent? NBER working paper.

  • Hunt, J., Garant, J. P., Herman, H., & Munroe, D. J. (2013). Why are women underrepresented amongst patentees? Research Policy,42, 831–843.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, J. A., Gerson, K., & Jacobs, J. A. (2004). The time divide: Work, family, and gender inequality. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lissoni, F. (2012). Academic patenting in Europe: An overview of recent research and new perspectives. World Patent Information,34, 197–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lissoni, F., Llerena, P., McKelvey, M., & Sanditov, B. (2007). Academic patenting in Europe: New evidence from the KEINS database. Research Evaluation,17(2), 87–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lissoni, F., Pezzoni, M., Poti, B., & Romagnosi, S. (2013). University autonomy, the professor privilege and academic patenting: Italy, 1996–2007. Industry and Innovation,20(5), 399–421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lofsten, H., & Lindelof, P. (2002). Science parks and the growth of new technology based firms, academic-industry links, innovation and markets. Research Policy,31(6), 859–876.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Long, J. S., & McGinnis, R. (1985). The effects of the mentor on the academic career. Scientometrics,7(3–6), 255–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Louis, K. S., Jones, L. M., Anderson, M. S., Blumenthal, D., & Campbell, E. G. (2001). Entrepreneurship, secrecy, and productivity: A comparison of clinical and non-clinical faculty. Journal of Technology Transfer,26, 233–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mann, R. J., & Sager, T. W. (2007). Patents, venture capital, and software start-ups. Research Policy,36(2), 193–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markman, G. D., Gianiodis, P. T., Phan, P. H., & Balkin, D. B. (2005). Innovation speed: Transferring university technology to market. Research Policy,34, 1058–1075.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markman, G. D., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (2008). Research and technology commercialization. Journal of Management Studies,45, 1401–1423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mason, M. A., & Goulden, M. (2004). Marriage and baby blues: Redefining gender equity and the academy. Annals of American Political and Social Scientist,596, 86–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mauleon, E., & Bordons, M. (2009). Male and female involvement in patenting activity in Spain. Scientometrics,83, 605–621.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCullagh, P. (1983). Quasi-likelihood functions. The Annals of Statistics,11, 59–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meng, Y. (2016). Collaboration patterns and patenting: Exploring gender distinctions. Research Policy,45, 56–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, J. P. (2013). The science–practice gap and employee engagement: It’s a matter of principle. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne,54(4), 235–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, R. P., Kruytbosch, C., & Kannankutty, N. (2001). Patenting and innovation activity of U.S. scientists and engineers in the academic sector: Comparisons with industry. Journal of Technology Transfer,26, 173–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mosey, S., & Wright, M. (2007). From human capital to social capital: A longitudinal study of technology-based academic entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,31(6), 909–935.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mowery, D. C., & Ziedonis, A. A. (2002). Academic patent quality and quantity before and after the Bayh–Dole act in the United States. Research Policy,31(3), 399–418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Munari, F., Pasquini, M., & Toschi, L. (2015). From the lab to the stock market? The characteristics and impact of university-oriented seed funds in Europe. The Journal of Technology Transfer,40(6), 948–975.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Munari, F., Rasmussen, E., Toschi, L., & Villani, E. (2016). Determinants of the university technology transfer policy-mix: A cross-national analysis of gap-funding instruments. Journal of Technology Transfer,41(6), 1377–1405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Munari, F., Sobrero, M., & Toschi, L. (2018). The university as a venture capitalist? Gap funding instruments for technology transfer. Technological Forecasting and Social Change,127, 70–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mustar, P., & Wright, M. (2010). Convergence or path dependency in policies to foster the creation of university spin-off firms? A comparison of France and the United Kingdom. Journal of Technology Transfer,35, 42–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Naldi, F., Luzi, D., Valente, A., & Vannini Parenti, I. (2004). Scientific and technological performance by gender. In H. F. Moed, W. Glanzel, & U. Schmoch (Eds.), Handbook of quantitative science and technology research.

  • Niederle, M., & Vesterlund, L. (2005). Do women shy away from competition? Do men compete too much? Working paper no. 11474, National Bureau of economic research working paper.

  • O’Shea, R. P., Allen, T. J., Chevalier, A., & Roche, F. (2005). Entrepreneurial orientation, technology transfer and spin off performance of U.S. universities. Research Policy,34, 994–1009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phan, P. H., & Siegel, D. S. (2006). The effectiveness of university technology transfer: Lessons learned, managerial and policy implications, and the road forward. Working paper no. 0609, Rensselaer working papers in economics.

