Gender gap in innovation a confused link

GENDER GAP IN INNOVATION: A CONFUSED LINK?
Sophia Belghiti-Mahut, Anne-Laurence Lafont et Ouidad Yousfi
Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - Universidad de Chile - - 200.89.68.187 - 28/08/2019 23:32 - © De Boeck Supérieur
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
2016/1 n°19 | pages 159 à 177
Article disponible en ligne à l'adresse :
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------https://www.cairn.inforevue-journal-of-innovation-economics-2016-1-page-159.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distribution électronique Cairn.info pour De Boeck Supérieur.
© De Boeck Supérieur. Tous droits réservés pour tous pays.
La reproduction ou représentation de cet article, notamment par photocopie, n'est autorisée que dans les
limites des conditions générales d'utilisation du site ou, le cas échéant, des conditions générales de la
licence souscrite par votre établissement. Toute autre reproduction ou représentation, en tout ou partie,
sous quelque forme et de quelque manière que ce soit, est interdite sauf accord préalable et écrit de
l'éditeur, en dehors des cas prévus par la législation en vigueur en France. Il est précisé que son stockage
dans une base de données est également interdit.
Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - Universidad de Chile - - 200.89.68.187 - 28/08/2019 23:32 - © De Boeck Supérieur
De Boeck Supérieur | « Journal of Innovation Economics & Management »
GENDER GAP IN INNOVATION:
A CONFUSED LINK?
Sophia BELGHITI-MAHUT
CORHIS-ORHA
University Paul Valéry- Montpellier 3, France
Sofia.belghiti-mahut@univ-montp3.fr
Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - Universidad de Chile - - 200.89.68.187 - 28/08/2019 23:32 - © De Boeck Supérieur
MRM, University of Montpellier, France
laurence.lafont@umontpellier.fr
Ouidad YOUSFI
MRM, University of Montpellier, France
ouidad.yousfi@umontpellier.fr
The number of studies on innovation has significantly increased in the last
few years, particularly after the financial subprime crisis. Innovation appears
to be a key factor of success for companies to increase their competitiveness
and their growth, and to create new employment opportunities. It improves
competitiveness, especially for companies that are in the very early stages
of their business cycle (creation, seed, and start-up stages), and that need to
mature (development and growth stages) and to generate more cash-flows.
However, the extensive literature on innovation studies neither the
places where innovations took place nor the profile of the participants in
the innovation processes (Fagerberg et al., 2005). This is surprising as entrepreneurship and innovation have been closely related while gender issues
have gained a wider interest among researchers within management and
entrepreneurship fields (Minitti, 2009). One explanation is that entrepreneurs are in prominent in entrepreneurship research while innovators are
almost invisible in innovation research.
Furthermore, the review of the literature on innovation shows a dichotomous approach. Papers have provided several binary definitions of innovation, such as for example product/process innovations, competitive/
social innovations and incremental/radical innovations (Feldman, 2000).
However, when it comes to empirical evidence studies focus only on radical, competitive and product innovations (Blake, Hanson, 2005; Nählinder,
2010). In fact, most studies are mainly conducted on male innovations such
n° 19 – Journal of Innovation Economics & Management – 2016/1 159
Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - Universidad de Chile - - 200.89.68.187 - 28/08/2019 23:32 - © De Boeck Supérieur
Anne-Laurence LAFONT
Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - Universidad de Chile - - 200.89.68.187 - 28/08/2019 23:32 - © De Boeck Supérieur
as technological process and product innovations (Hacker, 1989; Fagerberg,
2005), while more attention should be placed on other types of innovations
such as incremental and social innovations that very often appear at the
grassroots level of organisations. In theory the innovation literature is supposed to be gender neutral, as individuals are invisible. In practice, it is a
gender blind literature.
When it comes to gender, there is an increasing interest in the role of
women in the labor force and how they could change the economic world.
In September 2015, the Mckinsey Global Institute argued that advancing
women’s equality could add $28 trillion of additional annual GDP in 2025,
that is equivalent to the combined US and China economies today.1
In the fields of management and economics, the number of studies on
gender has significantly increased in the last few years. These studies have
addressed only a few questions, such as, for example, how the presence of
women on boards could influence a firm’s financial and social performance
(Campbell, Minguez-Vera, 2008; Carter et al., 2010; Boulouta, 2013;
Solakoglu, 2013), corporate governance (Carter et al., 2003; Francoeur et
al., 2007; Adams, Ferreira, 2009), identifying resource dependency (Hillman
et al., 2000), network ties (Westphal, Milton, 2000; Arfken et al., 2004;
Hillman et al., 2007), innovation (Turner, 2009; Diaz-Garcia et al., 2013),
etc.
Some researchers argue that women would improve a firm’s performance. There are several theoretical reasons why increasing the share of
women directors might be associated with better performance (see among
others: Bantel, Jackson, 1989; Murray, 1989; Carter et al., 2003; BelghitiMahut, Lafont, 2010). In fact, markets themselves are gender-diversified;
more diverse boards might lead to a better understanding of the marketplace
by matching the diversity of potential customers and employees, which
increases the firm’s ability to penetrate markets. As more skills and qualifications are available in gender-diverse boards, more ideas, investments and
opportunities are evaluated.
The extensive literature of innovation provides few papers on the link
between gender and innovation.
The lack of gender perspective in innovation studies, contrary to entrepreneurship studies, is explained to a large extent in relation to the blind
vision of individuals. Communication around the profile and the role of
innovator is poor (Brännback et al., 2012). When there is little consideration
1. http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/growth/how_advancing_womens_equality_can_add_12_
trillion_to_global_growth
160 Journal of Innovation Economics & Management – 2016/1 – n° 19
Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - Universidad de Chile - - 200.89.68.187 - 28/08/2019 23:32 - © De Boeck Supérieur
Sophia BELGHITI-MAHUT, Anne-Laurence LAFONT, Ouidad YOUSFI
Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - Universidad de Chile - - 200.89.68.187 - 28/08/2019 23:32 - © De Boeck Supérieur
of individuals, the gender perspective is marginalized and remains an underconsidered issue.
In general, studies on innovation are conducted on industries and activities that have been for a long time exclusively male-controlled industries.
Women have become more involved in the labor force and many sectors
have been led by women, a development which suddenly changed the innovation landscape and created new ways of innovation (World Bank, 20142;
Vinnova, 20113). Women are marginalized and therefore considered as less
(or none) innovative agents (Alsos et al., 2013).
According to feminist theories, the predominant “patriarchal” model has
led to a restrictive vision of male and female relations/roles when there is a
clear domination relationship: it is largely argued that women are dominated
by men (Bourdieu, 1998; Héritier, 2007). Therefore innovation displays this
domination effect, and leads to a biased masculine viewpoint.
