Women in Science

Gender, Technology and Development
http://gtd.sagepub.com/
Women in Science Commercialization : Looking for Gender Differences

Jasminka Laznjak, Zeljka Sporer and Jadranka Svarc Gender Technology and Development 2011 15: 175 DOI: 10.1177/097185241101500201 The online version of this article can be found at: http://gtd.sagepub.com/content/15/2/175
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
Asian Institute of Technology
Gender and Development Studies
Additional services and information for Gender, Technology and Development can be found at: Email Alerts: http://gtd.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://gtd.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://gtd.sagepub.com/content/15/2/175.refs.html
Downloaded from gtd.sagepub.com at UNIV ESTADUAL CAMPINAS BIBLIO on September 9, 2011
Article Introduction Editors
175
Gender, Technology and Development 15(2) 175200 2011 Asian Institute of Technology SAGE Publications Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore, Washington DC DOI: 10.1177/097185241101500201 http://gtd.sagepub.com
Women in Science Commercialization

Looking for Gender Differences
Jasminka Lanjak eljka porer Jadranka varc

Abstract This article analyzes the participation of women in technology-oriented scientific projects (known as the TEST program) to identify genderbased differences in attitudes toward commercialization and innovation based on scientific research. The analysis is based on the TEST program that marks a milestone in science policy in Croatia, and represents a shift toward innovation policy. There is a higher representation of women project leaders in the TEST program than in the standard scientific projects. Our research started with the hypothesis that the higher proportion of women scientists in technology projects is related to gender differences in sociodemographic characteristics, in the motivation for application as well as implementation of the projects, and satisfaction with the results of the TEST program. The results confirmed gender differences only in scientific field, previous career positions, and number of scientific publications, and do not offer an explanation of the relatively higher proportion of women researchers in TEST program.
Jasminka Lanjak, University of Zagreb, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Department of Sociology, I. Lucica 3, HR-10000 Zagreb, Croatia. E-mail: jlaznjak@ffzg.hr eljka porer, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia. Address: HR-10000, Zagreb, Gajeva 55, Croatia. E-mail: zeljkasporer@yahoo.com Jadranka varc, Institute of Social Sciences Ivo Pilar, Marulicev trg 19/I, HR10000 Zagreb, Croatia. E-mail: jadranka.svarc@pilar.hr Environment and Urbanization AsIA, 1, 1 (2010): viixii
176
Jasminka Lanjak, eljka porer, and Jadranka varc
The findings indicate that once women scientists have an equal chance for commercialization, they perform as well as men do. Keywords Women, technology, science commercialization, value orientations, Croatia
Introduction
This article presents the gender differences among scientists who participated in the first Croatian program of technology innovation development (TEST), the goal of which was to develop new technologies (products/processes/services) feasible for commercialization. Research institutes, business companies, and individual innovators were invited to apply for project financing. Scientific fields were divided into five sectors: natural sciences, biotechnology and biomedicine, engineering, agronomy and veterinary science, and social sciences. This research was a part of the larger project Social Evaluation of the Croatian Innovation System in the Function of Knowledge Society intended to encourage scientific and research institutions to develop new technological solutions and to stimulate the commercialization of knowledge within the academic community.1 Our research is based on the analysis of the project leaders in the TEST program who were the first to apply for technology-oriented projects. In our opinion, that action demonstrated their openness toward new ideas and new models of collaboration and, as such, they acted as change agents. The change consisted of a shift from the prevailing elite-type of science (mode 1 science production) toward the more problem-solving use of science (mode 2) (Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff, 2000; Gibbons et al., 2004; Nowotny, Scott, & Gibbons, 2001), which also indicates a shift from standard science policy toward innovation policy. The participants in the TEST program are considered bearers of certain sociocultural values and attitudes toward commercialization of science and scienceindustry cooperation. The investigation into their social characteristics and attitudes provides a valuable portrait of people inclined to commercialization of research.
Gender, Technology and Development, 15, 2 (2011): 175200

Women in science Commercialization
177
The aim of the project was to evaluate the TEST program by investigating participants assessments, opinions, and motivation to apply to the program and explore the social profile of project leaders. The entire project started from the hypothesis that the motivation for application, implementation of the project, and satisfaction with the achieved results of the TEST project is conditioned by (a) the social and scientific characteristics of the participants (such as age, gender, scientific field, previous career position, scientific productivity, and involvement in other projects) and by (b) social capital, defined as a system of values and attitudes that regulates individual behavior, attitudes toward commercialization of knowledge, and general value orientations.
Why Women? Research Aim and Hypothesis

While working on the project (varc, Lanjak, & Perkovi, 2011), we noted the high number of women who applied and successfully accomplished their first technological projects. This drew our attention to the gender issue in science-based innovations. Women in Croatia, despite some encouraging figures, are still underrepresented in the fields of engineering and technology, and therefore, the fact that women scientists led 59 percent of all projects in natural sciences and 56 percent of the projects in biotechnology, biomedicine, and health in the TEST program was noteworthy. The share of women in scientific projects was 28 percent in natural sciences, and 43 percent in biotechnology, biomedicine, and health in the same period (20052006).2 The widely recognized underrepresentation of women in technology, innovation, and entrepreneurship (Ahuja, 2002; Cronin & Roger, 1999; Evetts, 1996; Frank Fox, Johnston, & Rosser, 2006; Henwood, 1996; Ranga & Etzkowitz, 2010) as well as the low participation of women in science commercialization as measured by the patenting rate3 (Bunker Whittington & Smith-Doerr, 2008; Ding, Murray, & Stuart, 2006; Frietsch, Hallerb, Funken-Vrohlingsb, & Grupp, 2009; Rosser, 2009), led us to investigate gender difference in science commercialization. Innovation studies, including the industryuniversity relationship, as in the Triple Helix approach, have overlooked gender concerns in the

