Content uploaded by Gry Agnete Alsos
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Gry Agnete Alsos on Mar 21, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
Gender and Innovation:
State of the Art and a Research Agenda
Gry Agnete Alsos
University of Nordland, Bodø Graduate School of Business, Norway
Ulla Hytti
University of Turku, Turku School of Economics, Finland
Elisabet Ljunggren
Nordland Research Institute, Norway
Abstract
Purpose - The purpose of the article is to present a framework for research on gender and
innovation. The framework is developed based on a review of current literature in the area; it
is applied to provide a context for the articles in this special issue and to offer suggestions for
future research.
Design/methodology/approach - The article relies on a literature review of gender and
innovation. Additional literature searches on Scopus were conducted to provide an overview
of the area. In addition, comparative analogies are sought from research fields of gender and
entrepreneurship as well as gender and technology.
Findings - The article presents the scope and issues in current research on gender and
innovation. Based on our overview, research in this area is conducted in various disciplines
applying a variety of methodological approaches. In order to make sense of the current
research we developed a framework consisting of various approaches to, gender and
innovation; these include gender as a variable, construction and process and innovation as a
result, process and discourse.
Research implications - Based on the review, several recommendations for future research
are made. First, future research should question the connection between technology and
innovation, and purposefully seek innovation activity also in low-tech and service sectors and
firms. Innovation scholars and policy makers should not primarily target radical and product
innovations but should be equally interested in incremental and process innovations. Second,
understanding women’s innovation activity needs to be embedded in understanding the
normative frames and structural factors at play. A particular theoretical call is linked to the
study of power and innovation. Third, it is imperative to develop and apply new
methodological approaches and new operationalizations of innovation and innovators.
Practical implications - By focusing on gender and innovation, it is possible to discover
innovation as a gender biased phenomenon. Policy makers should bear this in mind when
developing innovation policies.
Originality/value - This introductory article puts forward a framework on gender and
innovation that helps to make sense of the current state-of-the-art and to develop new research
questions that need to be addressed for further theorising within the field.
Keywords Gender, innovation, review, research agenda,
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Innovation is increasingly seen as one of the main ways to enhance economic growth and thus
create prosperous nations and regions (Lundvall, 1992; Fagerberg et al., 2005; Verspagen,
2005). Further, innovation is considered crucial for technological development within
industries and sectors (Malerba, 2002), and is also suggested to be decisive for single firms
that want to recreate their business model to maintain their competitive advantage over time,
particularly in dynamic markets. Within the entrepreneurship literature, innovation is a central
aspect, as entrepreneurial processes require some form of innovation (Shane, 2003). This
follows from the classical work of Schumpeter (1934) who saw the entrepreneur as the
person(s) responsible for producing innovation. However, innovation literature has later
focused more upon innovation projects in firms and economic systems, and hence on the issue
of organizing for innovation (Fagerberg, 2005).
From the early days innovations have been defined as new combinations of production factors
such as the production of new goods, introduction of new processes, opening of new markets,
access to new sources of raw materials and intermediates, and re-organisation of an industry
(Schumpeter, 1934). This definition can be traced in the influential Oslo Manual on
innovation research (OECD and Statistical Office of European Communities, 2005) which is
widely used and hence has an important impact on how the concept is operationalized, for
instance, in the Community Innovation Survey (CIS) (Nählinder, Tillmar & Wigren-
Kristoferson, 2012). Innovation research has dealt with innovation processes within firms;
innovation as taking place in systems of several firms, institutions and governmental bodies;
how innovation varies over time and space, and the outcomes of innovation (Fagerberg,
2005). Studies have focused on innovation as an input or output (Smith, 2005), as a process
(Pavitt, 2005; Garud et al., 2013) and on the discursive and policy oriented sides of innovation
(Doloreux & Parto, 2005; Lundvall & Borrás, 2005).
Although entrepreneurship and innovation are closely related areas, the focus on gender in
entrepreneurship and innovation research has been very different. An increasing number of
studies on gender and entrepreneurship demonstrate that the phenomenon of entrepreneurship
is gendered (Minniti, 2009). This research field has developed from the dominance of quite
simple analyses on differences or similarities between women and men to applying gender as
a lens through which entrepreneurship is studied. This allows us to move from studying
differences between individuals to studying how gender is embedded in processes, meanings
and experiences (Carter & Shaw, 2006; Ahl & Nelson, 2010).
Innovation research seems to be missing analyses of where innovation takes place, and who
participates in innovation activity (see e.g. Fagerberg et al., 2005). Consequently, the concept
of gender and innovation has only recently gained a wider interest among researchers within
the management and entrepreneurship fields. One of the reasons for the lack of studies taking
a gender perspective to innovation, compared to for instance the increasing number of studies
on entrepreneurship and gender, is the apparent invisibility of people in innovation. While
entrepreneurs are in the limelight in entrepreneurship research, the role of the innovator is
under-communicated in innovation research (Brännback et al., 2012). When people are not
visible in the discourse, gender easily becomes invisible. In general, the literature presents
innovation as taking place in processes, in corporations, as spin-offs from universities and in
innovation systems, and does not give the innovator a specific role. However, this does not
mean that gender is irrelevant to studies of innovation. The focus on results, processes and
systems, and hence the lack of focus on individuals when it comes to innovation does not
imply that gender is absent. As Thorslund and Göransson (2006: 7 [our translation]) put it:
“All systems are the result of their parts and the smallest parts in an innovation system are
individuals. These are both men and women – with the conditions that follow. To include
gender in an analysis is not to include one more factor; it is to highlight one part of the system
giving effects regardless if it is measured or not”. However, it is challenging to reveal how
gender makes an impact when it is hidden within processes, organizations and systems.
The inspiration to develop a special issue on gender and innovation came from organising a
stream on ‘Gender, innovation and entrepreneurship’ at the research conference of ‘Gender,
Work and Organization’ (GWO) in Keele, UK in June 2010. At the conference we detected
the potential, some of the knowledge gaps and, importantly, an interest among researchers in
this particular research field. A more focused stream on ‘Gender and innovation’ was
organized at the GWO in 2012, and we also held a Professional Development Workshop
(PDW) at the Academy of Management Meeting in Boston in August 2012. Both events
received considerable interest. Hence, we believe it is time to set an agenda for research on
gender and innovation. The purpose of this special issue is to further this agenda by
presenting five different studies in this area. The empirical articles in this issue represent five
different angles to the topic. They take different perspectives to gender as well as to
innovation, and include a diversity of theoretical origins and methods. As such they represent
the variety needed to build a strong knowledge base on gender aspects of innovation.
The purpose of this article is to present a framework for research on gender and innovation.
We begin by briefly reviewing current literature in the area in order to identify the scope and
issues in current research. Next, a framework for the study of gender and innovation is
presented, and the articles included in this special issue are discussed in relation to this
framework. Finally, we offer some suggestions for future research in this area.
Gender and innovation: scope and issues
While research on gender and innovation has not been extensive, there are some influential
studies in adherent research areas. Studies to date have been published in a broad spectrum of
journals, representing a variety of disciplines, perspectives and methodological designs. This
reflects the inter-disciplinary nature of innovation research (Fagerberg, 2005), but it also
means that there is little accumulated knowledge. Hence, there is need for an overview and
synthesis of knowledge on gender and innovation as a basis for the development of this area.