Despite this, it is challenging to start exploring how gender could impact
innovation while individuals are invisible; some studies have already started
exploring gender differences in innovation. In economic geography, Blake
and Hanson (2005) and Nählinder (2010) show that men and women have
different approaches when they innovate: for instance, women conduct
innovations that are largely inspired by local needs to achieve social ends.
In a case study of three French listed companies, Turner (2009) shows
that gender diversity increases the innovative performance of individuals
and R&D teams.
Based on data from an innovation survey in Spain, Diaz-Garcia et al.
(2013) show evidence that the gender diversity within R&D teams is positively related to radical innovation.
Accordingly we raise the following question:
What could be learned from the existing literature on innovation when it is
considered from a gendered angle?
Based on a critical survey of management, economic and social studies
on innovation, we show evidence of the ambiguous link between women
and innovation.
First, we focus on the literature relating to what leads to women’s marginalization and the lack of women in top decision-making positions. We
present, for instance, the persistence of deep-seated stereotypes in women/
female roles. In fact, inequality reproduction mechanisms in decision-making
2. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.AGR.EMPL.FE.ZS/countries
3. http://www.vinnova.se/upload/EPiStorePDF/vi-11-03.pdf
n° 19 – Journal of Innovation Economics & Management – 2016/1 161
Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - Universidad de Chile - - 200.89.68.187 - 28/08/2019 23:32 - © De Boeck Supérieur
Gender gap in innovation: a confused link?
Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - Universidad de Chile - - 200.89.68.187 - 28/08/2019 23:32 - © De Boeck Supérieur
positions are the same and are persistent, even in the area of innovation.
The paper argues that new kinds/areas/determinants of innovations are not
yet, or only partially, explored (Blake, Hanson, 2005; Fageberg, 2005). This
explains to a large extent why male norms are widely adopted as standard
norms in innovation and why the gender issue was/is still not irrelevant.
Second, innovators are supposed to have leading/dominating positions
when they implement new products and processes in very competitive
markets that are described as radical and incremental innovations (Blake,
Hanson, 2005; Fageberg, 2005). These innovations are implemented in
industries and sectors led by men, which bring a sort of power to male innovators (Blake, Hanson, 2005).
The paper is organized as follows. First we set out the theoretical
approaches. We discuss glass ceiling theory – particularly why the proportion of women on boards and in leadership positions is so low – to understand why they are marginalized when it comes to innovation. Second we
show that empirical studies focus only on a set of innovations (radical, product, competitive and technological innovations) that are most often implemented by men. This literature does not take into account new and other
types of innovation studied in emerging literatures, such as, for example,
creative and imitative innovations implemented by women. In addition, the
main measures of innovation are discussed in this section.
The last section concludes the paper and emphasizes the need to rethink
innovation to be able to rebuild an “expanded and revisited” innovation
theory where innovators are prominent in innovation research. This also
supposes that studies have to assess individual features of the innovator profile and bring new and more appropriate measures of innovation to capture
marginalized forms of innovation, such as, for instance, female – innovators
and – innovations.
WHY DOES GENDER MATTER
IN INNOVATION?
Despite the fact that there is a large body of work on innovation, it seems
to lack some analyses on several types of innovation such as, for example,
incremental, social and environmental innovations, on new areas where
innovations took place, and on the actors involved in the innovation
process.
The current section presents a critical survey of the literature on the
gender issue in the fields of management and economics. It highlights the
162 Journal of Innovation Economics & Management – 2016/1 – n° 19
Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - Universidad de Chile - - 200.89.68.187 - 28/08/2019 23:32 - © De Boeck Supérieur
Sophia BELGHITI-MAHUT, Anne-Laurence LAFONT, Ouidad YOUSFI
Gender gap in innovation: a confused link?
gender-blind vision of innovation research and the urgent need to rethink
innovation by taking into account the innovator’s profile.
Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - Universidad de Chile - - 200.89.68.187 - 28/08/2019 23:32 - © De Boeck Supérieur
In management literature, existing practices are male-implemented practices that favor male modes of being and of control. As in all business areas,
this creates and sustains particular forms of masculinity in the area of innovation.
Very few women are in leading positions, particularly in male-dominated companies. In October 2014, women accounted for just 20.2% of
board members of the largest publicly-listed companies registered in EU
countries (European Commission, 2015). The facts show that women are
still prevented from moving up into management and leadership positions,
and are facing significant barriers. These barriers are clearly discussed in
the “glass ceiling” theory. The glass ceiling was identified in the 1980s by
the International Labor Organization and Catalyst4. The glass ceiling theory
is about “those artificial barriers based on attitudinal or organisational bias that
prevents qualified individuals from advancing upward into management level positions” (ILO, 2001).
There are three dominant theoretical approaches of the gender issue in
the management field. They have been adopted to explain women’s difficulties in assuming top-level organizational positions.
The first one is “person-centred” or “gender-centred” (Horner, 1972;
Terborg, 1977; Riger, Galligan, 1980; Adler, Israeli, 1988). It has been used
since the 1970s, when women gained access to graduate education and were
able to get into organizations. According to this approach, women’s behavior and limited representation in upper level jobs is attributed to factors that
are internal to women, e.g., their inappropriate traits, cognitions, attitudes
and behaviors (Fagenson, 1990).The main assumption is that women are
seen as the, in principle, equals of men, and therefore they have to compete
with men to acquire skills and experiences in a man’s world. One way is to
adopt masculine values and behave according to male norms to gain access
to leadership and powerful positions (Shiebinger, 2000). Male values were
commonly recognized as key factors for success. Consequently, successful
women have to adopt male values (Laufer et al., 2003).
4. Catalyst, a leading non-profit organization with a mission to expand opportunities for women
and business, was founded in 1962 in the USA.
n° 19 – Journal of Innovation Economics & Management – 2016/1 163
Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - Universidad de Chile - - 200.89.68.187 - 28/08/2019 23:32 - © De Boeck Supérieur
Management is a man’s world: male-implemented
innovations in male-controlled sectors
Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - Universidad de Chile - - 200.89.68.187 - 28/08/2019 23:32 - © De Boeck Supérieur
The second perspective is called the “situation or organizational structure
approach” (Kanter, 1988; Freeman, 1990). Individuals’ behaviour is closely
related to their positions in organizational hierarchies. In other words,
instead of women-related factors, there is evidence that organizational structures shape and define women’s behavior in their workplace as well as in
their professional careers (Fagenson, 1990). However, this perspective suggests that the limited proportion of women in organizations is not only due
to their gender and the structure of their organizations, but that both factors
interact with the culture and influence women’s behavior at workplace.
The third approach, the “Gender-Organization-System” (GOS), argues
that women’s behavior and the difficulties women are facing in getting
involved and recognized in their organizations cannot simply be attributed
to the gender question because individuals differ from one another not only
on the basis of gender (Fagenson, 1990, 1993), but also due to the organizational context and/or to the social and institutional system in which they
are involved. This theory views the status of men and women in organizations as parallel to the socio-cultural context in which they live and interact. Accordingly, the GOS is a systemic approach, in the sense that it takes
into account the interaction between individuals, organizations and societal
spheres/scopes. Yet the situation of women, their advancement difficulties
or attitudes to their careers are related and closely dependent on the sociocultural context and even the institutional context where they are supposed
to interact. It is certainly an organizational issue that is closely connected
to the dominant gender role representation and the discourses on “legitimizing” sex stereotyping and normative thinking. Therefore the GOS approach
is more relevant when it comes to understanding women’s situation. Yet,
there is a mirror effect between power-organizations/male vision and innovation/male vision (Belghiti-Mahut, 2004).
Extensive literature but restrictive approaches
Furthermore, recent feminist studies on innovation have highlighted that,
while current definitions of innovation seem to be neutral, in practice the
types, the measures and the sectors analyzed have a strong male connotation
(Vinnova, 2011). Indeed, many definitions of innovation exist and seem to
have a gender neutral approach, whereas it is not as neutral as it is supposed
to be.
Let us consider some widely known definitions of innovations dedicated
to capturing only a few types of innovations. For instance, Innovation is “the
design, invention, development and or/implementation of new or altered products,
services, processes, systems, organizational structures, or business models for the
164 Journal of Innovation Economics & Management – 2016/1 – n° 19
Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - Universidad de Chile - - 200.89.68.187 - 28/08/2019 23:32 - © De Boeck Supérieur
Sophia BELGHITI-MAHUT, Anne-Laurence LAFONT, Ouidad YOUSFI
Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - Universidad de Chile - - 200.89.68.187 - 28/08/2019 23:32 - © De Boeck Supérieur
purpose of creating new value for customers and financial returns for the firm’’5.
Here is another definition presented by the OECD6 in which innovation is
“the implementation of a new or significantly improved product (good or service),
or process, a new marketing method, or a new organisational method in business
practices, workplace organisation or external relations’’.
At the same time, studies present binary definitions of innovations that
gradually shape the way innovations are thought of (Johansson, Lindberg,
2011). For instance, the innovation literature defines the following innovations:
–– Product versus process innovations and radical versus incremental
innovations (Feldman, 2000).
–– The creative part and the imitative part in the innovation process
(Drucker, 1985).
–– The export-oriented approach of innovation versus a contextualised innovation (Blake, Hanson, 2005).
To take into account new forms of innovation, such as, for example,
social innovation, a recent body of work adds to the previous perspectives
the purpose-related perspective of innovation by adding a social/environmental/local definition of innovation versus competitive innovation (Blake,
Hanson, 2005; Johansson, Lindberg, 2011).
According to Johansson and Lindberg (2011), this leads to a restrictive
approach of innovation and benefits hierarchical purposes: one part is privileged at the expense of the other part (Rosenberg, 2002).
However, when it comes to evidence innovations are exclusively/dichotomously defined as studies that focus only on product, radical, creative,
and competitive innovations (Blake, Hanson, 2005; Johansson, Lindberg,
2011). Innovation is often closely associated with a technological dimension (Bunnell, Coe, 2001; Morand, Manceau, 2009). Empirical studies,
statistics and public policy commonly rely on one-dimensional measures,
i.e. R&D expenses and/or the number of patent applications to measure
the level and intensity of innovation (see among others: Marvel, Lee, 2011;
Ruef, 2002; Morgan et al., 2001; Morand, Manceau, 2009). Finally, studies
on innovation are mainly implemented in the industrial and ICT sectors
(World Bank, 2014)7.
5. American Secretary of Commerce Report (2008), The Advisory Committee on measuring
innovation in the 21st century. Available at: http://fr.slideshare.net/InnovationTank/innovationmeasurement
6. In the Oslo manual available at: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_PUBLIC/
OSLO/EN/OSLO-EN.PDF
7. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.TLF.TOTL.FE.ZS
n° 19 – Journal of Innovation Economics & Management – 2016/1 165
Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - Universidad de Chile - - 200.89.68.187 - 28/08/2019 23:32 - © De Boeck Supérieur
Gender gap in innovation: a confused link?
Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - Universidad de Chile - - 200.89.68.187 - 28/08/2019 23:32 - © De Boeck Supérieur
Surprisingly, the OECD underlines that only 50.98% of innovations in
Europe8 have no technological dimension. In 2012 the service sector, consisting of wholesale and retail trade, transport, and government, financial,
professional, and personal services such as education, health care, and real
estate services – represented on average 72% of European GDP9. And surprisingly, in most of these areas, innovation is rarely analyzed.
Moreover, patents capture a small part of innovation and are not a necessary condition to show the existence of innovation (Morand, Manceau,
2009). R&D and patents assess the inputs and outputs used to innovate
rather than the intensity/kind/level of the innovation. In addition, they are
not appropriate measures for intangible innovations such as, for example,
incremental, managerial, social or process innovation. This therefore disregards new forms of innovation, especially recent ones which cannot be
dichotomously defined and which are multidimensional (Blake, Hanson,
2005; Fagerberg, 2005)10.
New realities to take into account
Many official reports promote new ways to innovate and propose an extension of the existing innovation framework to capture more innovations:
product, process, design and social innovations (Morand, Manceau, 2009).
It is time to recognize that innovation cannot be locked into pre-set definitions, categorized as innovation and landscape; processes and actors have
changed and are constantly progressing.
There is an emerging literature on all these inconsistencies that highlights and focuses on the biased view inherent to female-implemented innovations (see among others: Blake, Hanson, 2005; Nählinder, 2010). These
studies provide evidence that in theory current definitions seem gender neutral, in practice, the way they are operationalized and measured is strongly
male-gendered. For instance, most public programs are set up to support
actions and measures promoting technological innovations. Hacker (1989)
argued that interpretation of the technology as a male field gives the innovation that male connotation.
8. OCDE (2008), Science, technologie et industrie : perspectives de l’OCDE. http://www.oecd.
org/sti/oecd-science-technology-and-industry-outlook-19991428.htm
9. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator
10. According to Blake and Hanson (2005), the focus on technological and radical innovation
is closely linked to the prevailing view of the export-based theory of innovation. To count as
innovative a change must help improve the position of a firm or a position in the export market.