178
analyses of technological innovation (European Commission, 2003; Wajcman, 2000, 2004). Innovation policy studies have started analyzing the position of women in innovation, science and technology from the perspective of R&D and innovation policy (European Commission, 2008). According to Etzkowitz, the knowledge and service economy, which depends on public support of innovation, opens the door for a more intensive involvement of women in innovation process (Ranga & Eztkowitz, 2010). The approach has explored a new emerging area of technology transfer, incubation, and scientific entrepreneurship as a new hybrid profession dominantly occupied by women scientists (Etzkowitz, 2008; Ranga & Etzkowitz, 2010). The shift toward innovation policy in the public sector might offer women a better chance to participate in science commercialization and innovation. Innovation and commercialization of science are closely related to entrepreneurship. In academic entrepreneurship, the gender gap is the biggest and most neglected issue (Fltholm, Abrahamsson, & Kllhammer, 2010). A research project on gender differences among early-stage opportunity and necessity entrepreneurship in three transitional countries Croatia, Hungary, and Sloveniaconcluded that women are less likely to be involved in entrepreneurship than men (Tominc & Rebernik, 2007). Since the participants in the TEST program were researchers with more or less stable positions at universities or institutes, technology projects could be considered a kind of opportunity entrepreneurship for the science community. Following the same line of argument, we should have had fewer women in the academic entrepreneurship. However, the TEST program, a state-funded program for fostering science-based innovation in public sector (universities and institutes), attracted a considerable number of women researchers. The key question that emerged in the analysis of gender dimension in TEST program was: If gender differences are detected in three main aspects measured in the research(a) sociodemographic profile, (b) motivation for participation and satisfaction with the achieved results, and (c) general value orientations and attitudes toward science commercializationdo they indicate a change in the existing gender gap in science and technology? Our main hypothesis is that the higher proportion of women scientists in technology-oriented projects is related to gender differences in sociodemographic characteristics, in the motivation for application as well as

179
implementation of the project, and satisfaction with the achieved results of the TEST project. Therefore, the research aim was to look for gender differences in science commercialization and innovation in Croatia.
Gender Perspective in Science and Technology in Croatia

In our attempt to explore the role of gender in the area of technological innovation in Croatia, we have taken into account the historical background that produced a relatively better representation of women in technology and engineering professions. In Croatia, analyses of gender differences in science have been present for long time (Prpi, 2000, 2002, 2005, 2009; Sklevicky, 1987), while studies on gender, technology, and engineering have been less common (Lanjak & GaurinaMeimurec, 1997). Statistically, the proportion of women in science, technology, and engineering in Croatia is a little higher than the EU27 average. According to available data, women formed 37.2 percent of the tertiary students in the science, mathematics, and computing fields in the EU27 and 42 percent in Croatia in 2006. In the fields of engineering, manufacturing, and construction, the share of women students were 24.4 percent in the EU27 and 25.4 percent in Croatia (EUROSTAT, 2008a). Women are still underrepresented in engineering and technology, but they make up more than 50 percent in biotechnology and biomedicine, and almost 50 percent in natural sciences. The comparatively better representation of women in science and technology in Croatia is partly a legacy of the former Socialist regime. Some other Eastern European post-socialist countries also show a smaller gender gap as compared to EU countries (EUROSTAT, 2008b; European Commission, 2008). The percentage of women researchers was 41 percent in 2006 and the percentage of women holding PhDs was 45 percent in 2005, among the highest in the EU25.4 Better representation of women in post-socialist countries might be explained as a side effect of the dominant value of egalitarianism in the socialist/communist ideology (European Commission, 2003).5 This ideology was in contradiction to traditional and patriarchal values. The top-down model of womens

180
emancipation that occurred in Eastern European countries was the result of the dominant ideology of We are all working class, we are all equal. The ideological system and relative equality of salaries helped women to enter the workforce and professional life (porer, 1985; porer & Tadi, 1987). Glorification of physical work (we are all workers) and the Marxist interpretation (womens issues are a part of and will be solved within the class issue) resulted in the lowered status of professions in society, but it opened the door to women in education and in the workplace. The high correlation between massive entry of women into certain professions and the lowering in prestige of the same professions is a well-known fact.6 At the time when Western societies witnessed a bottom-up emancipation through the feminist movement (WLM), feminism was treated as a Western import and part of capitalist decadency within the socialist ideology of the former socialist Yugoslavia.
Methodology and Sample