  • Phan, P. H., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (2005). Science parks and incubators: Observations, synthesis and future research. Journal of Business Venturing,20(2), 165–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Popp Berman, E. (2008). Why did universities start patenting? Institution-building and the road to the Bayh–Dole act. Social Studies of Science,38(6), 835–871.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Powers, J. B., & McDougall, P. P. (2005). University start-up formation and technology licensing with firms that go public: A resource-based view of academic entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing,20(3), 291–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rasmussen, E., Moen, Ø., & Gulbrandsen, M. (2006). Initiatives to promote commercialization of university knowledge. Technovation,26, 518–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roos, P., & Gatta, M. (2009). Gender (in)equity in the academy: Subtle mechanisms and the production of inequality. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility,27(3), 177–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosa, P., & Dawson, A. (2006). Gender and the commercialization of university science: Academic founders of spinout companies. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development,18, 341–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosser, S. V. (2009). The gender gap in patenting: Is technology transfer a feminist issue? Feminist Formations,21(2), 65–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaw, S., & Cassell, K. (2007). “That’s not how I see it”: Female and male perspectives on the academic role. Women in Management Review,22(6), 497–515.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D., & Link, A. (2003a). Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the relative productivity of university technology transfer offices: An exploratory study. Research Policy,32, 27–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, D. S., Westhead, P., & Wright, M. (2003b). Science Parks and the performance of new technology based firms: A review of UK based evidence and an agenda for future research. Small Business Economics,20(2), 177–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sonnert, G., & Holton, G. (1996). Career patterns of women and men in the sciences. American Scientist,84, 63–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stephan, P. E., & El-Ganainy, A. (2007). The entrepreneurial puzzle: Explaining the gender gap. Journal of Technology Transfer,32, 475–487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stuart, T. E., & Ding, W. W. (2006). When do scientists become entrepreneurs? The social structural antecedents of commercial activity in the academic life sciences. American Journal of Sociology,112(1), 97–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sugimoto, C. R., Ni, C., West, J. D., & Larivière, V. (2015). The academic advantage: Gender disparities in patenting. PLoS ONE,10(5), e0128000.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tartari, V., & Salter, A. (2015). The engagement gap: Exploring gender differences in University–Industry collaboration activities. Research Policy,44(6), 1176–1191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Technopolis. (2008). Evaluation on policy: Promotion of women innovators and entrepreneurship. GKH, Technopolis: Final Report.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thursby, J., Fuller, A. W., & Thursby, M. (2009). US faculty patenting: Inside and outside the university. Research Policy,38(1), 14–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thursby, J. G., Jensen, R., & Thursby, M. C. (2001). Objectives, characteristics and outcomes of university licensing a survey of major U.S. universities. The Journal of Technology Transfer,26, 59–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thursby, J. G., & Thursby, M. C. (2005). Gender patterns of research and licensing activity of science and engineering faculty. The Journal of Technology Transfer,30(4), 343–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wedderburn, R. W. (1974). Quasi-likelihood functions, generalized linear models, and the Gauss–Newton method. Biometrika,61(3), 439–447.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whittington, K. B. (2007). Employment sectors as opportunity structures: The effects of location on male and female scientific dissemination. Stanford, CA: Department of Sociology, Stanford University.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whittington, K. B., & Smith-Doerr, L. (2008). Women inventors in context: Disparities in patenting across academia and industry. Gender & Society,22, 194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Management, Università degli Studi di Bologna, Via Capo di Lucca 34, 40126, Bologna, Italy

    Paola Giuri, Rosa Grimaldi, Anna Kochenkova, Federico Munari & Laura Toschi

Authors
  1. Paola Giuri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rosa Grimaldi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Anna Kochenkova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Federico Munari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Laura Toschi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Federico Munari.

Additional information

Financial support from the EC project 217299 InnoS&T, from the EIBURS programme of the European Investment Bank (“Financing Knowledge Transfer in Europe”—FiNKT project) and from the PRIN-MIUR project (“Market and non-market mechanisms for the exchange and diffusion of innovation: when do they work, when they do not work, and why should we care”, CUP B41J12000160008) is gratefully acknowledged. Special acknowledgements go to Francesco Lissoni and Michele Pezzoni for kindly providing access to the APE-INV database (Academic Patenting in Europe), and to Riccardo Fini for kindly providing access to the TASTE database (Taking Stock: External Engagement by Academics).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Giuri, P., Grimaldi, R., Kochenkova, A. et al. The effects of university-level policies on women’s participation in academic patenting in Italy. J Technol Transf 45, 122–150 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-018-9673-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-018-9673-5

Keywords

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation