Is men’s research prioritised in the development of new technologies?
Inventors pay less attention to scientific papers authored by women, finds a new study. How might this impact on innovation?
In 30 Seconds
Papers with women as principal authors are cited in patents by inventors significantly less than those authored by men
In an online study, participants were found to spend longer reading the abstracts of papers when they thought the lead author was a man
Academic credibility and authority remain heavily skewed towards men’s work – an inequality that belies the reality of what women have to offer
We know that innovation is driven by the sharing of research – collective investigation that is both a ballast and impetus for future breakthroughs. Ideas beget ideas; discovery and invention spark new discovery, new invention.
In the world of science and technology, we like to think of innovation as a cycle of meritocracy: one in which the best and most brilliant ideas rise naturally to the surface where they can be seen, appreciated and leveraged by other thinkers and innovators.
That’s the prevailing notion. But reality tells a slightly different story.
Discover fresh perspectives and research insights from LBS
The Nobel Prize, for instance, is a universally recognised measure of brilliance in innovation, awarded to individuals who have made the greatest benefit to humankind. Yet, in its 100+ year history, when the Nobel has been awarded to 976 thinkers and innovators, only 65 of those have been women. Put another way, female Laureates account for less than 7% of all prize winners since the beginning of the 20th century.
Meanwhile, a recent study published by the European Commission points to a serious dearth of women in innovation and leadership, where they represent only a third of researchers, and a quarter of full professorship roles. Another study finds evidence of an “inventor gender gap,” building on research showing that women represent just 35% of STEM scientists and a meagre 13% of US patent inventors.
All of which begs a question: are men’s ideas valued more than women’s? And if some ideas are being overlooked – not because of their content but because of who produces them – could we be missing out on important opportunities for progress?
Weighing in with quantitative evidence is research by Isabel Fernandez-Mateo, Adecco Professor of Strategy and Entrepreneurship at London Business School: ‘Standing on the shoulders of (male) giants: gender equality and the technological impact of new ideas.’ Together with INSEAD’s Michael Bikard and Ronak Mogra, she has looked at data on the citation of academic papers in patents, to determine whether women’s work is being used to the same extent as that of their male colleagues to develop new technologies.
What they have found is evidence that women’s work is systematically overlooked, and therefore less likely to shape the tools, treatments, and technologies of tomorrow.
“Women’s work is systematically overlooked, and therefore less likely to shape the tools, treatments, and technologies of tomorrow”
The gender gap in technological impact
One way to assess whether inventors use scientists’ research when developing new technologies is to examine the extent to which they cite those scientists’ papers in patents.
Analysing more than 10 million scientific papers published between 1980 and 2020, Prof. Fernandez-Mateo and her colleagues find that papers with women as principal authors are cited in patents by inventors significantly less than those authored by men (an average of 1.32 times, compared to men at 1.92).
“Even when we accounted for things like the prestige of the journal, the author’s experience, and the commercial relevance of the work, a significant gender gap remained,” she says.
To explore this gap more deeply, Prof. Fernandez-Mateo and her co-authors looked at what they call “paper twins”: scientific studies or reports led by men or women sharing essentially the same idea or finding at around the same time. Altogether, they looked at 185 papers published between 1994 and 2009 within a period of less than two months of each other.
“These rare instances gave us a unique opportunity to compare how inventors responded to nearly identical ideas. The result? The papers led by men were still cited more often in patents than their female-led counterparts, even though all authors had essentially made the same discoveries.”
“Papers led by men were still cited more often in patents than their female-led counterparts, even though all authors had essentially made the same discoveries”
They also ran an online experiment to test for evidence of bias in real time. Roughly 400 participants – all PhD holders – were randomly assigned a scientific paper attributed to either a male or female author.
“What we find is that these participants spend more time reading the abstract when they believe that the paper was written by a man. Specifically, they spend an average of 115 seconds on male authors, versus just 98 seconds on papers nominally authored by women. They also rated male-authored papers as more important and more useful for the development of new inventions. This suggests that the problem is less rooted in access and visibility and more about perception: women’s research seems to be seen as less valuable”
Are we missing something?
Prof. Fernandez-Mateo’s findings point to critical differences in the way that the community of innovators and inventors evaluate men and women’s ideas. And this has serious consequences, she says; not just for female scientists but for innovation in general.
If women’s contributions remain overlooked and undervalued, there is a real risk that breakthrough ideas and important innovations in critical areas will be left on the table – that the future will remain disproportionately influenced by male thinking, and that valuable and impactful ideas will be missed.
“We find evidence that academic credibility and authority remain heavily skewed towards men’s work – an inequality that belies the reality of what women have to offer,” she says.
From Katalin Karikó, whose research laid the groundwork for the COVID-19 vaccines, to Tu Youyou, who discovered artemisinin, a powerful anti-malarial drug that has saved millions of lives, on to Grace Hopper whose legacy continues to shape the digital infrastructure we rely on today, women’s impact can change the course of history, she says. Ensuring that their contribution is met with fair consideration means raising awareness of the gender imbalances that continue to stymie the influence of brilliant female minds.
Innovators, inventors, universities and academic institutions have a duty to interrogate their own beliefs, assumptions and behaviours in the way they assess and respond to scientific work, says Prof. Fernandez-Mateo, and to champion the conversation around gender equity in innovation. At the same time, funding agencies and policymakers could be more purposeful about advancing gender parity in the innovation pipeline, “from lab bench to patent office.”
“The idea that innovation is a level playing field — a self-powering cycle built on meritocracy — is a powerful one. But it is not always true. If we want to build a future that reflects the full range of human insight and creativity, we need to make sure we are not leaving brilliant ideas on the table.”