The high representation of women scientists in technology projects in Croatia challenged us to look for gender differences in sociodemographic characteristics, value orientations, and motivations to apply for technological projects. Our analysis is an attempt to find out if that indicates that women researchers are the agents of change in existing gender imbalance in science and technology. The variables used to indicate these differences are as follows: 1. Independent variables:
l
Sociodemographic characteristics: gender, age, career path, research area, publications (patents), involvement in other projects, and institutional affiliation Value orientations: traditionalism and antiglobalism, statism, commercialization of knowledge
2. Dependent variables:
l
Motivation for science commercialization measured by motivation to apply for technology projects


l
181
Benefits from participation in the technology project and its implementation
Because of the lack of previous research on individual aspects of science commercialization, our study is based on explorative and descriptive research on motivation, attitudes toward commercialization of research, and the value orientations of the participants in technology projects. The study is mostly based on bivariate analysis in determining the empirical relationship between variables. To test the gender differences, we have used independent sample t-test of equality of means and ANOVA. In the case of categorical data, the Chi-square test was used. In order to examine the influence of gender differences on two dependent variables, motivation for commercialization and benefits from participation, by controlling independent variables, two regression models were tested. Three scales of value orientations are formed by the explorative factor analysis (extraction method: principal component analysis and Varimax rotation) of 37 items. We used Cronbachs Alpha to test the reliability of our scales. The analysis is based on the survey conducted in 2007 targeting TEST program project leaders. Information about projects and project leaders was drawn from the Web-based inventory of TEST projects provided by the Ministry of Science, Education and Sport (MSES).7 Only completed projects have been included in the sample. Data were collected by a self-administrated questionnaire sent by mail, with return control. It consisted of 53 questions grouped in six thematic categories that enable measurement of the selected dimensions. In the period 20012007, 298 projects were accepted for financing. Our sample included heads of the 212 technological projects completed by the year 2005. Of these, 120 researchers responded to the questionnairea response rate of 57 percent. However, they represent a self-selected group of respondents who possess an intrinsic motivation to answer the questionnaire. Their motivation probably stemmed from their satisfaction with the program, as well as from their own results. On the other hand, this self-selection underlies their main feature as bearers of new ideas and willingness for institutional changes. Unfortunately, we had no access to failed or uncompleted projects which would have given us valuable insight into many important aspects related to project failures

182
and barriers to implementation. In interpretation, we took into account the fact that our sample was not representative of all the applicants to TEST and hence, collected data have limited validity.
Looking for Gender Differences Sociodemographic ProfileGender Difference

Gender distribution of researchers by age shown in Table 1 indicates that there are no significant differences between genders by age. The Chisquare test shows no significant differences between gender groups (0.111) on a 5 percent level.
Table 1. Age of Researchers by Gender Men Age (Years) 3645 4655 5665 65 & above Total Chi-square tests Pearson Chi-square N of valid cases N 22 25 21 10 78 Value 6.20* 120 % 28.2 32.1 26.9 12.8 100 df 3 N 4 18 12 8 42 Women % 9.5 42.9 28.6 19.0 100 N 26 43 33 18 120 Total % 21.7 35.8 27.5 15.0 100
Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) 0.111
Note: *0 cells (0.0 %) have an expected count of less than 5. The minimum expected count is 6.30.
Women in TEST projects are mostly working in the fields of biology, biotechnology, and biomedicine. Men dominate the field of engineering, as shown in Table 2. The Chi-square test confirms statistically significant differences in the scientific fields of the researchers by gender (0.000) on a 5 percent level. Since these research fields are currently booming, we might expect a more balanced gender structure in the near future. It should be stressed that most of the projects within the TEST program are in the fields of engineering and technology, where male researchers dominate.


Table 2. Scientific Fields by Gender Men Scientific Field Natural sciences Biotechnology & biomedicine Engineering Agronomy & veterinary science Social sciences Total Chi-square tests Pearson Chi-square N of valid cases N 7 12 48 8 3 78 % 9.0 15.4 61.5 10.3 3.8 100 df 4 N 10 22 6 4 0 42 Women % 23.8 52.4 14.3 9.5 0 100 N 17 34 54 12 3 120
183
Total % 14.2 28.3 45 10 2.5 100
Value 32.605* 120
Notes: *3 cells (30.0 percent) have an expected count of less than 5. The minimum expected count is 1.05. The Chi-square test is significant for gender groups and scientific fields (0.000) on the 5% level.
The researchers previous position indicates the differences between the old type of scientists, who spend all their working life in academia and the new type of researchers with experience outside academia. We would expect a more positive attitude toward commercialization of science and a more entrepreneurial spirit from the second type. The results in Table 3 indicate some gender differences. The Chi-square test shows statistically significant differences between women and men researchers regarding their previous career positions (0.021) on a 5 percent level. Most of the women researchers started their careers in academia and have stayed there, while men had previous careers in entrepreneurship and management. This suggests that an academic career has less genderbiased obstacles than a career in business. The percentage of women who have had a previous job in teaching or science was 80.9 percent compared to 66.7 percent of the men (Table 3). Women published more scientific and technical papers than men, since they are mostly engaged in the fields of natural sciences, biotechnology, and biomedicine (fields with a higher rate of publishing) than engineering (Table 4). (The t-test is significant for differences between women and men researchers in the average number of publications, 0.055.) Both have an equally low rate of patenting. The t-test for scales

