Journal

Why diversity matters

Diversity matters. It matters partly because the IP profession should look and feel like the population it serves; that is one of the ways in which consumer confidence is gained and sustained. It matters also because it’s important that we secure the very best people to become patent and trade mark attorneys, and no-one should feel excluded by who they are. IPReg’s recent diversity survey of registered attorneys, which we first carried out three years ago, has now been completed and assessed; and the results are not only really interesting, but they should give us pause for reflection, and they should also be a spur to action, to see how we can try and help the profession to become even better.

• Nearly 40% of registered attorneys took part in this year’s survey – marginally, but only marginally, more than last time. Forty per cent participation is pretty good by comparison with many other similar surveys; and the results are statistically significant; but we can and should also aim for a higher participation rate in future. My hope is that gradually, over the years and as the survey becomes more securely established, the percentage will rise.
• There are some interesting bits of data that spring out of the survey.
• Trade mark attorneys are more likely to be female, for example; whereas patent attorneys are more likely to be male.
• 13% of respondents declared that they were neurodiverse, almost in line with the assumed national average of 15%.
• 43% of those taking part said that they were part of the first generation in their family to go to university.
• 96% of those surveyed had gone to university; this is of course totally unsurprising in a profession that demands higher-education experience and knowledge.
• 16% indicated that they were relatively new to the IP profession, having joined since 2016.

Most of these statistics, though interesting and significant, do not seem to have changed very much over the past three years.

Perhaps most striking is the result of the question we asked about caring responsibilities. A third of all respondents have caring responsibilities – many for children, but some for adults and elderly relatives. This was a factor that emerged quite strongly from the last survey; and it prompted us to think very carefully about the need to re-shape the way in which CPD (continuous professional development) is carried out. We made radical changes to our CPD requirements, as part of our overall regulatory review last year; and part of our thinking arose from the need to consider carefully those who take time out from the profession in order to fulfil caring responsibilities. Ensuring that professional skill and knowledge is appropriate for a return to active engagement in IP is essential, but the requirements must be practical.

The diversity survey tells us a lot about the world of IP professionals. It enables all of us to shape that world better for consumers; and it will help IPReg to create the very best regulatory environment for the future. We will need to continue to make progress.

Lord Chris Smith, Chair of IPReg