In this section we briefly discuss the scope of research on gender and innovation along three
dimensions: theoretical and disciplinary scope, methodological scope and empirical scope.
To identify the scope of research related to gender and innovation, we undertook several
searches in the Scopus database. Table 1 presents some of the results from this search. First,
we identified the journals that included the highest number of articles with ‘innovation’ in the
title, abstract or keywords. We note that while typical innovation journals such as Research
Policy and Technovation are on the top of this list, the list also includes a number of journals
on medicine and health related research, as well as journals within various technology areas
and engineering. This clearly illustrates the above mentioned multidisciplinary nature of
innovation research. Business and management, economics and social sciences account for
only 32% of articles focusing on innovation.1
1 Scopus search with the search term ’innovation’, limited to journal articles. Search conducted April 26th 2013.
Further we searched for the terms ‘gender’ and
‘women’ within the identified articles on innovation. Results for both these search terms are
reported in Table 1. Among the 106,994 articles with innovation in the title, abstract and key
words, only 2,445 included the word ‘gender’ in the article. Similarly, 4,037 of these articles
include the word ‘women’. Again, the journals including the highest number of articles fitting
the search criteria include a variety of fields, including medicine, health and engineering.
However, some social science journals appear on the top 20 list referring to the search term
‘gender’ and ‘women’ such as Environment and Planning A. Interestingly journals on nursing
become more apparent on the list indicating that these journals are more concerned with
gender in relation to innovation than other health related journals.
INSERT TABLE 1 ABOUT HERE
While the criteria specified for the articles in Table 1 requires innovation to be mentioned in
the title, abstract or key words, it is sufficient for the search terms ‘gender’ or ‘women’ to
appear only once in the text. Hence, the majority of these articles do not focus on gender
specifically but include gender only as a control variable or mention it in an example. If we
specify for both innovation and gender to be mentioned in title, abstract or key words in the
search, then the number of articles fitting the criteria is reduced to 615, with no journal
containing more than four articles. The comparable number of articles for our search on
innovation and women is 1,306. These numbers give a more accurate reflection of the number
of articles focusing on gender and innovation. Still, a high proportion of these articles are
within medicine, nursing and psychology, and technology/engineering.
No entrepreneurship journals appeared in the lists presented in Table 1. This indicates a very
weak link between research on gender related to entrepreneurship and research on gender
related to innovation. A specific search in the present journal, International Journal of Gender
and Entrepreneurship, resulted in a handful of articles; all of which were treating innovation
as a characteristic related to women’s (and men’s) entrepreneurship (Dabic et al., 2012) or
their business ideas (Braun, 2010; González & Husted, 2011). As innovation is a key issue in
the entrepreneurship literature, the dearth of studies focusing on gender and innovation in
such literature is surprising. However, there should be transfer value between studies on
gender perspectives on entrepreneurship and new studies on gender and innovation.
In the following section we will focus on the scope of gender and innovation research as
expressed within the social sciences, including the business, management and economics
literatures. Table 2 gives an overview of the different topics covered within this area as
related to innovation and gender. While a great variety of issues are covered, some topics
seem to be studied more than others. These include the influence of gender on university
scientists’ involvement in innovation related activities such as patenting, commercialization,
academic entrepreneurship and university-industry relationships; the influence of gender on
innovation activity; social innovation and public sector innovation, and gender differences in
the adoption of innovation. Except for the diversity literature, research on the role of gender in
innovation within private firms and on gender and innovation in entrepreneurial contexts
seems to be scarce. Further, there is also limited research with a gender perspective on
innovation policy, innovation systems and innovation support schemes.
INSERT TABLE 2 ABOUT HERE
There is considerable heterogeneity in gender and innovation studies, with a wide range of
theoretical bases and a variety of methods applied. Within the economics literature, the most
prominent studies are those based on science and innovation areas, using quantitative methods
including surveys and/or register data. This situation is similar for the literature on the role of
gender diversity in innovation. In other areas, such as the literature on innovation policy,
organizational and public sector innovation, qualitative methods, particularly case studies, are
widely used. The influence of feminist or gender research is more prominent in the European
social science studies, where for instance one strategy has been to deconstruct concepts
(Lykke, 2010) as seen in, for instance, the contribution by Pettersson & Lindberg in this issue.
If we reflect on the early days of research on gender and entrepreneurship, the literature was
critiqued for being too case study oriented, utilizing too few quantitative methods, having
simplistic data analysis strategies and using inherently gendered concepts and measures
(Brush, 1992; Carter, 1993; Dolinsky et al., 1994). While the level of methodological rigor
varies, the general impression is that the literature on gender and innovation does not have the
same limitations, as there are several well-designed studies. However, critique has been put
forward in relation to the inherent gender-bias of the measurements used (Nählinder et al.,
2012) and with regard to the empirical scope of innovation policies (Kvidal & Ljunggren,
2013). These issues are also addressed by Pettersson and Lindberg (this issue).
Taking a geographical stance, we see that the Nordic perspective is currently quite strong, as
evidenced by the contributions to this special issue. This was also reflected in all 15
submissions initially considered for this issue, as well as in the previously mentioned
conference streams we organized. In particular, there are several Swedish contributions,
something that can be attributed to the Swedish Governmental Agency for Innovation
Systems, VINNOVA's, engagement in supporting research on gender and innovation. Sweden
has, for several years, had a policy for enhancing women's participation in innovation
activities. Special policy programs such as TIGER (aiming at utilizing gender perspectives to
strengthen innovation clusters) have been combined with research funding, which have
enabled studies on different means and policies. This has spurred a large bulk of research
based on the Swedish empirical context (also in entrepreneurship and gender, for example
Bourne, 2010). VINNOVA’s efforts have resulted in a number of reports (Thorslund &
Göransson, 2006; Petterson, 2007; Fürst Hörte, 2009; Danilda & Thorslund, 2011), books
(Andersson et al., 2012), research articles (Lindberg, 2008; Lindberg & Udén, 2010; Lindberg
et al., 2012) and PhD-theses (Nyberg, 2009; Lindberg, 2010). The results from these efforts
are discussed by Pettersson and Lindberg (this issue).
However, the large majority of published articles on innovation are Anglo-Saxon. US, UK,
Australia and Canada accounted for a very large proportion of articles resulting from our
Scopus search on innovation and gender reported in Table 1. Interestingly, another fairly large
group of articles taking a gender perspective on innovation examines innovation in
developing economies, particularly related to self-employment and small businesses, social
innovations and the adoption of innovations (e.g. Fonn et al., 2001; Fonn & Xaba, 2001;
Onyango-Ouma et al., 2001; Galdwin, 2002; Egyir et al., 2011). Interestingly, the context of
developing economies seems to contribute to the visibility of women as innovators.
In this section we have described the interdisciplinary nature and various methodological
approaches adopted for the study of innovation and gender. The articles in this special issue
are no exception since they are positioned within the social sciences and apply several
research methods. The studies are linked to political science (Rönnblom & Keisu), geography
(Pettersson & Lindberg), business and management (Foss, Moilanen & Wold; Remneland-
Wikhamn & Knights) and business management and sociology (Poutanen & Kovalainen).
The articles also have a pronounced feminist or gender theoretical approach.
Towards a framework for research on gender and innovation
The two key concepts in this issue - gender and innovation - need to be defined and
conceptualized in order to advance research in this area. In the current literature, there are
several different perspectives taken on gender as well as on innovation. This is also shown in
the diversity of the literature as described in the previous section, as well as in the variety of
perspectives taken in the articles in this issue.
As accounted for at the beginning of the article, innovation literature is interdisciplinary and
includes a number of different perspectives. For the purpose of constructing an analytical
framework we distinguish between three categories: 1) Innovation as an output, i.e. the new
products, production methods, organizational forms etc. that result from innovation processes
(Smith, 2005); 2) the processes through which these innovations are created (Garud et al.,
2013), and 3) the innovation discourses appearing, particularly in a policy context (Doloreux
& Parto, 2005). Among the articles in this issue, all three categories are represented.
Further, in relation to innovation, gender should be seen as neither unambiguous nor straight
forward. Feminist theory has presented several perspectives to gender (for an overview, see
Harding, 1986; Lykke, 2010). For the purpose of this article, we differentiate between three
(partly overlapping) perspectives: 1) Treating gender - sex - as a variable (empiricist
feminism), often with a focus on differences and similarities between men and women; 2)
Interpretive analyses of how gender is constructed through negotiations and practices and a
focus on ‘femininity’ and ‘masculinity’, and sometimes applying a more social constructionist
approach, and 3) In-depth analyses of how gender is being produced and reproduced in
organizations and systems through gendering processes (doing gender, West & Zimmermann,
1987) where gender is created and re-created in interactions between individuals (Brush et al.,
2009). In this perspective, the social construction of gender and innovation is under constant
change and context dependent. All of these perspectives are represented in this issue, thus
providing a necessary broad view on gender perspectives to innovation.
Table 3 presents a categorization of issues or perspectives related to gender and innovation
building upon these two sets of perspectives. These categories give some indication of the
different research paths and questions that can be pursued in the field. In the following
section, we discuss some of these paths under the three headings of: 1) Gender differences
and similarities in innovation, 2) Gendered constructions of innovation, and 3) Gendering
processes of innovation. These three headings follow the gender perspectives presented in
Table 3.
INSERT TABLE 3 ABOUT HERE
Gender differences and similarities in innovation
The combination of adopting the perspectives of gender as a variable and innovation as a
result is probably the dominant approach in empirical research on gender and innovation. This
perspective is reflected in studies of innovation in men- and women-owned businesses, as
well as in the literature on gender differences on patenting, commercialization, etc. in the
university context. This literature is often quantitative, comparing the tendencies of women
and men to contribute to innovation. For example, studies have shown that male researchers
are more likely than female researchers to engage in industry cooperation (Azagra-Caro et al.,
2006; Bozeman & Gaughan, 2007). However, other factors, such as having a government or
industry research grant, are much more strongly related to industry involvement than gender
(Bozeman & Gaughan, 2007), implying that there may be more complex relationships
between gender and involvement in industry innovation. For example, a study by Whittington
(2011) showed that 'academic mothers' are less likely to patent. Hence, this suggests that it is
the intersection of gender and family responsibilities that impede women’s ability to innovate.
The same variable perspective to gender can be used in relation to an innovation process
perspective. For instance, the study by Foss et al. (this issue) may provide a partial
explanation for women’s inactivity in innovation. Based on their study, women are equally
innovative in generating new ideas compared to men, but women’s ideas are more seldom
implemented in the organization. Further, their study indicates that women may suffer from a
lack of collegial support in executing their ideas, a finding which is also supported by
Poutanen and Kovalainen (this issue). A possible explanation – supported by research within
organizational studies – may be that women are not perceived as innovators, and consequently
their ideas do not get heard in the first place, or they are deemed inferior to men’s ideas and
therefore never proceed to the implementation phase (Cooper, 2012). Hence, it is not women
who are lacking innovation capability but organisational practices that condition or inhibit
women’s innovative behaviour.
Taking a ‘gender as variable’ perspective to the innovation discourse may allow us to explore
how policy measures target women and men. For instance, studies show a gender bias in the
recipients of research grants (Viner et al., 2004). One important reason for this may be the in-
built gender bias embedded in policy and research on innovation. Several scholars have
pointed to the fact that studies considering similarities and differences between women and
men in innovation outcomes may be inherently gender biased as they tend to focus on certain
disciplines or industries, which have gender attached to them (Nählinder et al., 2012; Kvidal
& Ljunggren, 2013). In this issue, both the article by Poutanen and Kovalainen and the article
by Remneland-Wikhamn and Knights encourage us to be aware of the challenges of the
‘similarity and difference’ discourses, and be careful when notions of femininity and
masculinity are attached to women and men. They advocate more advanced understandings of
gender than the simple differentiation between women and men. This is important as it will
make it easier to avoid the counterproductive gender essentialism.2
Gendered constructions of innovation
Feminist studies have demonstrated how the concept of innovation is highly gendered,
implying that there is a strong male connotation (Blake & Hanson, 2005; Marlow &
McAdam, 2012; Nählinder et al., 2012). This is evidenced by the types of innovations
supported by public bodies and in how innovation is measured in national statistics. As a
result of gendered constructions of innovation, public support for innovation or R&D is
mainly given to men or provided by men. Previous studies confirm that there is a strong
association between masculinity, science and engineering, and innovation and that these
processes are intertwined (Wajcman, 2010; Dautzenberg, 2012; Marlow & McAdam, 2012).
Recently the innovation concept has been broadened both in research and policy to cover
more areas than technology and patents and, thereby, include service sector innovations and
open innovation processes. However, the contributions in this special issue continue to
demonstrate how gendered constructions of innovation and strong male and masculine
connotations continue to be reproduced in different ways and in different domains. For
2 Gender essentialism represents beliefs, often mistaken, that differences between males and females are stable,
unchanging, fixed at birth, and due to biological differences rather than environmental factors (Smiler &
Gelman, 2008). The criticism of gender essentialism points to the fact that masculine characteristics are not
necessarily descriptions, and that male and feminine characteristics cannot be appointed to (all) women.
example, open innovation is generally presented as a more inclusive and feminine approach to
innovation, but upon closer analysis it seems to reaffirm the norm of masculine organizational
practices (Remneland-Wikhamn & Knights, this issue). In a similar way, Rönnblom and
Keisu (this issue) reveal how the ambitions to broaden the understanding of innovation in the
university context result in a conventional representation of innovation and academic
entrepreneurs as men. This is due to academia's strong focus on innovation outputs
(Rönnblom & Keisu, this issue). Hence, as shown by Remneland-Wikhamn and Knights (this
issue), gender inequalities are rooted in the dominance of masculine discourses, and
gendering therefore is not just about including more women in innovation processes, but also
relates to how innovation is interpreted and understood.
Gendered constructions of innovation are linked to definitions of innovation. While current
definitions may seem gender neutral, it has been argued that the way in which they are
operationalized and measured is strongly gendered with masculine connotations (Nählinder et
al., 2012 Pettersson & Lundberg, this issue). The same holds true in relation to who are
acknowledged as innovators and what is acknowledged as innovations. For instance,
Remneland-Wikhamn and Knights (this issue) show how the change from ‘hard’ to ‘soft’
product could be viewed as acknowledging other actors in the organization as contributing to
innovation. However, as masculine discourses still dominate, this possible change is
hampered. These studies demonstrate how innovation conceptualized as products and
technology taking place in manufacturing strongly influence our views of innovation.
Gendering processes of innovation
Applying a ‘process’ or ‘doing gender’ approach when studying innovation may imply
studying the gendering processes of innovation. Poutanen and Kovalainen (this issue) show
how women both are absent and are made absent in innovation processes, even if they occupy
an R&D position and are responsible for innovation work. In addition, they provide an
example of how a product can be gendered and thereby create a niche for the female inventor
in a male-dominated industry. The female inventor reclaims her position by gendering the
product. Consequently, even if women are able to push themselves through the innovation
pipeline, their role as innovators is not taken for granted. Hence, how this position is claimed,
and how the various forms of resistance are presented are crucial when trying to understand
the gendering processes of innovation. Pettersson and Lindberg (this issue) in their work on
innovation policy in Sweden, demonstrate how spaces are created for feminist resistance
where hegemonic masculine discourses are contested. As a consequence of this resistance,
existing gender stereotypes in policies, processes and networks of innovation are challenged.
Further, they argue that challenging these stereotypes can lead to a democratisation of
innovation by extending the type of actors who take part in the process.
Taking a process perspective to gender allows for examination of the processes in which the
relationship between gender and innovation is changed and transformed. Changes in the
gendered understanding of innovation outputs pave the way for a broader perspective to
innovation outputs, and hence toward including service innovation and social innovation as
legitimate innovation outputs. When these changes are slow, it may be due to the inherent
power structures related to the gendering of innovation where the masculine discourses are
dominant (Remneland-Wikhamn, this issue). A process perspective can help us examine how
the discourse of innovation is created and recreated throughout gendered innovation
processes, as well as how gender is produced and reproduced in innovation discourses.
Applying feminist literature
The three perspectives on gender presented here follow, to a large extent, the conceptual
development of gender as found in feminist literatures (Harding, 1986; Lykke, 2010). This
development has lead researchers interested in gender in relation to entrepreneurship,
innovation and other areas to claim that we should focus less on gender differences and
similarities, and put more effort into understanding how gender is embedded in concepts,
processes and research (Carter & Shaw, 2006). Calls are made for research that does not only
use gender as an explanatory variable but instead examines “how gender is accomplished”,
i.e. focusing less on gender as a variable and more on the process of doing gender (Ahl, 2006:
612; Achtenhagen & Tillmar, 2013). The perspectives opening up for seeing gender as
constructed and represented in processes, organizations, discourses and policy, and not being
exclusively tied to individuals with particular sexes, have been important in examining gender
in relation to innovation. In the majority of innovation research dealing with innovations,
innovation processes or innovation systems, actors are made invisible (Thorslund &
Göransson, 2006; Brännback et al., 2012). Hence, these perspectives are needed to reveal
innovation as fundamentally gendered.
However, their invisibility does not mean that there are no actors in innovation. As pointed
out by Thorslund and Göransson (2006), and referred to in the introduction to this article,
processes, organizations and systems consist of actors, i.e. human beings. Identifying these
actors is one way of examining gender in innovation. For instance, the counting of women
and men involved in innovation processes, the comparison of women and men with regard to
the extent to which their ideas for innovations are considered and implemented in
organizations, and examining the extent to which women and men are given a voice in
innovation discourses, are some ways in which we can analyse innovation as strongly
gendered and consider the consequences of this. Consequently, there are also important
contributions to be made by taking gender as a variable approach to innovation. However,
these analyses should be done with sensitivity to more advanced understandings of gender and
their contributions. A difference between men and women in innovation needs to be
interpreted against contextual and structural arrangements.
Conclusions, implications and suggestions for further research
Gender in innovation has remained invisible due to the fact that most studies on innovation
are about products, processes or organisations, and not about people. Yet, the extant research
focusing on innovation from a gender perspective has clearly demonstrated innovation to be a
highly gendered field. Following Wajcman (2010) we also argue that innovation is both a
source and a consequence of gender relations.
In this article we have provided a broad overview to the novel questions that need to be asked
and addressed within the gender and innovation research field. First, in order to further
theorizing on gender and innovation, it is important to demonstrate how gender is done in the
context of innovation. Second, all authors of this issue have demonstrated how gender and
innovation intersect, and how the desire to have a more inclusive innovation concept still has
not yielded the required results. The gendered innovation processes and gendering of
innovation practices are ‘sticky’. Third, the contributions also highlight the resistance made to
find new emancipated paths for women in innovation.
The issue of power is crucial both in gender research and feminist theory. The ‘stickiness’ of
masculinity with innovation, and the difficulties in opening up innovation processes and
discourses to embrace broader understandings of innovation and to involve more types of
actors, can be seen as a result of the gender hierarchy as embedded in the gendered
constructions of innovation. However, the role of power is seldom addressed in innovation
literature. Among the important questions that should be addressed are: who has power in
organisations, who are listened to and whose ideas are brought forward? The relevance of
analyses of power in innovation studies is highlighted in the study by Poutanen and
Kovalainen (this issue), and the consequence of hierarchies of gendered discourses is also
illustrated in the article by Remneland-Wikhamn and Knights (this issue). This is an
important area for the emerging research field of gender and innovation.
Fourth, in the same way as the collective work on gender and entrepreneurship challenges the
dominant views within mainstream entrepreneurship theory and research in several ways
(Jennings & Brush, 2013) increased research on gender in relation to innovation has the
potential to provide new insights to the broader innovation literature. Hence, this special issue
offers a contribution to the general innovation literature by identifying important areas for
future research, which become visible when a gender perspective is applied.
The need for counterintuitive approaches and research designs is claimed to advance the
entrepreneurship research field in general (Zahra, 2007). This fits well with the need for
gender and innovation research. Due to the strong association of innovation and technology
with masculinity (Wajcman, 2010), the issue of gender is often presented as the problem of
women’s underperformance (Lindholm Dahlstrand & Politis, 2013; Marlow & McAdam,
2013) – women are seen as less innovative than men - and we do not expect or seek
contradictory evidence. Innovation activity is especially studied in high-technology and
manufacturing industries since these industries are considered to represent the fields where
innovation occurs. We continuously need to question the ‘natural’ connections between
innovation and technology, and to investigate innovation activity in service industries, public
sector activities and in other female-labelled industries (Borins, 2001; Nählinder et al., 2012).
Although researchers have acknowledged the variety of different types of innovations, the
strategy literature has shown that process or organisational innovations are important for cost
leadership strategies (Porter, 1985) or that business model innovations (Hamel, 2000) are
more important for value creation than product innovations. Yet, innovation studies continue
to focus on product and technological process innovations (Fagerberg, 2005). More attention
should be placed on analysing the incremental innovation processes, the process-oriented
innovations taking place at the grassroots level in organisations. It is time to look beyond the
immediate and self-evident and start probing the unexpected.