184
Table 3. Previous Career Positions by Gender Men Previous Position Science or teaching Entrepreneurship Management Consultant Administrative Total Chi-square tests Pearson Chi-square N of valid cases N 58 9 15 2 3 87 Value 7.758* 111 % 66.7 10.4 17.2 2.3 3.5 100 df 2 N 34 1 5 1 1 42 Women % N Total %
80.9 92 71.3 2.4 10 7.8 11.9 20 15.5 2.4 3 2.3 2.4 4 3.1 100 129 100 Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) 0.021
Notes: *2 cells (33.3%) have an expected count of less than 5. The minimum expected count is 1.41. Chi-square test significant (0.021) on a 5% level.
on involvement in other projects and the average number of applied and registered patents show no significant differences between the gender groups (Table 4). It can be concluded that women researchers who applied and successfully completed the TEST program have careers largely in science and teaching. They are predominantly in the areas of biotechnology and biomedicine, and publish more than the male respondents. However, there is no gender difference in the low level of patenting and involvement in other projects. Despite the fact that the women are from scientific fields with high levels of innovations and capitalization of knowledge, their profile indicates a more traditional academic orientation.
Motivation to Apply for TEST Projects

As stated in the introduction, the proclaimed goal of the TEST project was to develop new technologies (products/processes/services) for commercialization. Research institutes, business companies, and individual innovators were invited to apply for project financing. The intention of this survey was to go beyond the officially defined motives and to find the hidden interests of researchers that prompted them to apply to the TEST program. These motives are not necessarily connected with presumed technological outputs and their commercial exploitation. To find Gender, Technology and Development, 15, 2 (2011): 175200
Editors Introduction
Table 4. Average Values on Involvement in Other Projects, Scientific Productivity, and Patents by Gender Independent Sample t-Test t 1.333 1.940 0.689 df 118 110 118 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.185 0.055 0.492
Involvement in other projects
Average publications*
Average of applied for and registered patents
Gender Men Women Men Women Men Women N 78 42 72 40 78 42
Mean 1.7115 1.6101 12.0799 16.7200 0.1709 0.1111
Standard Deviation 0.41350 0.36543 11.73106 12.82498 0.42553 0.50293
Environment and Urbanization AsIA, 1, 1 (2010): viixii
Note: *2-tailed independent sample t-test significant (0.055) for the average number of publications.
185
186
the motivation, the question asked was as follows: Apart from developing new technology, what were your additional motives to apply for a TEST project? With multiple-choice answers, we were able to identify the three main types of motivations and a fourth, a mixed one, as follows:
l
Science-driven motivation consists of the intention of researchers to buy new research equipment and obtain additional financial resources for their research work. Industry cooperation-driven motivation consists of the wish of researchers to develop their capabilities for cooperation with industry and to acquire fresh funds for research with industry. Profit-driven motivations show the intention to gain initial capital for start-up firms and the intention to sell patents/licenses. Mixed motivation consists of two elements: science and industry cooperation-driven motivation.
Most participants were guided by mixed motivation with no significant gender differences (Table 5). Both women and men respondents prefer to combine their scientific research with possible industrial application and commercial exploitation. Their prime interest is to secure additional funding and equipment for their scientific research. Cooperation with industry and money-making is a welcome ingredient, but rarely their prime motive. Since funding of science projects in Croatia is rather modest and insufficient for more ambitious research undertakings, the TEST program was recognized by the research community as a channel for financial inflow in addition to that provided by the government. Gender differences in the motivation to apply for a TEST project were not confirmed by the t-test. We used regression analysis to explore which independent variables are related to the motivation to apply for the project to see whether additional gender disparities lie with our sample. None of the independent variables have a relevant influence on motivation to apply for a technology project.
Implementation of Technological Projects

The possibility for the commercial exploitation of research was important only to 16.9 percent of the respondents, who had developed concrete plans of commercialization prior to project submission. The remaining Gender, Technology and Development, 15, 2 (2011): 175200