The more radical an innovation is, the more likely it is that it will enable the penetration of
large and distant markets and the realisation of large profits.
166 Journal of Innovation Economics & Management – 2016/1 – n° 19
Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - Universidad de Chile - - 200.89.68.187 - 28/08/2019 23:32 - © De Boeck Supérieur
Sophia BELGHITI-MAHUT, Anne-Laurence LAFONT, Ouidad YOUSFI
Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - Universidad de Chile - - 200.89.68.187 - 28/08/2019 23:32 - © De Boeck Supérieur
Despite the fact that the labor force is progressively changing, statistics
show that women were largely not present in the areas of science and technology that increasingly support this male connotation.
Aware of the role of women’ and girls in these sectors, policymakers
become involved in plans and strategies to increase women’s participation e.g. the Beijing Platform for Action (1995) and the Budapest Science
Agenda and Framework for Action (1999) (Schiebinger, Schraudner, 2011).
To promote gender equality in ICT, Schiebinger et al. (2010) distinguished
three policy approaches. The first approach focuses on women-oriented
plans to promote their role as key players in ICT. The second approach
seeks to increase girl’s and women’s participation by reforming scientific and
educational institutions. Finally, the last approach focuses on overcoming
gender bias by mainstreaming gender analysis into the S&T science and
technology field. This means that states start to care about women and S&T
and, hopefully, about women and innovation.
The traditional literature also underlines the fact that most studies and
public plans are very often male-implemented innovations in the sense that
they are set up and supported by men, in industrial and ICT sectors, i.e malecontrolled sectors, unlike other markets where women have become a large
part of the labor force (for example the medical and health care sectors)
(Hacker, 1989; Blake, Hanson, 2005; Johansson, Lindberg, 2011).
It is therefore necessary to consider an extended framework of innovation to be able to observe a larger scope of innovation such as, for instance,
the appreciation of non-technological innovations and innovations with
local impact.
In many female-controlled sectors, such as the health care and services
sectors, innovations have been neglected while new types of innovation are
implemented in these areas (Johansson, Lindberg, 2011).
Simultaneously, this literature also focuses on more feminine innova­tions.
For example, feminine innovations are very often local and can be affected
by several contextual factors. They can locally enhance economic growth
and create employment. Blake and Hanson (2005), Morand and Manceau
(2009), Nählinder (2010) and Johansson and Lindberg (2011) highlight the
fact that women have started to enter male-dominated sectors. Nowadays,
as we have noted previously, some sectors are women-dominated and new
forms of innovations have been introduced. Surprisingly they have been
introduced by women, like some social, organizational and environmental
innovations. Women innovators seem to have an effective impact on their
local economies. Feminine innovations are based on a mixture of creativity
and imitation: women adapt universal innovations to their local context
n° 19 – Journal of Innovation Economics & Management – 2016/1 167
Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - Universidad de Chile - - 200.89.68.187 - 28/08/2019 23:32 - © De Boeck Supérieur
Gender gap in innovation: a confused link?
Sophia BELGHITI-MAHUT, Anne-Laurence LAFONT, Ouidad YOUSFI
Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - Universidad de Chile - - 200.89.68.187 - 28/08/2019 23:32 - © De Boeck Supérieur
INNOVATIVE BEHAVIOR
Despite the fact that studies on the link between entrepreneurship and innovation are still not conclusive, in practice they are very often positively associated (Morand, Manceau, 2009). This vision leads to a strong confusion
between innovative and entrepreneur behaviors. The studies in this area
focus on risk-taking and creativity (see among others: Kanter, 2000; Van de
Ven, 1993; Mumford, Gustafson, 1988). From this angle, women could also
appear less innovative in the sense that they seem more risk-averse and less
creative then men. That is what we will discuss and challenge at the end of
the following section.
Women and risk-taking: women are more risk-averse
than men
Innovation is closely related to risk and uncertainty. One cannot innovate
without taking risky decisions.
Unlike financial and economic literature, there is a large body of work on
risk aversion in social and psychological experimental studies, which analyze
differences in terms of risk-taking between men and women. Women appear
more risk-averse than men and therefore less innovative (see among others:
Eckel, Grossman, 2008; Booth, Nolen, 2012). The state of the art of Croson
and Gneezy (2009) confirms that women are very often labelled in social and
psychological studies as more risk-averse than men, except when it comes to
the professional population and managers: there are no gender differences in
terms of risk perception. These findings are drawn from gambling and lottery
games. Gender differences were noticed in terms of reactions and attitudes
towards risky situations. In fact, men overestimate their skills and capabilities
which lead them to underestimate risks. Men are supposed to like competition
168 Journal of Innovation Economics & Management – 2016/1 – n° 19
Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - Universidad de Chile - - 200.89.68.187 - 28/08/2019 23:32 - © De Boeck Supérieur
which creates new opportunities that have an impact on local economic
growth. This innovation process becomes creative imitation innovation
(Johansson, Lindberg, 2011). Unlike male innovations, feminine innovations cannot be adapted to every local environment as they are closely
related and affected by contextual factors.
With regard to these studies, women-led innovations are marginalized
as they do not belong to the traditional forms/scopes/spheres of innovations. This explains, to a significant extent, why women are invisible in
innovation studies and are very often considered as non-effective actors on
innovation.
Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - Universidad de Chile - - 200.89.68.187 - 28/08/2019 23:32 - © De Boeck Supérieur
and to perceive risky projects as challenging situations. Unlike men, women
avoid and overcome risky situations to escape penalties that could be generated. Furthermore, women are more easily affected, and more affected, than
men by contextual factors, for instance by the number of partners and their
gender (Slovic et al., 2002; Loewenstein et al., 2001; Harshman, Paivio, 1987).
However, all these results are not significant when samples consist of
women that are involved in enterprise milieus (Schubert et al., 1999). It seems
that professional experience diminishes women’s risk aversion and increases
their willingness to trust and increases their confidence. To go further on this
last idea, a new brand of studies on corporate governance and corporate risk
analyzes the effect of women on boards and leadership positions.
Studies started exploring the effect of women on boards as the most
important decision mechanism in enterprises. Empirical evidence on
whether women on boards increase the propensity to take risks or to display
risk-avoidance behavior is increasing (see among others: Berger et al., 2012;
Cosentino et al., 2012; Faccio et al., 2015, Loukil, Yousfi, 2015). The few
results on risk taking are based on financial risk-taking assessed by liquidity
measures (such as, for example, cash ratio11, leverage ratio12, etc.) and show
risk avoidance behavior on both developing and developed markets. This
behavior is displayed particularly in family businesses and when women are
politically connected, or were state officers.