Studies focusing on individual women involved in innovation are not sufficient to explain
current patterns of women’s innovation. Instead, there is a need to critically investigate the
normative frames underlying our theory development and empirical enquires (Ahl & Marlow,
2012). This call suggests that we need more research on structural factors such as education
and social expectations, and the socialization processes of women, for example in academia or
science, in relation to their career perspectives and roles in innovation. Furthermore,
epistemological conditions and ontological issues related to gender and innovation should be
more thoroughly explored as different perspectives of gender (and innovation) represent
different epistemological and ontological assumptions.
There are also methodological challenges that need to be overcome. Many high-tech firms
portrayed as leaders in innovation activity are managed by teams that include both men and
women (Rosa & Dawson, 2006; Dautzenberg, 2012). As studies often rely on single
informants, typically CEOs, women are concealed in the studies (Marlow & McAdam, 2012).
There are different roles assigned for women and men in the innovation pipeline (Duberley &
Cohen, 2010): men are predominantly active in technology start-ups and in venture capital
firms (Dautzenberg, 2012), while women are active in technology transfer offices. As argued
above, identifying the actors of innovation may be one important approach to studying gender
in innovation.
Another important methodological challenge is the gendered nature of the innovation concept
itself. It is not only researchers who see ‘nuts and bolts’ when they visualize innovations – but
also the informants. Hence, approaching research participants with survey or interview
questions that aim to probe various aspects of innovations easily push the informants to
emphasise certain innovations and downplay others. We need to look for more gender neutral
concepts to use when we empirically examine innovation and related issues (Nählinder et al.,
2012), and to develop methods to examine what people do, rather than how they talk about it.
One approach could be to conduct research that involves the actors as well as their
interactions.
On a policy level, many national science and innovation policies have become open to the
broader definition of innovation, at least in the Nordic countries. For example, the Finnish
Funding Agency for Technology and Innovation (Tekes) explicitly states to promote “a
broad-based view on innovation: besides funding technological breakthroughs, Tekes
emphasises the significance of service-related, design, business, and social innovations.”
Tekes has research programmes that focus on the health care, tourism, leisure and other
service sectors. As such, the policy field seems to have been opened up for women-dominated
sectors and women as innovators. On the other hand, Tekes claims to fund “spearhead R&D
and innovation projects. The main target group of Tekes consists of SMEs seeking growth in
internationalization” (www.tekes.fi). This intersection of broad-based innovation with a
strong emphasis on firms focusing international growth may again reproduce the role of
manufacturing and technology as the main sectors where innovation is to be found.
It is imperative that there is awareness building in the policy domain. If accepting the
discourse that innovation is crucial for competitive advantage, nations and business need to
optimise their usage of resources; excluding women from contributing to innovation is a
waste of human resources. If unwanted and unconscious gendered processes make this
happen, then nations and businesses need to be encouraged to implement actions or systems
allowing women to make these contributions. Hence, there is a political agenda in generating
new knowledge and awareness in the field. We encourage other countries to follow Sweden’s
footsteps and to develop research projects and particular initiatives to focus the role of gender
in innovation activity.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the participants and contributors to our two Gender, Work and
Organisation streams in Keele 2010 and 2012. We owe a particular debt of thanks to the
participants of the Gender and Innovation PDW at Academy of Management in Boston in
2012, who helped us formulate the new research avenues that inspired us to write this article.
Unfortunately, we cannot name you all but our special thanks to Susan Marlow for the
keynote and to Sara Carter, Susan Coleman, Susan Marlow, Maija Renko and Friederike
Welter for facilitating the vivid group discussions. Part of this project was financed by the
Research Council of Norway through its VRI research funding.
References
Abrahamsson L. (2002) "Restoring the order: Gender segregation as an obstacle to
organisational development." Applied Ergonomics, Vol. 33, No. 6, pp. 549-557.
Achtenhagen L. and Tillmar M. (2013) "Studies on women's entrepreneurship from Nordic
countries and beyond." International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, Vol. 5, No. 1,
pp. 4-16.
Ahl H. (2006) "Why Research on Women Entrepreneurs Needs New Directions."
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 30, No. 5, pp. 595-621.
Ahl H. and Marlow S. (2012) "Exploring the dynamics of gender, feminism and
entrepreneurship: advancing debate to escape a dead end?" Organization Science, Vol. 19,
No. 5, pp. 543-562.
Ahl H. and Nelson T. (2010) "Moving forward: institutional perspectives on gender and
entrepreneurship." International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp.
5-9.
Akin D. (2003) "Concealment, confession, and innovation in Kwaio women's taboos."
American Ethnologist, Vol. 30, No. 3, pp. 381-400.
Andersson S., Berglund K., Torslund J.G., Gunnarsson E. and Sundin E. (2012) Promoting
Innovation - Policies, Practices and Procedures. Stockholm: Vinnova.
Azagra-Caro J.M., Archontakis F., Gutiérrez-Gracia A. and Fernández-de-Lucio I. (2006)
"Faculty support for the objectives of university–industry relations versus degree of
R&D cooperation: The importance of regional absorptive capacity." Research Policy,
Vol. 35, No. 1, pp. 37-55.
BarNir A. (2012) "Starting technologically innovative ventures: Reasons, human capital, and
gender." Management Decision, Vol. 50, No. 3, pp. 399-419.
Beck R.M. (2009) "Gender, innovation and ambiguity: Speech prohibitions as a resource for
'space to move'." Discourse and Society, Vol. 20, No. 5, pp. 531-553.
Beckwith K. (2001) "Gender frames and collective action: Configurations of masculinity in
the Pittston Coal strike." Politics and Society, Vol. 29, No. 2, pp. 297-330.
Bhaskar V. (2011) "Sex selection and gender balance." American Economic Journal:
Microeconomics, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 214-244.
Bianchini J.A., Whitney D.J., Breton T.D. and Hilton-Brown B.A. (2002) "Toward Inclusive
Science Education: University Scientists' Views of Students, Instructional Practices, and the
Nature of Science." Science Education, Vol. 86, No. 1, pp. 42-78.
Blake M.K. and Hanson S. (2005) "Rethinking innovation: Context and gender." Environment
and Planning A, Vol. 37, No. 4, pp. 681-701.
Boneva B., Kraut R. and Frohlich D. (2001) "Using e-mail for personal relationships: The
difference gender makes." American Behavioral Scientist, Vol., No. 3, pp. 530-549.
Borins S. (2001) "Encouraging innovation in the public sector." Journal of Intellectual
Capital, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 310-319.
Bourne K.A. (2010) "The paradox of gender equality: an entrepreneurial case study from
Sweden." International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 10-26.
Bozeman B. and Gaughan M. (2007) "Impacts of grants and contracts on academic
researchers’ interactions with industry." Research Policy, Vol. 36, No. 5, pp. 694-707.
Braun P. (2010) "Going green: women entrepreneurs and the environment." International
Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 245-259.
Breward C. (2002) "Style and subversion: Postwar poses and the Neo-Edwardian suit in mid-
twentieth-century Britain." Gender and History, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 560-583.