Table 5. Motivation to Apply for TEST Motivation to Apply for TEST Projects Science driven Industry cooperation Profit driven Mixed motivation Total Chi-square tests Pearson Chi-square N of valid cases Men N 16 9 3 45 73 Value 0.121* 114 % 21.9 12.3 4.1 61.6 100 df 3 N 8 5 2 26 41 Women % 19.5 12.2 4.9 63.4 100 N 24 14 5 71 114 Total
187
% 21.1 12.3 4.4 62.3 100
Notes: *2 cells (25.0 percent) have an expected count of less than 5. The minimum expected count is 1.80. The Chi-square test shows no significant differences between gender groups (0.989).
83 percent had a vague idea of commercialization, out of whom 47.5 percent were just thinking about commercialization, while another 35.6 percent expressed intentions to commercialize research results, without any concrete plan (Table 6). Women saw more problems with commercialization, although that difference was not significant. We incline to attribute this first, to their predominantly academic background; second, to the specific science discipline; and third, to their general orientation toward publication. In general, the respondents are very satisfied with their accomplishments from their technological projects. When they are asked to rank the sources of satisfaction, we can see that the benefit from projects of cooperation with industry is ranked lower than general satisfaction. Participation in the TEST program was led primarily by scientific motives. Participants are scientists by vocation, and they find gratifying the achievement of results that contribute to their core business, namely, scientific work. The potential commercial application requested by the TEST program is inherent, to a certain degree, to all obtained results. We can suppose that this possible applicability was sufficient to justify each researchers participation in the program, even if the results were more scientific than technological. The t-test shows no significant differences in the level of satisfaction with all the dimensions of project realization between the gender groups (Table 7). Gender, Technology and Development, 15, 2 (2011): 175200
188
Table 6. Importance of Commercialization Men N 39 22 15 76 Value 4.298* 118 df 2 28.9 19.7 100 20 5 42 51.3 17 40.5 47.6 11.9 100 % N % Women N 56 42 20 118 Total % 47.5 35.6 16.9 100 Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) 0.117
The Importance of Commercialization when Applied to TEST
I was thinking about commercialization, but it was not the most important factor I intended to commercialize, but did not have a concrete plan I had a detailed plan of commercialization Total
Pearson Chi-square N of valid cases
Note: *The Chi-square test shows no significant differences between the gender groups (0.117).
Table 7. Satisfaction with Project Realization Independent Sample t-Test N 0.031 1.507 0.298 1.166 0.798 0.798 118 114 106 100 83 83 Mean t df Standard Deviation Sig. (2-tailed) 0.975 0.134 0.767 0.246 0.427 0.427
Satisfaction with Project Realization
Gender
Satisfaction with accomplished results (as planned) Benefit to research
Benefit in cooperation with industry Benefit to their careers
Problems with commercialization* Number of publications
Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women
78 42 76 40 72 36 69 33 51 34 58 30
3.92 3.93 3.0760 3.3218 3.6991 3.7546 2.9203 3.2121 3.0035 3.1592 2.8736 2.3028
0.923 0.894 0.84433 0.81661 0.89059 0.96073 1.27078 0.96849 0.79112 1.00149 2.20129 1.83966
Note: *Scale in negative direction, a higher score indicates a more critical (negative) attitude.
189
190
Regression analysis was done to see if any of the independent variables (gender, age, publications, involvement in other projects, or value orientations) have an influence on satisfaction with project realization. The benefit from the TEST project is more significant for participants with a better publication record, and whose value orientation is more in favor of science commercialization (Table 8). The statistically significant influence of gender was not found by regression analysis.
Table 8. Regression Model: Satisfaction with Project Model 1 Independent Variables Gender Education Age Involvement in other projects Average publication number Average number of patents Scale: traditionalism and antiglobalism Scale: commercialization of knowledge Scale: statism R square Beta 0.142 0.090 0.140 0.055 0.253 0.041 0.064 0.273 0.088 Sig. 0.158 0.369 0.274 0.589 0.025* 0.681 0.550 0.007* 0.378
0.179
Notes: *Significant independent variables (predictors) for satisfaction with project.
Value Orientations
The sociocultural heritage of socialism becomes a part of social capital that produces a long-term impact on the attitudes of the actors in the system. Social capital by definition facilitates useful interactions and connections among people; it helps to overcome differences in norms and values in undertaking collective actions (Coleman, 1988; Putnam, 1993). Croatia, like other countries in transition, suffer from a deficit of social capital (Rimac & tulhofer, 2004), manifested as a lack of cooperation and networking within the official system, and the domination of traditional values. This type of social capital deficiency might be a barrier for the success of the innovation policy. The institutional arrangements of the old regime have not yet been adequately replaced by new institutions that are able to respond to the

191
new challenges of capitalism and globalization. The lack of adequate new institutional arrangements limits the actors capabilities for knowledge capitalization and hinders transition to a knowledge society. Under these circumstances, even the leaders of academia and research institutes feel insecure and rely on the state as the key problem-solver.
Scales of Value Orientations

Three scales of general value orientations are formed based on explorative factorization of 37 items of different value orientations. The respondents expressed their level of agreement with each statement on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 meant strongly disagree and 5 strongly agree. Factor analysis (extraction method: principal component analysis and Varimax rotation) has reduced 37 to 15 items in 4 extracted factors (Table 9). These factors served to construct three value scales. We used Cronbachs Alpha to test the reliability of our scales and dropped two items to increase Alpha (Table 10). The fourth component was merged into the first one and we formed three scales (Table 10): 1. Antiglobalization and traditionalism 2. Commercialization of knowledge 3. State protectionism or statism Commercialization of knowledge has the highest score among values. All our respondents, regardless of gender, are in favor of commercialization of knowledge. Taking into account our sample of self-selected researchers, who applied for technological projects designed for innovative products with commercializing potential, value orientation is consistent with their actions. Anyone who applies for this type of research has a positive attitude toward commercialization of knowledge. Such strong support for commercialization of knowledge indicates that members of this group are potential bearers of new ideas and a new model of research, namely, collaboration with industry. The second highest score in value orientation is given to statism, or state protectionism, which means that respondents give above average