When risk-taking is measured by other variables such as R&D expenses,
the level of total risk, the annual growth rate and the ratio of the market to
the book value of total assets, women sitting in boardrooms have no significant effect on strategic and managerial risk-taking.
To conclude, while a substantial literature on social economics has
shown that women are more risk-averse than men, we argue that this conclusion may be partially distorted and stereotyped and has to be reconsidered because, for instance, when it comes to the professional and managerial
population, less significant differences were found between men and women
(Bruce, Johnson, 1994; Johnson, Powell, 1994).
Women and creativity: another link to explore
Creativity and innovation are often used interchangeably in research studies (Scott, Bruce, 1994). However, it seems that there is some confusion
11. Cash ratio measures the level of asset liquidity. It is measured by the ratio of current assets
(net of stock) and current liabilities.
12. Leverage ratio is given by the ratio of the book value of long term debt and the market
value of equity.
n° 19 – Journal of Innovation Economics & Management – 2016/1 169
Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - Universidad de Chile - - 200.89.68.187 - 28/08/2019 23:32 - © De Boeck Supérieur
Gender gap in innovation: a confused link?
Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - Universidad de Chile - - 200.89.68.187 - 28/08/2019 23:32 - © De Boeck Supérieur
on the link between creativity and innovation and very often they are
confounded.
In fact, creativity is a subjective concept: it is the capability of an individual to bring and to conceive new ideas (Mumford, Gustafson, 1988) while
innovation is the ability to set up and introduce new changes in an organization using several resources. The combination of creativity and its implementation can lead to innovation under specific conditions that are not yet
completely known and identified (Kanter, 1988). Sometimes the innovation
comes from the recent and unexpected needs of the organization. Then the
innovator needs to design a new and profitable solution based on creative
resources and a creative way of combining these solutions.
As shown in the previous section, the academic literature provides several rough measures of innovation that actually measure the input or the
output of innovation, not the innovation itself (R&D expenditure and patents). These measures allow one to see what the success of a given innovation looks like. For instance, “R&D expenditure” is a common measure
of innovation in economic studies and it is also a measure of risk-taking.
Nevertheless, it definitely cannot capture the level of creativity in one innovation, while it is obvious that creativity is a key ingredient for the implementation of creative ideas and how to make them successful.
In practice, creativity and innovation are concepts that are too close,
in the sense that all innovations come from creative ideas that innovators have successfully transferred from the conceptual/intangible stages to
enterprise reality, with concrete added value. Note that no academic papers
analyze the link between them, as creativity belongs to the non-measurable
sphere.
In order to see whether women have that kind of creative thinking that is
specific to innovators, we examine the entrepreneurship literature, particularly studies on entrepreneur profiles. This brand of the literature considers
that entrepreneurs are innovators as they take risky decisions and create new
businesses. As only a small proportion of companies are headed by women,
they cannot have a positive impact on innovation. The proportion is almost
26% in France, the UK and Sweden (Sánchez Cañizares, Fuentes García,
2010). Second, women are less likely to set up companies than men: only
30% of new companies are created by women. While some studies show that
women being less entrepreneurial than men is due to the lack of motivation
and incentives (Eurobarometer, 2015).
Casero Diaz et al. (2007) and Sánchez Cañizares and Fuentes García
(2010) report a similar desire to create a company, but a greater importance
of real or perceived barriers for women.
170 Journal of Innovation Economics & Management – 2016/1 – n° 19
Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - Universidad de Chile - - 200.89.68.187 - 28/08/2019 23:32 - © De Boeck Supérieur
Sophia BELGHITI-MAHUT, Anne-Laurence LAFONT, Ouidad YOUSFI
Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - Universidad de Chile - - 200.89.68.187 - 28/08/2019 23:32 - © De Boeck Supérieur
At the same time, pursuing profitable opportunities to increase economic
growth intensifies competition and the need for challenging and creative
thinking to do things better and in a more efficient way, using the existing
resources of the firm. The literature has started to explore the role played
by intrapreneurs in the firm: it argues that these actors play a major role as
well as entrepreneurs in the sense that they can initiate changes and innovations. Indeed, intrapreneurs are defined as organizational members who
go beyond their required duties to promote an innovative change, thinking
like entrepreneurs and looking for challenging opportunities to make their
organizations more profitable. They have to be imaginative and creative and
can turn ideas or prototypes into profitable realities (Basso, Legrain, 2004).
These qualities are key elements which contribute to innovation. This is
despite the fact that many reports highlight the increasing impact of women
in their organizations, enterprises and globally on their environment.
According to the entrepreneurship literature, we are tempted to conclude that women are not effective innovative actors. However, this conclusion is biased in several ways.
First, some feminist studies carry out an in-depth analysis of innovative
behavior in organizations and highlight a biased vision due to stereotypes.
Foss et al. (2013) show that women are as innovative as men in generating
new ideas. However, women’s ideas are not supported as much as the ideas
of their male colleagues: there is a lack of collegial support in implementing
their ideas. Consequently, women’s’ ideas are less often implemented in the
organization.
According to Cooper (2012) and Alsos et al. (2013), women are not
perceived as innovators (or not as much as men), their ideas are not put
forward and therefore not implemented; these results show that women are
not lacking innovation capabilities but stereotypes interfere. Alsos et al.
(2013) suggest that the question that could be answered is not who is creative but rather who has the power in organizations and who is listened to?
The authors notice that the question of power is seldom addressed in innovation literature. In this paper we deal with this link.
Second, studies highlight that women’s behavior is underestimated
because of methodological questions. While many high-tech firms considered
as leaders in innovation activity are managed by teams that are gender diverse,
including women and men (Diaz-Garcia et al., 2013), empirical studies often
consider the role of one person who takes the decision to innovate; typically
this person is the CEO who, surprisingly, is most often a man. In these studies,
women are hidden and their role is invisible and non-significant, which does
not mean that they are inactive or incapable of innovation.
n° 19 – Journal of Innovation Economics & Management – 2016/1 171
Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - Universidad de Chile - - 200.89.68.187 - 28/08/2019 23:32 - © De Boeck Supérieur
Gender gap in innovation: a confused link?
Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - Universidad de Chile - - 200.89.68.187 - 28/08/2019 23:32 - © De Boeck Supérieur
Third, as entrepreneurship and innovation are closely related, the innovator in entrepreneurship studies is a particular case of an entrepreneur profile. In fact, entrepreneurship research displays a restrictive approach towards
individuals and creativity, in the sense that the innovator is an outstanding
entrepreneur: the one who will bring a brilliant idea to enhance economic
activity. Accordingly, it focuses on radical, technological, exported innovations. As highlighted in the previous section, many types of innovation are
not yet fully explored. Many factors that could influence innovations, in
addition to risk-taking and creativity, are neglected such as, for instance,
pedagogy, collaboration, empathy and reciprocity, which have key effects on
managerial, social and environmental innovations.
Taking these aspects into account will provide a more gender neutral
vision of innovative behaviour. Then it is necessary to analyze in-depth the
determinants of innovative behavior in a link with the type of innovation.
CONCLUSION
The present paper analyses why there is a lack of gender perspective in
innovation literature. The existing body of work on innovation considers
neither the places where innovation happened nor the participants to the
innovation processes. In other words, individuals are invisible in empirical
studies.
Adding a gender perspective to the extensive literature on innovation
will help to rethink the innovation framework, so that it is capable of observing a wider scope of innovations than those which are now marginalized
such as, for instance, incremental, social and organisational innovations. In
addition, gender is an individual characteristic which could better describe
innovator profiles. Innovator profile is still a puzzling issue in innovation.
First, we focused on the effects of normative thinking and stereotypes
leading to a restrictive/exclusive approach of innovation, particularly on the
way types/areas/determinants of innovations and innovator behaviour.
Second, recent studies provide strong evidence that the gender blind
vision is a significant barrier to developing more creative ideas and behaviors. Unfortunately, this is going beyond the assessment of many growth
opportunities (Vinnova, 2011).
“To include a gender perspective in analysis of an innovation milieu is not
a matter of adding one more factor; it means highlighting one aspect of
the system that is yielding effects, regardless of whether these effects are
measured or not” (Schiebinger, 2008).
172 Journal of Innovation Economics & Management – 2016/1 – n° 19
Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - Universidad de Chile - - 200.89.68.187 - 28/08/2019 23:32 - © De Boeck Supérieur
Sophia BELGHITI-MAHUT, Anne-Laurence LAFONT, Ouidad YOUSFI
Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - Universidad de Chile - - 200.89.68.187 - 28/08/2019 23:32 - © De Boeck Supérieur
Finally, we provided evidence that female-implemented innovations and
female-controlled industries are neglected and marginalized in innovation
studies. However, a recent and emergent literature, that is not yet extensive,
highlights the fact that women are inclined to introduce innovations that
are locally implemented, very often to achieve social and environmental
goals. These innovations cannot be suitable for other environments.
What could be learned from existing literature on innovation when it is
considered from a gendered angle?
It is definitely urgent to reconsider the definition of innovation and to
rethink innovation by adding the gender dimension (Blake, Hanson, 2005;
Johansson, Lindberg, 2011) to assess the individual characteristics and the
environment of the innovator. This could definitely overcome gendered
blind vision in the current innovation literature.
In order to shed light on feminine innovations, it would be interesting
to clearly assess differences and similarities between innovator and entrepreneur profiles.
Innovations do not imply undertaking new businesses and vice versa
being an entrepreneur is not necessarily an innovative behaviour.
Furthermore, it is necessary to refocus on all forms of innovations, whatever their initiators and their impacts: this implies that policymakers need to
take into account the multidimensionality of innovation and the necessity
to support all innovator actors in all sectors to promote a more responsible
innovation that may affect the economic sphere in indirect ways.
In future research, it would be interesting to study innovation factors, the
innovator’s profile and the determinants of innovation potential. Looking
for individual characteristics and specificities is a challenging issue that will
probably enhance our understanding of innovation and create more growth
opportunities. The gender approach will offer an extended framework that
goes beyond enterprise milieus and set up new areas of perspective. It will
help to better understand new ways of innovation, the innovator’s behavior
and therefore to better define innovation itself.
RÉFÉRENCES
ADAMS, R. B., FERREIRA, D., (2009), Women in the Boardroom and their Impact on
Governance and Performance, Journal of Financial Economics, 94, 291-309.
ADLER, M. J., IZRAELI, D. M. (1988), Women in Management Worldwide, New York,
M. E. Sharpe.
ALSOS, G. A, LJUNGGREN, A., HYTTI, U. (2013), Gender and Innovation: State of
the Art and a Research Agenda, International Journal of gender and Entrepreneurship, 5(3),
236-256.
n° 19 – Journal of Innovation Economics & Management – 2016/1 173
Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - Universidad de Chile - - 200.89.68.187 - 28/08/2019 23:32 - © De Boeck Supérieur
Gender gap in innovation: a confused link?
Sophia BELGHITI-MAHUT, Anne-Laurence LAFONT, Ouidad YOUSFI
ARFKEN, D. E., BELLAR, S. L., HELMS, M. M., (2004), The Ultimate Glass Ceiling
Revisited: The Presence of Women on Corporate Boards, Journal of Business Ethics, 50(2),
177-186.
BANTEL, K. A., JACKSON, S. E. (1989), Top Management and Innovations in Banking:
Does the Composition of the Top Team Make a Difference?, Strategic Management Journal,
10, 107-124.
BASSO, O., LEGRAIN, T. (2004), La dynamique entrepreneuriale dans les grands groupes,
Rapport, Institut de l’Entreprise, www.institut-entreprise.fr.
Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - Universidad de Chile - - 200.89.68.187 - 28/08/2019 23:32 - © De Boeck Supérieur
BELGHITI-MAHUT, S., LAFONT, A. L. (2010), Lien entre présence des femmes dans le
top management et performance financière des entreprises en France, Revue Gestion 2000,
27(5), 131-146.
BERGER, A., KICK, T., SCHAECK, K. (2012), Executive Board Composition and Bank
Risk Taking, Discussion Paper Deutsche Bundesbank, 03/2012, http://www.bde.es/f/webbde/
GAP/Secciones/SalaPrensa/Agenda/Eventos/12/Ago/08.schaeck-berger-kick-dayahead.pdf.
BLAKE, M., HANSON, S. (2005), Rethinking Innovation: Context and gender,
Environment and Planning, 37, 681-701.
BOOTH, A., NOLEN, P. (2012), Gender Differences in Risk Behaviour: Does Nurture
Matter?, Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, 122(558), 56-78.
BOULOUTA, I., (2013), Hidden Connections: The Link between Board Gender Diversity
and Corporate Social Performance, Journal of Business Ethics, 113, 185-197.
BOURDIEU, P. (1998), La domination masculine, Liber, Paris, Le Seuil.
BRÄNNBACK, M., BERGLUND, K., CARSRUD, A. L. (2012), Understanding the
Entrepreneur and Innovator Nexus as Basis for the Coming of the Science of the Artificial,
paper presented at RENT Research in Entrepreneurship and Small Business, Lyon (France).
