Marjolein Dennissen

136 The Herculean task of diversity networks master’s house” (Lorde, 1984, p. 110). Diversity networks could be regarded as a master’s tool , and this made me question whether they could ever be effective in dismantling the master’s house . Observing how diversity networks draw on palatable, feel-good ways of diversity management, as well as neoliberal discourses of individual responsibility and choice, made it difficult to see the potential of these networks. I strived to overcome metaphysical pathos by looking for instances where diversity networks do not avoid addressing and discussing their experiences of discrimination and exclusion. Literature on collective activism in organizations (e.g., Meyerson & Scully (2005) on tempered radicals and Scully & Segal (2002) on passionwith an umbrella ) has helped me to develop such a lens. I noticed that especially in Govt, diversity networks ventilated their discontent with the organizational culture that was perceived as hostile toward, for example, LGBT or chronically ill employees. Network members were driven by an intrinsic motivation for social justice to really change their organization. Furthermore, I also saw the importance of diversity networks for network members. This importance is probably most clearly illustrated by the example of undoing otherness in Chapter 4, which speaks to the importance of sharing unpleasant experiences to shift them from individual experiences to collective ones. In addition, I frequently consultedwithmy supervisors about my empirical findings, and they would challenge me on my metaphysical pathos, stimulating me to consider possible alternatives. Being involved with different diversity networks for two years has influenced my role as a researcher. Especially in diversity networks that had regular board meetings, which I could easily attend as they took place on set dates and times, members became familiar with my presence and even considered me part of the network, remarking “we would miss you when you are not there”, or “you now belong to the network too”. Network members greeted me as they would greet other network members. This involvement established trust and somehow indicated that my presence did not affect their meetings in the sense that they were politically correct or did not discuss particular issues. My close involvement with these networks made it more difficult for me to articulate critique, such as when they used more palatable, neoliberal, feel-good approaches to organizational diversity. However, I have also witnessed emotional encounters during observations and heard emotional stories during interviews about discrimination and exclusion. The injustice behind these stories affected me emotionally. For example, during an interview with an LGBT network member, I was asked if I ever think about walking hand in hand with my partner. Being in a heterosexual relationship, I do not, but the respondent told me emotionally that as a gay man, he did. Not only did this story affect me personally, but it also made me realize my own heterosexual privilege. This helped me to continuously reflect on my own identity, as well as the role of my identity in the relationships with my respondents (cf. Essers, 2009). A final point of reflection regarding the comparative aspect of my research. In the current literature on diversity networks, studies have primarily focused on one particular type of diversity networks, that is, women’s networks, ethnic minority networks, or LGBT networks. To date, studies on other diversity networks, such as those related to age, religion, or disability,