Brush C.G. (1992) "Research on women business owners: Past trends, a new perspective and
future directions." Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 16, No. 4, pp. 5-30.
Brush C.G., de Bruin A. and Welter F. (2009) "Gender-aware framework for women's
entrepreneurship." International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp.
8-24.
Brännback M., Berglund K. and Carsrud A.L. (2012) Understanding the entrepreneur and
innovator nexus as basis for the coming of the science of the artificial. RENT - Research on
Entrepreneurship and Small Business Conference. Lyon, France.
Busolt U. and Kugele K. (2009) "The gender innovation and research productivity gap in
Europe." International Journal of Innovation and Sustainable Development, Vol. 4, No. 2-3,
pp. 109-122.
Carpenter L.M. and Casper M.J. (2009) "A tale of two technologies: HPV vaccination, male
circumcision, and sexual health." Gender and Society, Vol. 23, No. 6, pp. 790-816.
Carter S. (1993) "Female business ownership: current research and possibilities for the
future." In: Allen S. and Truman C. (eds) Women in Business, perspectives on women
entrepreneurs. London: Routledge.
Carter S. and Shaw E. (2006) Women's business ownership: Recent research and policy
developments. Report to the Small Business Service. Stirling: University of Stirling.
Colyvas J.A., Snellman K., Bercovitz J. and Feldman M. (2012) "Disentangling effort and
performance: A renewed look at gender differences in commercializing medical school
research." Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol. 37, No. 4, pp. 478-489.
Cooper R. (2012) "The Gender Gap in Union Leadership in Australia: A Qualitative Study."
Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 54, No. 2, pp. 131-146.
Dabic M., Daim T., Bayraktaroglu E., Novak I. and Basic M. (2012) "Exploring gender
differences in attitudes of university students towards entrepreneurship." International
Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, Vol. 4, No. 3, pp. 316-336.
Daly M. (2010) "Shifts in family policy in the UK under New Labour." Journal of European
Social Policy, Vol. 20, No. 5, pp. 433-443.
Danes S.M., Stafford K. and Loy J.T.C. (2007) "Family business performance: The effects of
gender and management." Journal of Business Research, Vol. 60, No. 10, pp. 1058-1069.
Danilda I. and Thorslund J.G. (2011) Innovation and Gender. Stockholm, SE: Vinnova.
Dautzenberg K. (2012) "Gender differences of business owners in technology-based firms."
International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 79-98.
De Bruijn E. and Volman M. (2000) "Changes in occupational structure and occupational
practice: A challenge to education." European Journal of Women's Studies, Vol. 7, No. 4, pp.
455-474.
De Vries J., Webb C. and Eveline J. (2006) "Mentoring for gender equality and organisational
change." Employee Relations, Vol. 28, No. 6, pp. 573-587.
Dezsö C.L. and Ross D.G. (2012) "Does female representation in top management improve
firm performance? A panel data investigation." Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 33, No.
9, pp. 1072-1089.
Dolinsky A.L., Caputo R.K. and Pasumarty K. (1994) "Long-term entrepreneurship patterns:
A national study of black and white female entry and stayer status differences." Journal of
Small Business Management, Vol. 32, No. 1, pp. 18-26.
Doloreux D. and Parto S. (2005) "Regional innovation systems: Current discourse and
unresolved issues." Technology in Society, Vol. 27, No. 2, pp. 133-153.
Doss C.R. and Morris M.L. (2001) "How does gender affect the adoption of agricultural
innovations? The case of improved maize technology in Ghana." Agricultural Economics,
Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 27-39.
Drotner K. (2000) "Difference and diversity: Trends in young Danes' media uses." Media,
Culture and Society, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 149-166.
Egyir I.S., Owusu-Benoah E., Anno-Nyako F.O. and Banful B. (2011) "Assessing the factors
of adoption of agrochemicals by plantain farmers in Ghana." Journal of Enterprising
Communities, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 83-97.
Fagerberg J. (2005) "Innovation. A guide to the literature." In: Fagerberg J., Mowery D.C.
and Nelson R.R. (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Innovation. Oxford, UK: Oxford University
Press, 1-26.
Fagerberg J., Mowery D.C. and Nelson R.R. (2005) The Oxford Handbook of Innovation.
Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Fonn S., Mtonga A.S., Nkoloma H.C., Bantebya Kyomuhendo G., Dasilva L., Kazilimani E.,
Davis S. and Dia R. (2001) "Health providers' opinions on provider-client relations: Results of
a multi-country study to test Health Workers for Change." Health Policy and Planning, Vol.
16, No. SUPPL. 1, pp. 19-23.
Fonn S. and Xaba M. (2001) "Health workers for change: Developing the initiative." Health
Policy and Planning, Vol. 16, No. SUPPL. 1, pp. 13-18.
Fox E., Pascall G. and Warren T. (2009) "Work-family policies, participation, and practices:
Fathers and childcare in Europe." Community, Work and Family, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 313-326.
Fürst Hörte G. (2009) Utvärdering behovet av genusperspektiv-om innovation, hållbar tillväxt
og jämställdhet. Stockholm, SE: Vinnova.
Galdwin C.H. (2002) "Gender and soil fertility in Africa: Introduction." African Studies
Quarterly, Vol. 6, No. 1-2.
Galia F. and Zenou E. (2012) "Board composition and forms of innovation: Does diversity
make a difference?" European Journal of International Management, Vol. 6, No. 6, pp. 630-
650.
Garud R., Tuertscher P. and Van de Ven A.H. (2013) "Perspectives on innovation processes."
The Academy of Management Annals, Vol., No. pp. 1-49.
Gicheva D. and Link A.N. (2013) "Leveraging entrepreneurship through private investments:
Does gender matter?" Small Business Economics, Vol. 40, No. 2, pp. 199-210.
González M.d.l.D. and Husted B.W. (2011) "Gender, human capital, and opportunity
identification in Mexico." International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, Vol. 3, No.
3, pp. 236-253.
Gray M. and James A. (2007) "Connecting gender and economic competitiveness: Lessons
from Cambridge's high-tech regional economy." Environment and Planning A, Vol. 39, No. 2,
pp. 417-436.
Hamel G. (2000) Leading the revolution, Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Harding S. (1986) The science question in feminism, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Hoffmann L. (2002) "Promoting girls' interest and achievement in physics classes for
beginners." Learning and Instruction, Vol. 12, No. 4, pp. 447-465.
Kariv D. (2010) "The role of management strategies in business performance: Men and
women entrepreneurs managing Creativity and Innovation." International Journal of
Entrepreneurship and Small Business, Vol. 9, No. 3, pp. 243-263.
Kushnirovich N. and Heilbrunn S. (2013) "Innovation and conformity: Intersection of gender
and ethnicity in hi-tech organizations." Journal of Management Development, Vol. 32, No. 2,
pp. 204-220.
Kvidal T. and Ljunggren E. (2013) "Introducing gender in a policy programme: A multilevel
analysis of an innovation policy programme." Environment & Planning C, Vol. Forthcoming,
No.
Lažnjak J., Šporer Z. and Švarc J. (2011) "Women in science commercialization: Looking for
gender differences." Gender, Technology and Development, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 175-200.