BRUCE, A. C., JOHNSON, J. E. V. (1994), Male and Female Betting Behaviour: New
Perspectives, Journal of Gambling studies, 10(2), 183-198.
BUNNELL, T., COE, N. (2001), Spaces and Scales of Innovation’ Progress, Human
Geography, 25, 569-589.
CAMPBELL, K., MÍNGUEZ-VERA, A. (2008), Gender Diversity in the Boardroom and
Firm Financial Performance, Journal of Business Ethics, 83, 435-451.
CARTER, D., SIMKINS, B., SIMPSON, W. (2003), Corporate Governance, Board
Diversity and Firm Value, Financial Review, 38, 33-53.
CARTER, D., D’SOUZA, F., SIMKINS, B., SIMPSON, W. (2010), The Gender and
Ethnic Diversity of US Boards and Board Committees and Firm Financial Performance,
Corporate Governance: An International Review, 18, 396-414.
COOPER, R. (2012), The Gender Gap in Union Leadership in Australia: A qualitative
Study, Journal of Industrial Relations, 54(2), 131-146.
COSENTINO, N., MONTALTO, F., DONATO, C., VIA, A. (2012), Gender Diversity in
the Corporate Boardroom: Do Women Affect Risk?, Rivista di Politica Economica, 2, 73-95.
CROSON, R., GNEEZY, U. (2009), Gender Differences in Preferences, Journal of Economic
Literature, 47(2), 1-27.
174 Journal of Innovation Economics & Management – 2016/1 – n° 19
Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - Universidad de Chile - - 200.89.68.187 - 28/08/2019 23:32 - © De Boeck Supérieur
BELGHITI-MAHUT, S. (2004), Pourquoi atteignent-elles si rarement le sommet ?
Examen des déterminants de l’avancement hiérarchique des femmes cadres, Revue Française
de Gestion, 30(151), 145-160.
Gender gap in innovation: a confused link?
DIAZ CASERO, J. C., SANCHEZ ESCOBEDO, M. C., POSTIGO JIMENEZ, M. V.
(2007), Women and Entrepreneurship in Estremadura: A Comparative Analysis, in Ayala
Calvo, J. C. (coord), Conocimiento, innovación y emprendedores, camino al futuro.
DIAZ-GARCIA, C., GONZALEZ-MORENO, A., SAEZ-MARTINEZ, F. (2013), Gender
Diversity within R&D Teams: Its Impact on Radicalness of Innovation, Innovations:
Management, Policy & Practice, 15, 149-160.
DRUCKER, P. F., (1985), Innovation and Entrepreneurship-Practice and principles, New-York,
Harper & Row, Business & Economics.
Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - Universidad de Chile - - 200.89.68.187 - 28/08/2019 23:32 - © De Boeck Supérieur
EUROBAROMETER (2015), Gender Equality, http://ec.europa.eu/justice/gender-equality/files/documents/eurobarometer_report_2015_en.pdf.
EUROPEAN COMMISSION (2015), The Gender Balance in Decision Making Positions,
Brussels, Report on: http://ec.europa.eu/justice/gender-equality/gender-decision-making/
index_en.htm.
FACCIO, M., MARCHICA, M. T., MURA, R. (2015), CEO Gender, Corporate RiskTaking, and the Efficiency of Capital Allocation, Paper in Progress, http://ssrn.com/
abstract=2021136.
FAGENSON, E. A. (1990), Perceived Masculine and Feminine Attributes Examined as a
Function of Individuals’ Sex and Level in the Organizational Power Hierarchy: A Test of
Four Theoretical perspectives, Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(2),14-27.
FAGENSON, E. A. (1993), Diversity in Management: Introduction and the Importance
of Women in Management, in Fagenson, E. A. (ed.), Women in Management: Trends, Issues
and Challenges in Managerial Diversity, Newbury Park, CA, Sage Publications.
FAGERBERG, J. (2005), Innovation: A Guide to the Literature, in Fagerberg, J., Mowery,
D. C., Nelson, R. R. (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Innovation, Oxford, Oxford University
Press, 1-26.
FAGERBERG, J., MOWERY, D. C., NELSON, R. R. (2005), The Oxford Handbook of
Innovation, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
FRANCOEUR, C., LABELLE, R., SINCLAIR-DEGAGNÉ, B. (2007), Gender Diversity
in Corporate Governance and Top Management, Journal of Business Ethics, 81, 83-95.
FELDMAN, M. (2000), Location and Innovation: The New Economic Geography of
Innovation, Spillovers, and Agglomeration, in Clark, G., Feldman, M., Gertler, M. (eds),
Oxford Handbook of Economic Geography, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
FOSS, L., WOLK, K., MOILANEN, M. (2013), Creativity and Implementations of New
Ideas: Do Organisational Structure, Work and Gender Matter?, International Journal of
Gender and Entrepreneurship, 5(3), 298-322.
FREEMAN, C. (1990), Schumpeter’s Business Cycles Revisited, Evolving Technology and
Market Structure: Studies in Schumpeterian Economics, A. Heertje, M. Perlman (eds.), Ann
Arbor, The University of Michigan Press, 17-38.
HACKER, S. (1989), Pleasure, Power and Technology, London, Unwin Hyman.
HARSHMAN, R. A., PAIVIO, A. (1987), Paradoxical’ Sex Differences in Self-reported
Imagery, Canadian Journal of Psychology, 41, 287-302.
n° 19 – Journal of Innovation Economics & Management – 2016/1 175
Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - Universidad de Chile - - 200.89.68.187 - 28/08/2019 23:32 - © De Boeck Supérieur
ECKEL, C. C., GROSSMAN, P. J. (2008), Men, Women and Risk Aversion: Experimental
Evidence, Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, 1(113), in Plott, C., Smith, V.
(eds), New York, Elsevier, 1061-1073. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1883693
Sophia BELGHITI-MAHUT, Anne-Laurence LAFONT, Ouidad YOUSFI
HERITIER, F. (2007), Masculin-Féminin, 2, Paris, Odile Jacob, Réédition.
HILLMAN, A. J., CANNELLA, A. A., PAETZOLD, R. L. (2000), The Resource
Dependence Role of Corporate Directors: Strategic Adaptation of Board Composition in
Response to Environmental Change, Journal of Management Studies, 37, 235-255.
HILLMAN, A. J. SHROPSHIRE, C., CANNELLA, A. A. (2007), Organizational Predic­
tors of Women of Corporate Boards, Academy of Management Journal, 50(4), 941‑952.
