4.7 Article

The engagement gap: Exploring gender differences in University - Industry collaboration activities

Journal

RESEARCH POLICY
Volume 44, Issue 6, Pages 1176-1191

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2015.01.014

Keywords

Gender; Academic-engagement with industry; University-industry collaboration; Marginality; Women in science; Semi-parametric matching

Categories

Funding

  1. UK's Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [EP/F036930/1]
  2. Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) [ES/K001159/1]
  3. UK Innovation Research Centre - ESRC [RES/G028591/1]
  4. National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts
  5. Department for Business, Innovation and Skills
  6. Technology Strategy Board
  7. EPSRC [EP/F036930/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  8. ESRC [ES/G042993/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  9. Economic and Social Research Council [ES/G042993/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  10. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [EP/F036930/1] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In recent years, the debate about the marginality of women in academic science has been extended to academics' engagement with industry and their commercial efforts. Analyzing multi-source data for a large sample of UK physical and engineering scientists and employing a matching technique, this study suggests women academics to engage less and in different ways than their male colleagues of similar status in collaboration activities with industry. We then argue - and empirical assess - these differences can be mitigated by the social context in which women scientists operate, including the presence of women in the local work setting and their wider discipline, and the institutional support for women's careers in their organization. We explore the implications of these findings for policies to support women's scientific and technical careers and engagement with industry. (C) 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available