192
Table 9. Factor Solution for Value Orientations Component 1 0.542 0.499 0.814 0.720 0.770 0.725 0.569 0.115 0.255 0.020 0.493 0.041 0.014 0.053 0.018 23.284 0.002 0.008 0.055 0.310 0.246 0.213 0.815 0.910 0.878 0.614 19.379 0.152 0.252 0.762 0.562 0.571 0.193 0.172 0.008 0.042 0.158 11.154 0.187 0.123 0.041 0.093 0.035 0.449 0.235 0.057 0.073 0.071 2 3 4 0.419 0.614 0.105 0.248 0.127 0.241 0.071 0.071 0.476 0.241 0.374 0.064 0.239 0.253 0.038 8.406
Value Orientations
The peasant is the most reliable supporter of our nation The worker is the bearer of our economic development Croatia should restrict imported products to protect the domestic market Foreigners should not be allowed to buy real estate in Croatia Big international companies do increasingly more harm to local Croatian companies International organizations take too much authority from the Croatian government Growing exposure to foreign films and music is harmful for national culture The state should have a leading role in overall financing of science and research The state should have a leading role in fostering entrepreneurship The government should define the role of science in industrial and social development Free trade makes higher quality products available Knowledge should be commercializedto free human creative potentials Knowledge should be commercializedto accelerate Croatian development Knowledge should be commercializedto enable competitiveness of Croatian economy Companies should finance innovation and technology research % of variance explained
Table 10. Scale Value Orientations Cronbachs Alpha 0.812
Scale: Value Orientations
scale: Traditionalism and antiglobalization The peasant is the most reliable supporter of our nation The worker is the bearer of our economic development Croatia should restrict import products to protect the domestic market Foreigners should not be allowed to buy real estate in Croatia Big international companies do increasingly more harm to local Croatian companies International organizations take too much authority from the Croatian government Growing exposure to foreign films and music is harmful for national culture
Scale: Commercialization of knowledge Knowledge should be commercializedto free human creative potentials Knowledge should be commercializedto accelerate Croatian development Knowledge should be commercializedto enable competitiveness of the Croatian economy
0.887
scale: statism The state should have a leading role in overall financing of science and research The state should have a leading role in fostering entrepreneurship The government should define the role of science in industrial and social development
0.632
193
194
support to government regulation in relation to science policy and the funding of science and research. Traditionalism and antiglobalism are in third place with an average score that indicates that the respondents are neither supportive of globalization nor against it. There are no gender differences in general value orientations, that is, traditionalism/antiglobalism, commercialization of knowledge, and statism (Table 11).
Conclusion
The analysis of the sociodemographic profile of women leaders of TEST projects shows that they work predominantly in the area of biotechnology and biomedicine. They publish more than their male counterparts, and accordingly have relatively higher academic status. For both women and men, the motivation to apply to TEST lay in finding additional money for their research, rather than in commercialization. The career tracks of women are more straightforward than those of men. Perceptions of the benefits from the project and the importance of commercialization revealed no significant gender differences. There is no gender difference in the generally low level of patenting and involvement in other projects. Value orientations might play a significant role in attitudes toward innovation and capitalization of knowledge. Analysis of gender difference variance (ANOVA) between the groups and value orientations showed that our sample represents a homogenous population in which both men and women share the same value system: a positive orientation toward commercialization of research and, at the same time, strong support for the states protectionist role in funding research. That means commercialization of knowledge under the protection of the state. Bearing in mind that our sample consists of project leaders within the TEST program, who were the first in Croatia to apply for technology-oriented projects, we have assumed that they are the agents of sociocultural and institutional change and key actors in the spirit of innovation and entrepreneurship. The positive value orientation toward a greater protectionist role of the state in science policy seems inconsistent. However, taking into account the historical heritage of socialism, on the one hand, and insufficient development of the new institutional system, on the other,

Table 11. Value Orientations and Gender Men Mean N 75 75 76 3.1318 4.3902 3.9651 41 41 42 0.663 0.963 0.214 N t 3.0310 4.2667 3.9384 Mean Women Independent Sample t-Test df 114 114 116 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.528 0.338 0.831
Value Orientations
Traditionalism and antiglobalism Commercialization of knowledge Statism
Note: The t-test for independent samples shows no significant differences between genders in value orientations.
195
196
this finding may not be so inconsistent. It is a cry for institutional change that would support innovation and commercialization, and would define the role of science. Our research started with the hypothesis that the higher proportion of women scientists in technology projects is related to gender differences in sociodemographic characteristics, in the motivation for application as well as implementation of the projects, and satisfaction with the achieved results of the TEST project. Our data do not support the thesis of gender differences. Statistically significant gender differences in the three main aspects of analysis were not found among successful technology project leaders, and therefore, cannot explain the relatively higher proportion of women researchers in TEST program. We have to emphasize that the findings from our research project are limited by the nature of the self-selected sample of the researchers. Our sample of women researchers is not representative for women in science and technology in Croatia. It is a group of women researchers who have succeeded in their careers in the highly competitive traditionally maledominated area of research and show better performance in publication and scientific rank. Are women who are the bearers of new ideas and institutional changes also more in favor of the commercial use of science? The findings indicate that once women scientists have an equal chance for commercialization, they perform equally to men. Public support to innovation in the public sector where we can find more women scientists might be the way to open the door for more intensive involvement of women in technology development and commercialization of science. Notes
1. The research is part of a scientific project financed by the Croatian Ministry of Science, Education and Sports, entitled Social Evaluation of the Croatian Innovation System in the Function of Knowledge Society (20072009). We would like to thank two anonymous reviewers for valuable comments on previous version of the article. We would like to thank Dr Emira Bei for providing the valuable statistical data on women in science and technology in Croatia. 2. Both, scientific and technology projects were funded by the Ministry of Science, Education and Sports of the Republic of Croatia. The source of data: official website of the Croatian Gender Equality Ombudsperson, available at http://www.prs.hr/content/blogsection/10/72/ (accessed January 31, 2011).

