Gender and motherhood dynamics feature prominently in research that examines professional workplace inequities. The rise of patenting as an available form of academic productivity presents a fruitful site to revisit these in the science profession and to compare academic and industrial science contexts. I predict patenting involvement across disciplines, sectors, and time. Contrary to findings regarding publishing, academic mothers suffer a motherhood penalty not experienced by childless women or mothers in industry. Controls for past involvement remove the disparity, and a sex gap in industry. Work/family balance, sector-level incentives, and status expectations may explain these results, providing implications for future research on gender, motherhood, and work.
BenardS.CorrellS. J. (2010). Normative Discrimination and the Motherhood Penalty. Gender & Society, 25, 616-646.
2.
ColeJ.ZuckermanH. (1987). Marriage, motherhood, and research performance in science. Scientific American, 256, 119-125.
3.
CorrellS. J.BenardS.PaikI. (2007). Getting a job: Is there a motherhood penalty?American Journal of Sociology, 112, 1297-1338.
4.
CorrellS. J.RidgewayC. (2003). Expectation states theory. In DelamaterJ. (Ed.), Handbook of Social Psychology (pp. 29-51). New York, NY: Kluwer Academic Press.
5.
CrittendonA. (2001). The price of motherhood: Why the most important job in the world is still the least valued. New York, NY: Metropolitan Books.
6.
CuddyA.FiskeS.GlickP. (2004). When professionals become mothers, warmth doesn’t cut the ice. Journal of Social Issues, 60, 701-718.
7.
DingW. W.MurrayF.StuartT. E. (2006). Gender differences in patenting in the academic life sciences. Science, 313, 665-667.
8.
FoxM. F. (1995). Women and scientific careers. In JasanoffS.MarkleJ. C.PetersonJ. C.PinchT. J. (Eds.), Handbook of Science and Technology Studies (pp. 205-223). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
9.
FoxM. F. (2001). Women, science, and academia: Graduate education and careers. Gender & Society, 15, 654-666.
10.
FoxM. F. (2005). Gender, family characteristics, and publication productivity among scientists. Social Studies of Science, 35, 131-150.
11.
GlassJ. (2004). Blessing or curse: Work-family policies and Mother’s wage growth over time. Work and Occupations, 31, 367-394.
12.
HerschJ.StrattonL. S. (2000). Household specialization and the male marriage wage premium. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 54, 78-94.
13.
HillC.CorbettC.St. RoseA. (2010). Why so few? Women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Washington, DC: American Association of University Women. Retrieved from http://www.aauw.org/research/whysofew.cfm
14.
KleinmanD. L.VallasS. P. (2006). Contradiction in convergence: Universities and industry in the biotechnology field. In FrickelS.MooreK. (Eds.), The new political sociology of science: Institutions, networks, and power (pp. 35-62). Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
15.
KleinmanD. L.VallasS. P. (2001). Science, capitalism, and the rise of the “knowledge worker”: The changing structure of knowledge production in the United States. Theory and Society, 30, 451-492.
16.
KortumS.LernerJ. (1998). What is behind the recent surge in patenting?Research Policy, 28(1), 1-22.
17.
KyvikS. (1990). Motherhood and Scientific Productivity. Social Studies of Science, 20, 149-160.
18.
LongJ. S. (1990). The origins of sex differences in science. Social Forces, 68, 1297-1316.
19.
LongJ. S. (2001). From Scarcity to visibility: Gender differences in the careers of doctoral scientists and engineers. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
20.
LongJ. S.FoxM. F. (1995). Scientific careers: Universalism and particularism. Annual Review of Sociology, 21, 45.
21.
MasonM. A.GouldenM. (2002). Do babies matter? The effect of family formation on the lifelong careers of academic men and women. Academe, 88, 21-27.
22.
MasonM. A.GouldenM. (2004). Marriage and baby blues: Redefining gender equity in the academy. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 596, 86-103.
23.
McIlweeJ.RobinsonJ. (1992). Women in engineering: Gender, power, and workplace culture. Albany: State of New York Press.
24.
MertonR. K. (1990). The normative structure of science. In AlexanderJ. C.SeidmanS. (Eds.), Culture and society: Contemporary debates (pp. 67-74). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1942)
25.
MurrayF. (2010). The oncomouse that roared: Hybrid exchange strategies as a source of productive tension at the boundary of overlapping institutions. American Journal of Sociology, 116(2), pp. 341-388.
26.
MurrayF.GrahamL. (2007). Buying science and selling science: Gender differences in the market for commercial science. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16, 657-689.
27.
National Research Council. (1995). Research-doctorate programs in the United States: Continuity and change. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
28.
National Science Board. (2006). Science and engineering indicators 2006. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
29.
National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Studies, Survey of Doctorate Recipients (1995, 2001). Arlington, VA: Author. Retrieved from SESTAT (sestat.nsf.gov).
30.
Owen-SmithJ.PowellW. W. (2001). Careers and contradictions: Faculty responses to the transformation of knowledge and its uses in the life sciences. Research in the Sociology of Work, 10, 109-140.
31.
Owen-SmithJ.PowellW. W. (2003). The expanding role of university patenting in the life sciences: Assessing the importance of experience and connectivity. Research Policy, 32, 1695-1711.
32.
PowellW. W.KoputK. W.Smith-DoerrL. (1996). Interorganizational Collaboration and the Locus of Innovation: Networks of Learning in Biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 116-145.
33.
PrestonA. E. (2004). Leaving science: Occupational exit from scientific careers. New York, NY: Russell Sage.
34.
ReskinB. F. (1978). Scientific productivity, sex, and location in the institution of science. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 1235-1243.
35.
ReskinB.McBrierD. (2000). Why not ascription? Organizations’ employment of male and female managers. American Sociological Review, 65, 210-233.
36.
RosenburgN.NelsonR. (1993). American universities and technical advance in industry. Research Policy, 23, 323-348.
37.
SimardC.HendersonA.GilmartinS.SchiebingerL. L.WhitneyT. (2008). Climbing the technical ladder: Obstacles and solutions for mid-level women in technology. Stanford, CA: Michelle R. Clayman Institute for Gender Research; Stanford University and Anita Borg Institute for Women in Technology.
38.
SlaughterS.RhoadesG. (2004). Academic capitalism and the new economy: Markets, state and higher education. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
39.
StephanP. E.GurmuS.SumellA. J.BlackG. (2007). Who’s Patenting in the University? Evidence from the Survey of Doctorate Recipients. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 16(2), 71-99.
40.
TownsendN. W. (2002). The package deal: Marriage, work and fatherhood in men’s lives. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
41.
WhittingtonK. B. (2007). Employment sectors as opportunity structures: The effects of location on male and female scientific dissemination. Stanford, CA: Department of Sociology, Stanford University, Stanford.
42.
WhittingtonK. B. (2009). Patterns of male and female scientific dissemination in public and private science. In FreemanR.GoroffD. (Eds.), Science and engineering careers in the United States : An analysis of markets and employment (pp. 195-228). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
43.
WhittingtonK. B.Smith-DoerrL. (2005). Gender and commercial science: Women’s patenting in the life sciences. Journal of Technology Transfer, 30, 355-370.
44.
WhittingtonK. B.Smith-DoerrL. (2008). Women inventors in context: Disparities in patenting across academia and industry. Gender & Society, 22, 194-218.
45.
XieY.ShaumanK. A. (1998). Sex differences in research productivity: New evidence about an old puzzle. American Sociological Review, 63, 847-870.
46.
XieY.ShaumanK. A. (2003). Women in science: Career processes and outcomes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
