IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Buying science and selling science: gender differences in the market for commercial science


  • Fiona Murray
  • Leigh Graham


Growing opportunities for academic scientists to commercialize their science has led to a new commercial marketplace. Recent evidence suggests that “commercial science” participation is characterized by gender stratification. Using interviews with life science faculty at one high-status university we examine the mechanisms that instituted, reinforced, and reduced the gender gap in commercial science between 1975 and 2005. We find gender differences from processes on both the demand—(opportunity) and supply—(interest) sides; of deeper significance are the intersections between these sides of the market. Specifically, explicit early exclusion of women left them with fewer opportunities in the marketplace, weakening their socialization and skills in commercial science. This uneven opportunity structure left senior/mid-career women with fewer chances to confront the ambiguities of this new practice, resulting in their greater ambivalence. Gender differences remain significant among junior faculty but we find their decline prompted by greater gender-equality in advisor mentoring and the presence of institutional support which together have started to reshape the supply-side of commercial science. Copyright 2007 , Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Fiona Murray & Leigh Graham, 2007. "Buying science and selling science: gender differences in the market for commercial science," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 16(4), pages 657-689, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:indcch:v:16:y:2007:i:4:p:657-689

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item


    Access and download statistics


    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:indcch:v:16:y:2007:i:4:p:657-689. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Oxford University Press). General contact details of provider: .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.