Lindberg M. (2008) "Ett slående mönster: Hur Sveriges innovationspolitik formar genus och
vice versa." Genus i Norrsken, Vol. 2, No.
Lindberg M. (2010) Samverkansnätverk för innovation. En interaktiv och genusvetenskaplig
utmaning av innovationspolitik och innovationsforskning. Luleå, Sweden: Luleå
Technological University
Lindberg M., Danilda I. and Torstensson B.-M. (2012) "Women Resource Centres—A
Creative Knowledge Environment of Quadruple Helix." Journal of the Knowledge Economy,
Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 36-52.
Lindberg M. and Udén M. (2010) "Women, reindeer herding and the internet: An innovative
process in northern sweden." Innovation, Vol. 23, No. 2, pp. 169-177.
Lindholm Dahlstrand Å. and Politis D. (2013) "Women business ventures in Swedish
university incubators." International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, Vol. 5, No. 1,
pp. 78-96.
Lundvall B.-Å. (1992) National Systems of Innovation. London, UK: Pinter Oublishers.
Lundvall B.-Å. and Borrás s. (2005) "Science, technology, and innovation policy." In:
Fagerberg J., Mowery D.C. and Nelson R.R. (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Innovation.
Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 599-931.
Lykke N. (2010) Feminist studies: A guide to intersectional theory, methodology and writing:
Routledge Sociology.
Maddock S. (2009) "Gender still matters and impacts on public value and innovation and the
public reform process." Public Policy and Administration, Vol. 24, No. 2, pp. 141-152.
Malerba F. (2002) "Sectoral systems of innovation and production." Research Policy, Vol. 31,
No. 2, pp. 247-264.
Marlow S. and McAdam M. (2012) "Analyzing the Influence of Gender Upon High-
Technology Venturing Within the Context of Business Incubation." Entrepreneurship Theory
and Practice, Vol. 36, No. 4, pp. 655-676.
Marlow S. and McAdam M. (2013) "Gender and entrepreneurship: Advancing debate and
challenging myths; exploring the mystery of the under-performing female entrepreneur."
International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 114-124.
Miller T. and Del Carmen Triana M. (2009) "Demographic diversity in the boardroom:
Mediators of the board diversity-firm performance relationship." Journal of Management
Studies, Vol. 46, No. 5, pp. 755-786.
Minniti M. (2009) "Gender issues in entrepreneurship." Foundations and Trends in
Entrepreneurship, Vol. 5, No. 7-8, pp. 497-621.
Mitra A., Lafrance B. and McCullough S. (2001) "Differences in attitudes between women
and men toward computerization." Journal of Educational Computing Research, Vol. 25, No.
3, pp. 227-244.
Nyberg A.C. (2009) Making ideas matter: gender, technology and women's inventions. Luleå,
Sweden: Luleå Technological University
Nählinder J. (2010) "Where are all the female innovators? Nurses as innovators in a public
sector innovation project." Journal of Technology Management and Innovation, Vol. 5, No. 1,
pp. 13-29.
Nählinder J., Tillmar M. and Wigren-Kristoferson C. (2012) "Are female and male
entrepreneurs equally Innovative? Reducing the gender bias of operationalisations and
ondustries studied." In: Andersson S., Berglund K., Torslund J.G., Gunnarsson E. and Sundin
E. (eds) Promoting Innovation - Policies, Practices and Procedures. Stockholm: VINNOVA.
OECD and Statistical Office of European Communities. (2005) Oslo Manual: Guidelines for
collecting and interpreting innovation data, Paris: OECD.
Onyango-Ouma W., Laisser R., Mbilima M., Araoye M., Pittman P., Agyepong I., Zakari M.,
Fonn S., Tanner M. and Vlassoff C. (2001) "An evaluation of Health Workers for Change in
seven settings: A useful management and health system development tool." Health Policy and
Planning, Vol. 16, No. SUPPL. 1, pp. 24-32.
Pavitt K. (2005) "Innovation processes." In: Fagerberg J., Mowery D.C. and Nelson R.R.
(eds) The Oxford Handbook of Innovation. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 86-114.
Petterson K. (2007) Men and Male as the Norm? – A gender perspective on innovation
policies in Denmark, Finland and Sweden. Stockholm, SE: Nordregio.
Porter M. (1985) The competitive advantage, New York: Free Press.
Ranga M. and Etzkowitz H. (2010) "Athena in the world of techne: The gender dimension of
technology, innovation and entrepreneurship." Journal of Technology Management and
Innovation, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 1-12.
Rosa P. and Dawson A. (2006) "Gender and the commercialization of university science:
academic founders of spinout companies." Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, Vol.
18, No. 4, pp. 341-366.
Saunders B. and Quirke P. (2002) ""Let my laptop lead the way": A middle eastern study."
Educational Technology and Society, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 135-140.
Schumpeter J.A. (1934) The Theory of Economic Development. An Inquiry into Profits,
Capital, Credit, Interest, and the Business Cycle, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Shane S. (2003) A general theory of entrepreneurship: The individual-opportunity nexus.,
Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Silva E.B. (2000) "The cook, the cooker and the gendering of the kitchen." Sociological
Review, Vol. 48, No. 4, pp. 611-628.
Smiler A. and Gelman S. (2008) "Determinants of Gender Essentialism in College Students."
Sex Roles, Vol. 58, No. 11-12, pp. 864-874.
Smith K. (2005) "Measuring innovation." In: Fagerberg J., Mowery D.C. and Nelson R.R.
(eds) The Oxford Handbook of Innovation. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 148-177.
Sonfield M., Lussier R., Corman J. and McKinney M. (2001) "Gender comparisons in
strategic decision-making: An empirical analysis of the entrepreneurial strategy matrix."
Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 39, No. 2, pp. 165-173.
Thorslund J.G. and Göransson U. (2006) Könsblinda innovationssystem – genusanalys av
några centrala begrepp i VINNOVAs verksamhet. Arbetsrapport i FoU-projektet Jämställdhet
och Genusvetenskap. Stockholm, Sweden: Vinnova.
True J. and Mintrom M. (2001) "Transnational networks and policy diffusion: The case of
gender mainstreaming." International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 45, No. 1, pp. 27-57.
Truss C., Conway E., d'Amato A., Kelly G., Monks K., Hannon E. and Flood P.C. (2012)
"Knowledge work: Gender-blind or gender-biased?" Work, Employment and Society, Vol. 26,
No. 5, pp. 735-754.
Turner L. (2009) "Gender diversity and innovative performance." International Journal of
Innovation and Sustainable Development, Vol. 4, No. 2-3, pp. 123-134.
Vehviläinen M., Vuolanto P. and Ylijoki O.H. (2010) "Gender equality in interface
organizations between science, technology and innovation." Journal of Technology
Management and Innovation, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 64-74.
Verspagen B. (2005) "Innovation and economic growth." In: Fagerberg J., Mowery D.C. and
Nelson R.R. (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Innovation. Oxford, UK: Oxford University
Press, 487-513.
Viner N., Powell P. and Green R. (2004) "Institutionalized biases in the award of research
grants: a preliminary analysis revisiting the principle of accumulative advantage." Research
Policy, Vol. 33, No. 3, pp. 443-454.