HORNER, M. (1972), Towards an Understanding of Achievement Related Conflicts in
Women, Journal of Social, 28, 157-176.
Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - Universidad de Chile - - 200.89.68.187 - 28/08/2019 23:32 - © De Boeck Supérieur
JOHNSON, J., POWELL, P. (1994), Decision Making, Risk and Gender: Are Managers
Different?, British Journal of Management, 5(2), 123-138.
JOHANSSON, A. W. LINDBERG, M. (2011), Making a Case for Gender-inclusive
Innovation through the Concept of Creative Imitation, Annals of Innovation and
Entrepreneurship, 2(2), 1-13.
KANTER, R. M. (1977), Men and Women of the Corporation, New York, Basic Books.
KANTER, R. M. (1988), When a Thousand Flowers Bloom: Structural, Collective, and
Social Conditions for Innovation in Organizations, Research in Organizational Behavior, 10,
169-211.
LAUFER, J., MARRY, C., MARUANI, M. (2003), Le travail du genre – les sciences sociales
du travail à l’épreuve des différences de sexe, Paris, La Découverte.
LOEWENSTEIN, G. F., WEBER, E. U., HSEE, C. K., WELCH, N. (2001), Risk as
Feelings, Psychological Bulletin, 127(2), 267-86.
LOUKIL, N, YOUSFI, O. (2015), Does Gender Diversity on Board Lead to Risk-Taking?
Empirical Evidence from Tunisia, Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, Wiley Online
Library, Doi: 10.1002/cjas.1326.
MARVEL, M. R., LEE, I. H. (2011), Gender and the Innovation Activity of Entrepreneurs:
A Multilevel Analysis, Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, 6, 283-296.
MORAND, P., MANCEAU, D. (2009), Pour une nouvelle vision de l’innovation, Rapport
officiel, Paris, La Documentation française.
MORGAN, G, KRISTENSEN, P. H., WHITLEY, R. (2001), The Multinational Firm.
Organizing Across Institutional and National Divides, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
MUMFORD, M. D., GUSTAFSON, S. B. (1988), Creativity Syndrome: Integration,
Application and Innovation, Psychol. Bull, 103, 27-43.
MURRAY, A. I., (1989), Top Management Group Performance and Firm Performance,
Strategic Management Journal, 20, 125-141.
MINITTI, M. (2009), Gender Issues in Entrepreneurship, Foundations and Trends in
Entrepreneurship, 5, 497-621.
NÄHLINDER, J. (2010), Where are all the Female Innovators? Nurses as Innovators in a
Public Sector Innovation Project, Journal of Technology Management and Innovation, 5(1),
13-29.
RIGER, S., GALLIGAN, P. (1980), Women in Management: An exploration of
Competing Paradigms, American Psychologist, 35, 902-910.
176 Journal of Innovation Economics & Management – 2016/1 – n° 19
Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - Universidad de Chile - - 200.89.68.187 - 28/08/2019 23:32 - © De Boeck Supérieur
ILO (2001), Breaking through the Glass Ceiling: Women in Management, International
Labour Office, Geneva, Switzerland.
Gender gap in innovation: a confused link?
ROSENBERG, T. (2002), Queer Feministic Agenda, Atlas förlag, Stockholm.
RUEF, M. (2002), Strong Ties, Weak Ties and Islands: Structural and Cultural Predictors
of Organizational Innovation, Industrial and Corporate Change, 11, 427-449.
SANCHEZ CAÑIZARES, S. M., FUENTES GARCIA, F. J. (2010), Gender Differences
in Entrepreneurial Attitudes, Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal,
29(8), 766-786.
SCHIEBINGER, L. (2000), Has Feminism Changed Science?, Feminisms at a Millennium,
25(4),1171-1175.
Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - Universidad de Chile - - 200.89.68.187 - 28/08/2019 23:32 - © De Boeck Supérieur
SCHIEBINGER, L., KLINGE, I., ARLOW, A., NEWMAN, S. (2010), Gendered
Innovations Mainstreaming Sex and Gender Analysis into Basic and Applied Research: Metaanalysis of Gender and Science Research, Topic report: www.genderandscience.org.
SCHIEBINGER, L., SCHRAUDNER, M. (2011), Interdisciplinary Approaches to
Achieving Gendered Innovations in Science, Medicine, and Engineering, Interdisciplinary
Science Reviews, special issue on Gender in Science, 36(2), 154-167.
SCHUBERT, R., GYSLER, M., BROWN, M., BRACHINGER, H. W. (1999), Financial
Decision-Making: Are Women Really more Risk Averse?, American Economic Review
Papers and Proceedings, 89, 381-385.
SCOTT S. G., BRUCE R. A. (1994), Determinants of Innovative Behavior: A Path
Model of Individual Innovation in the Workplace, The Academy of Management Journal,
37(3), 580-607.
SLOVIC, P., FINUCANE, M. L., PETERS, E., MACGREGOR D. G. (2002), The Affect
Heuristic, in Gilovich, T., Griffin, D., Kahneman, D. (eds), Heuristics and Biases: The
Psychology of Intuitive Judgment, New York, Cambridge University Press, 397-420.
SOLAKOGLU, M. (2013), The Role of Gender Diversity on Firm Performance: A
Regression Quantile Approach, Applied Economics Letters, 20, 1562-1566.
TERBORG, J. R. (1977), Women in Management Research, Journal of Applied Psychology,
62(6), 647.
TURNER, L. (2009), Gender Diversity and Innovative Performance, International Journal
Innovation and Sustainable Development, 4, 123-134.
VAN DE VEN, A. H. (1993), Managing the Process of Organizational Innovation, in
Huber, G. P., Glick, W. H. (eds.), Organizational Change and Redesign: Ideas and Insights for
Improving Performance, New York, Oxford University Press, 269-294.
VINNOVA (2011), Innovation and Gender, VINNOVA. VINNOVA Information VI
2011:03 ISSN 1650-3120, http://www.vinnova.se/upload/EPiStorePDF/vi-11-03.pdf.
WESTPHAL, J. D., MILTON, L. P. (2000), How Experience and Network Ties Affect
the Influence of Demographic Minorities on Corporate Boards, Administrative Science
Quarterly, 45, 366-398.
n° 19 – Journal of Innovation Economics & Management – 2016/1 177
Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - Universidad de Chile - - 200.89.68.187 - 28/08/2019 23:32 - © De Boeck Supérieur
SCHIEBINGER, L. (2008), Getting more Women into Science and Engineering
Knowledge Issues, in Schiebinger, L. (ed.), Gendered Innovations in Science and Engineering,
Stanford, Stanford University Press, 1-21.