197
3. Generally, women are less likely to register patents than men are, except in biotechnology firms, which are characterized by flat and flexible organizational structures (Bunker Whittington & Smith-Doerr, 2008). 4. The percentage of women PhDs in Croatia in 2005 was 45.2 percent and the percentage of women researchers in major fields of science in 2005 was as follows: 50.5 percent in the medical sciences; 48.5 percent in the natural sciences; and 27.9 percent in engineering and technology (source: Ministry of Science, Education and Sport, Republic of Croatia). 5. For example, in Croatia in 1990 the share of women students at the Faculty of Mining, Geology, and Petroleum Engineering was 12 percent. The percentage of women faculty in 1990 at the Faculty of Mining, Geology, and Petroleum Engineering, University of Zagreb, was 25.1 percent in Mining, 41.7 percent in Petroleum Engineering, and 33.3 percent at the Geology department (Lanjak & Gaurina-Meimurec, 1997). Mining and petroleum engineering is known as the last field of almost complete masculine dominance (in the USA, 0 percent employed women in Mining & Petroleum, Bureau of Labor Statistics, USA, 1990). 6. Anti-professionalism as a part of the egalitarian syndrome, the dominant value system on a societal level during the socialist period in former Yugoslavian society, was well explained by the late Croatian sociologist Josip upanov (1987). 7. The data about TEST projects are available at http://tprojekti.mzos.hr/ (accessed May 20, 2009).
References
Ahuja, Manju K. (2002). Women in the information technology profession: A literature review, synthesis and research agenda. European Journal of Information Systems, 11(1), 2034. Bunker Whittington, Kjersten, & Smith-Doerr, Laurel. (2008). Women innovators in context: Disparities in patenting across academia and industry. Gender & Society, 22(2), 194218. Coleman, James S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology Supplement, 94, 95120. Cronin, Catherine, & Roger, Angela. (1999). Theorizing progress: Women in science, engineering, and technology in higher education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(6), 637661. Ding, Waverly W., Murray, Fiona, & Stuart, Toby E. (2006). Gender differences in patenting in the academic life sciences. Science, 313(5787), 665667. European Commission. (2003). Waste of talents: Turning private issue into a public issue. Women and Science in the Enwise countries, Report to European

198
Commission from Enwise Expert group. Retrieved May 2008, from http:// ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/pdf/enwise_report.pdf . (2008). Benchmarking policy measures for gender equality in science. Retrieved May 2008, from http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/ document_library/pdf_06/benchmarking-policy-measures_en.pdf EUROSTAT. (2008a, May). Share of women among tertiary students. Science and Technology Graduates by Gender. Retrieved May 23, 2008, from http:// epp.eorostat.ec.europa.eu . (2008b, May). Share of women researchers, by sectors of performance. Science, Technology & Innovation in Europe. Retrieved May 23, 2008, from http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm Etzkowitz, Henry. (2008). Beyond the glass ceiling: Women in science and business in four countries, synthesis report for Women in Innovation, Science and Technology (WIST) Project. Retrieved May 24, 2009, from http://wist. ncl.ac.uk/results.htm Etzkowitz, Henry, & Leydesdorff, Loet. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: From national systems and Mode 2 to a triple helix of university-industrygovernment relations. Research Policy, 29(2), 109123. Evetts, Julia. (1996). Gender and career in science and engineering. London: Taylor & Francis. Fltholm, Ylva, Abrahamsson, Lena, & Kllhammer, Eva. (2010). Academic entrepreneurship: Gendered discourses and ghettos. Journal of Technology Management and Innovation, 5(1), 5163. Frank Fox, Mary, Johnston, Deborah G., & Rosser, Sue V. (Eds). (2006). Women, gender, and technology. Urbana-Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press. Frietsch, Rainer, Hallerb, Inna, Funken-Vrohlingsb, Melanie, & Grupp, Hariolf. (2009). Gender-specific patterns in patenting and publishing. Research Policy, 38(4), 590599. Gibbons, Michael, Limoges, Camille, Nowotny, Helga, Schwartzman, Simon, Scott, Peter, & Trow, Martin. (2004). The new production of knowledge. London, Thousand Oaks, CA, & New Delhi: SAGE Publications. Henwood, Flis. (1996). WISE choices? Understanding occupational decision making in a climate of equal opportunities for women in science and technology. Gender and Education, 8(2), 199214. Lanjak, Jasminka, & Gaurina-Meimurec, Nediljka. (1997). Gender and career in mining and petroleum engineering. In Dietrich Brandt (Ed.), Automated systems based on human skill (pp. 215218). Kranjska Gora, Slovenia: IFAC.