Wajcman J. (2010) "Feminist theories of technology." Cambridge Journal of Economics, Vol.
34, No. 1, pp. 143-152.
West C. and Zimmermann D. (1987) "Doing gender." Gender and Society, Vol. 1, No. pp.
125-151.
Whittington K.B. (2011) "Mothers of Invention? Gender, Motherhood, and New Dimensions
of Productivity in the Science Profession." Work and Occupations, Vol. 38, No. 3, pp. 417-
456.
Woodward A. (2003) "European gender mainstreaming: Promises and pitfalls of
transformative policy." Review of Policy Research, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 65-88.
Yang Y. and Konrad A.M. (2011) "Diversity and organizational innovation: The role of
employee involvement." Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 32, No. 8, pp. 1062-1083.
Zahra S.A. (2007) "Contextualizing theory building in entrepreneurship research." Journal of
Business Venturing, Vol. 22, No. 3, pp. 443-452.
Østergaard C.R., Timmermans B. and Kristinsson K. (2011) "Does a different view create
something new? the effect of employee diversity on innovation." Research Policy, Vol. 40,
No. 3, pp. 500-509.
Table 1 Scopus search in abstract, title and keywords – journal articles only (no. of articles in brackets)
Search term ‘innovation’ (106994)
Within these: Search term ‘gender’ (2445)
Within these: Search term ‘women’ (4037)
Research Policy (1,024)
Research Policy (16)
Social Science and Medicine (38)
Health Service Journal (675)
Journal of Advanced Nursing (16)
Journal of Advanced Nursing (32)
Technovation (670)
International Journal of Innovation and Learning (15)
Health Affairs (16)
Technological Forecasting and Social Change (586)
Computers and Education (13)
Journal of Nursing Administration (16)
International Journal of Technology Management (551)
Environment and Planning A (10)
American Journal of Community Psychology (15)
Modern Healthcare (505) New Media and Society (10)
J. of the American Medical Informatics Association
(15)
Healthcare Informatics (425)
Social Science and Medicine (9)
Environment and Planning A (14)
Nursing Times (379)
Development in Practice (9)
Journal of Clinical Nursing (13)
Journal of Product Innovation Management (360)
Nursing Inquiry (9)
Journal of Midwifery and Women S Health (13)
Nursing Standard (349)
Innovation (8)
Research Policy (13)
Technology Analysis and Strategic Management (312)
Geoforum (7)
AIDS Education and Prevention (12)
European Planning Studies (294)
World Development (7)
Nurse Education Today (11)
Energy Policy (289)
European Planning Studies (7)
Journal of Nursing Management (11)
International Journal of Innovation and Learning (261)
Prometheus (7)
Journal of Professional Nursing (11)
Research Technology Management (241)
Nurse Education Today (6)
Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice (11)
Science and Public Policy (240)
Small Group Research (6)
American Journal of Public Health (11)
Journal of Advanced Nursing (236)
Gender and Society (6)
Midwifery (10)
Journal of Nursing Administration (225)
Journal of Product Innovation Management (6)
Nursing Outlook (10)
Health Affairs (219)
Information and Management (6)
Nursing for Women S Health (10)
Healthcare Financial Management (214)
Academic Medicine (6)
Canadian Journal of Nursing Research (10)
Table 2 Topics on gender and innovation in the literature
Topics on gender and innovation
Examples of studies
Conceptual/reviews
Blake and Hanson (2005); Ranga & Etzkowitz (2010)
Science based innovation
- gender differences in patenting
- commercialization
- academic entrepreneurship
- university-industry relationships
Busolt & Kuegle (2009); Frietsch, et al, 2009; Hunt, et al., 2013;
Colyvas et al. (2012); Laznjak et al (2011) Rosa & Dawson (2006)
Abreu & Grinevich, 2013
Perkmann et al. (2013)
Innovation activity within firms
- preferences for innovation
- the effect of diversity on innovation
- innovation in small businesses
Kushnirovich & Heilbrunn 2011; (2013)
Dezsö & Ross (2012); Galia & Zenou (2012); Mille & Del Carmen Triana
(2009); Turner (2009); Østergaard et al. (2011)
Danes et al. (2007); Kariv (2010); Sonfield et al. (2001); Truss et al. (2012)
Innovative start-ups
BaNir (2012), Gicheva & Link (2013)
Innovation policy measures
- regional innovation systems
- incubators and science parks
Gray & James (2007); Lindberg et al.(2012); Lindberg & Udén (2010)
McAdam & Marlow, 2008; Vehviläinen et al. (2010)
Organizational innovation
- influence of gender on org. change
Abrahamsson (2002); De Vries et al. (2006); Yang & Konrad (2011)
Public sector innovation
- teaching
- health care
Maddock (2009); Nählinder (2010)
Bianchini et al. (2002); De Bruijn & Volman (2000); Hoffman (2002);
Saunders & Quirke (2002)
Fonn et al. (2001); Fonn & Xaba (2001); Onyangi-Ouma et al. (2001)
Social innovation
- social change
- social movements
- diffusion of institutional innovation
- consequences of innovation
Akin (2003); Beck (2009); Breward (2002); Silva (2000)
Beckwith (2001)
Daly (2010); Fox et al. (2009); True & Mintrom (2001); Woodward (2003)
Bhaskar (2011)
Innovation adoption
Boneva et al. (2001); Carpenter & Casper (2009); Doss & Morris (2001);
Drotner (2000); Egyir et al (2011); Galdwin (2002); Mitra et al. (2001)
Table 3 Combinations of perspectives on gender and innovation – Examples of issues
Gender as:
Innovation as:
Variable
Construction
Process
Result
⋅ Differences between male
and female scientists in
patenting,
commercialisation etc.
⋅ Differences between men
and women-owned
businesses in
implemented innovations
⋅ How the concept of
innovation is gendered
⋅ What counts as an
innovation
⋅ How gendered
understandings influence
innovation outcomes
⋅ How changes in
constructions of gender
influence innovation
outputs
⋅ Changes in gendered
understandings of
innovation outputs
Process
⋅ Identifying actors in
innovation processes and
their gender
⋅ Frequency of participation
of men and women in
innovation processes in an
organization
⋅ Differences in preferences
for innovation between
men and women
⋅ Revealing how innovation
processes are gendered
⋅ How gendered
understandings of
innovation influence on
innovation processes
⋅ How understandings of
gender are created and
recreated in innovation
processes
⋅ Changes in gendered
understandings of
innovation processes
⋅ How the understanding of
innovation is created and
recreated throughout
gendered innovation
processes
Discourse/policy
⋅ Identifying players in
innovation discourses/
policy and their gender
⋅ Identifying actors and
their gender within
innovation discourses
⋅ Frequency of men and
women-owned businesses
in achieving innovation
results or receiving
innovation support
⋅ Revealing how innovation
discourses are gendered
⋅ How gendered
understandings of
innovation influence
innovation policy
⋅ The impact of gendered
innovation policies on
different types of
innovation and innovation
in different contexts
⋅ How gender is produced
and reproduced in
innovation discourses
⋅ How gendering
innovation and innovation
processes influence
innovations discourses
