Marjolein Dennissen

87 Diversity killjoys? resources and status that are systematically reinforced by power relations” (Scully & Segal, 2002, p. 128). Several scholars have used social movement perspectives to study the collective action of social identity groups, such as diversity networks, in the workplace, analyzing who becomes involved in collective action, why and what tactics they use to contest and change organizational power relations (e.g., Creed & Scully, 2000; Githens & Aragon, 2009; Savenije, 2015; Scully, 2009; Scully & Segal, 2002). These studies show for example how these particular groups are formed and mobilized (Scully & Segal, 2002), and how employees as workplace activists use individual encounters to address organizational norms or create awareness about equality issues (Creed & Scully, 2000; Meyerson & Scully, 1995). Other studies have shed light on the efforts of an LGBT lobby to collectively advocate policy changes with regard to domestic partner benefits (Githens, 2012), or how a group of women employees, by the act of coming together and share experiences, discovered structural gender inequality in staff meetings. In case of the latter, the women were able to open up discussion about the tenor of the meetings and press for specific changes (Scully & Segal, 2002). Drawing on insights from social movement studies, previous studies have explored what diversity networks do to influence organizational management and to pursue organizational change (Creed & Scully, 2000; Scully & Segal, 2002). Yet, relying on surveys, (historical) documents and interviews as main methods to collect data about diversity networks, these studies do not show what exactly happens in network meetings and how diversity networks influence organizational management. Embedded in organizations, diversity networks have to maneuver between their own objectives in striving for organizational equality, and the goals of the organizations’ management (Colgan & McKearney, 2012; Foldy, 2002; Scully & Segal, 2002). Working, and moreover networking, for equality in organizations is complex because of the very closeness of the power that is contested (Scully & Segal, 2002). Although diversity networks offer a semi-autonomous space to identify commonalities based on shared social identities and provide possible openings for change, these commonalities may be harnessed to the goals of the organization (Foldy, 2002). For instance, previous research has shown that to gain support from their management, diversity networks often have to moderate their tone to get their message across (Scully & Segal, 2002). As such, diversity networks have to perform a “complex balancing act” (Colgan &McKearney, 2012, p. 362) between representing marginalized employees pursuing an equality agenda, and the risk of being coopted by the organization. In line with Berger (2015), I argue that a focus on individual perceptions alone (solely obtained from interview and survey data) is limited when examining the actual networking practices that diversity networks engage in. For instance, earlier studies did not allow for the exploration of how collective networking is done in actual space and time (Benschop, 2009; Berger, 2015). In addition to insight into “how groups mobilize to challenge inequalities”, we also need insight into how mobilized groups actually challenge inequalities. This necessitates more in-depth knowledge about how diversity networks perform their balancing act, how they bring their message across, how they moderate and negotiate, how they build coalitions,