199
Nowotny, Helga, Scott, Peter, & Gibbons, Michael. (2001). Re-thinking science. Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Prpi, Katarina (Ed.). (2000). U potrazi za akterima znanstvenog i tehnolokog razvitka. (In the search for the actors of science & technology development [in Croatian]). Zagreb: Institut za drutvena istraivanja u Zagrebun. . (2002). Gender and productivity differentials in science. Scientometrics, 55(1), 2758. . (Ed.). (2005). Elite znanja u drutvu neznanja (The elites of knowledge in the (non) knowledge society [in Croatian]). Zagreb: Institut za drutvena istraivanja u Zagrebun. . (Ed.). (2009). Beyond the myths about natural and social sciences: A sociological view. Zagreb: Institute for Social Research. Putnam, Robert. (1993). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Ranga, Marina, & Etzkowitz, Henry. (2010). Athena in the world of techne: The gender dimension of technology, innovation and entrepreneurship. Journal of Technology Management and Innovation, 5(1), 112. Rimac, Ivan, & tulhofer, Aleksandar. (2004). Socio-cultural values, economic development and political stability as correlates of trust in the European Union. In Katarina Ott (Ed.), Croatian accession to the European Union: Institutional challenges (pp. 301327). Zagreb: Institute of Public Finance. Rosser, Sue V. (2009). The gender gap in patenting: Is technology transfer a feminist issue? Feminist Formations, 21(2), 6584. Sklevicky, Lydia (Ed.). (1987). ena i drutvo. Kultiviranje dijaloga (Women and society. Cultivating a dialog [in Croatian]). Zagreb: SDH. porer, eljka. (1985). Feminizacija profesija kao indikator poloaja ena u razliitim drutvima (Feminization of professions as indicator of womens position in different societies [in Croatian]). Sociologija, XXVII(4), 597613. porer, eljka, & Tadi, Vera. (1987). Profesionalni poloaj veterinarki (The professional position of women veterinarians). In Lydia Sklevicky (Ed.), ena i drutvo. Kultiviranje dijaloga (Women and society. Cultivating a dialog [in Croatian]) (pp. 99113). Zagreb: Socioloko drutvo Hrvatske. varc, Jadranka, Lanjak, Jasminka, & Perkovi, Juraj. (2011). Unintended consequences of the innovation policy programmes: Social evaluation of the technological projects programme in Croatia. Innovation: Management, Policy & Practice, 13(1), 7794. Tominc, Polona, & Rebernik, Miroslav. (2007). Gender differences in earlystage entrepreneurship in three European post-socialist countries. Drutvena Istraivanja, 16(3), 589612.

200
Wajcman, Judy. (2000). Reflections on gender and technology studies: In what state of the art? Social Studies of Science, 30(3), 447464. . (2004). Technofeminism. Cambridge: Polity. upanov, Josip. (1987). Egalitarizam i industrijalizam (Egalitarism and industrialism). In Josip upanov (Ed.), Sociologija i samoupravljanje (Sociology and self-management [in Croatian]) (pp. 2685). Zagreb: kolska Knjiga.


Women in Science

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Women in Science

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gender, Technology and Development

Women in Science Commercialization : Looking for Gender Differences

Gender and Development Studies

Downloaded from gtd.sagepub.com at UNIV ESTADUAL CAMPINAS BIBLIO on September 9, 2011

Article Introduction Editors

Women in Science Commercialization

Jasminka Lanjak eljka porer Jadranka varc

Jasminka Lanjak, eljka porer, and Jadranka varc

Gender, Technology and Development, 15, 2 (2011): 175200

Women in science Commercialization

Why Women? Research Aim and Hypothesis

Gender, Technology and Development, 15, 2 (2011): 175200

Jasminka Lanjak, eljka porer, and Jadranka varc

Gender, Technology and Development, 15, 2 (2011): 175200

Women in science Commercialization

Gender Perspective in Science and Technology in Croatia

Gender, Technology and Development, 15, 2 (2011): 175200

Jasminka Lanjak, eljka porer, and Jadranka varc

Methodology and Sample

Gender, Technology and Development, 15, 2 (2011): 175200

Women in science Commercialization

Benefits from participation in the technology project and its implementation

Gender, Technology and Development, 15, 2 (2011): 175200

Jasminka Lanjak, eljka porer, and Jadranka varc

Looking for Gender Differences Sociodemographic ProfileGender Difference

Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) 0.111

Gender, Technology and Development, 15, 2 (2011): 175200

Women in science Commercialization

Total % 14.2 28.3 45 10 2.5 100

Value 32.605* 120

Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) 0.000

Gender, Technology and Development, 15, 2 (2011): 175200

Jasminka Lanjak, eljka porer, and Jadranka varc

Motivation to Apply for TEST Projects

Involvement in other projects

Average of applied for and registered patents

Gender Men Women Men Women Men Women N 78 42 72 40 78 42

Mean 1.7115 1.6101 12.0799 16.7200 0.1709 0.1111

Standard Deviation 0.41350 0.36543 11.73106 12.82498 0.42553 0.50293

Downloaded from gtd.sagepub.com at UNIV ESTADUAL CAMPINAS BIBLIO on September 9, 2011

Environment and Urbanization AsIA, 1, 1 (2010): viixii

Jasminka Lanjak, eljka porer, and Jadranka varc

Implementation of Technological Projects

Women in science Commercialization

% 21.1 12.3 4.4 62.3 100

Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) 0.989

The Importance of Commercialization when Applied to TEST

Environment and Urbanization AsIA, 1, 1 (2010): viixii

Pearson Chi-square N of valid cases

Downloaded from gtd.sagepub.com at UNIV ESTADUAL CAMPINAS BIBLIO on September 9, 2011

Satisfaction with Project Realization

Satisfaction with accomplished results (as planned) Benefit to research

Benefit in cooperation with industry Benefit to their careers

Downloaded from gtd.sagepub.com at UNIV ESTADUAL CAMPINAS BIBLIO on September 9, 2011

Problems with commercialization* Number of publications

Environment and Urbanization AsIA, 1, 1 (2010): viixii

Jasminka Lanjak, eljka porer, and Jadranka varc

Notes: *Significant independent variables (predictors) for satisfaction with project.

Gender, Technology and Development, 15, 2 (2011): 175200

Women in science Commercialization

Scales of Value Orientations

Gender, Technology and Development, 15, 2 (2011): 175200

Environment and Urbanization AsIA, 1, 1 (2010): viixii