This empirical study aims to examine the intertwining of doing gender, networking and equality and/or inequality within a science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) network that aims to improve gender equality.
Based on participant observation of network meetings, semi-structured interviews and drawing networking maps with network members, we use networking and a multidimensional process of doing gender as our analytical lens to identify cracks in the gender order.
The network predominantly focuses on STEM-related tasks, amplifying the advantages of well-connected male scientists and marginalizing women, early-career researchers and those in management roles with a social science background. Cracks in the existing gender order emerge in two ways: informally, when members begin to question stereotypical forms of masculinity, and formally, when the network collectively does gender equality work. However, most efforts are focused on fixing the numbers of women in leadership, with less emphasis on structural or knowledge changes.
The paper presents the new concept of hegemonic profiles to go beyond hegemonic masculinity and include intersectionality in STEM networks. By applying a multidimensional perspective on doing gender, it provides new empirical insights into how hegemonic profiles are reinforced and challenged in everyday networking. The findings demonstrate how change is enacted both informally and formally within the network.
Introduction
This paper contributes to the literature on networking and gender equality (Benschop, 2009; Durbin, 2011; Ozkazanc-Pan and Clark Muntean, 2018). This literature studies how diversity networks such as women's, LGBTIQ+ and disability networks (Dennissen et al., 2020; Papafilippou et al., 2022) contribute to equality. These networks are often analysed as diversity management instruments (Dennissen et al., 2019) and as contexts for implementing actions aimed at countering the exclusivity of networks that are both numerically and culturally male-dominated (Beck et al., 2022; Sattari and Sandefur, 2019). We add to this literature by identifying how the doing of gender in networking shapes the potential of traditionally male-dominated networks to foster equality.
This empirical paper examines how a network in the science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) field engages with gender equality. While research on networking for equality in STEM remains limited, these networks make for interesting cases as they do work on gender equality, often incentivized by European funding requirements. Although often shaped by their contingent male dominance and reinforcing patterns of inequality, they also hold the potential to drive change when members actively engage in initiatives that promote equality.
Research indicates that STEM networks remain predominantly male-dominated (Beck et al., 2022; Sattari and Sandefur, 2019), adhering to traditional images of hegemonic masculinities (Connell, 2005). In Western societies, these masculinities, often associated with white, middle-class, heterosexual and cisgender men, are linked to cultural stereotypes about “natural” male competence in science and technology (Bridges et al., 2023; Ortner, 1972). Members who align with these characteristics tend to benefit more from networking in STEM, gaining easier access to career resources and opportunities (Benschop et al., 2015; Ozkazanc-Pan and Clark Muntean, 2018; Papafilippou et al., 2022). Conversely, women, non-binary people and men who do not conform to hegemonic masculinities are either excluded from these STEM networks or face marginalization, stereotyping, sexism or discrimination (Bridges et al., 2023; Kräft, 2022; Martin and Barnard, 2013). These experiences hinder their representation and visibility as capable members, role models and leaders, while also limiting their access to connections, collaborations and mentorship opportunities (O'Brien et al., 2023; Ward, 2008).
Despite or perhaps precisely because of their exclusive nature, we argue that traditional STEM networks could play a crucial role in driving gender equality change by actively involving members in such change. Efforts to ensure networks' accountability for equality are so far reflected in financial incentives, such as the European Commission's funding conditions, which require research networks to address gender equality within their structures [1] (Commission, 2023). However, there is a research gap in understanding how equality is actually advocated for within STEM networks. To examine how members of a traditional STEM network contribute to advancing gender equality or reproducing gender inequality, we draw theoretical inspiration from hegemonic masculinity (Connell, 2005) and adopt a “doing” approach on “doing” networking (Benschop, 2009) and “doing” gender (West and Zimmerman, 1987). The research question of our study is:
How are gender and networking intertwined in a traditional STEM network and with what consequences for inequality and equality?
The paper presents a case study of a network where members strive to improve gender equality within a context that is theoretically characterized by “old boy” structures and masculine connotations. We explore how members of a European Union (EU)-funded STEM network, which as one of its aims has to promote gender equality, “do” gender while networking. We examine how these processes shape the (re)production of equality and/or inequality. We show that networking within the STEM network reproduces inequality through gender segregation and hegemonic gender roles and hierarchies. However, networking also challenges the gender order, speaking to the potential of networking for equality within STEM networks.
Theoretical background
To examine doing gender and networking within a traditional STEM network, we relate to the broader scientific debates on gendered organizational structures (Acker, 2006; Bleijenbergh, 2024; Galsanjigmed and Sekiguchi, 2023; Hodgins et al., 2022), gendered networks (Belle et al., 2014; Cross and Armstrong, 2008; McDonald, 2011; Scalera Elliott et al., 2023) and intersectionality in STEM (Cech, 2022; Corneille et al., 2019; Sparks, 2017).
Gender equality in organizations is widely discussed in the literature. Scholars emphasize that organizations are not neutral arenas but, as “gendered organizations” (Acker, 2006), are embedded in power structures that continuously (re)produce gender orders. Examining “gendered organizations” makes it possible to uncover how (gender) inequalities are both rooted in organizational cultures, formal structures, identities and everyday interactions, for example, through the reproduction of gender stereotypes (Galsanjigmed and Sekiguchi, 2023) or the resistance towards equality work (Hodgins et al., 2022). Authors show that in these cultures and underneath these structures, hegemonic masculine values shape who is valued in organizations and who is not (Sheerin and Linehan, 2025). In this research particularly, we draw on the concept of hegemonic masculinity (Connell, 2005) to analyse how certain forms of masculinities are constructed and established as norms, reproducing a gender order that, in Western societies, marginalizes women, non-binary people and non-conforming men.
The second debate that is relevant for our research question is on gendered networks. Historically, scholars have traced the constitution of gendered networks back to so-called “old boy networks” (Cullen and Perez-Truglia, 2023; FitzGerald, 1994; Reeves et al., 2017), which restricted access to resources to particular white, upper-class, heterosexual, well educated and cisgender men. Today, researchers note how networks maintain “old boy” structures. They continue to reproduce hegemonic masculinity, maintaining (some) men's privileged access to resources, such as visibility, support and career opportunities (Coles, 2009; Ibarra, 1992; Sattari and Sandefur, 2019). Cross and Armstrong (2008) demonstrate that network structures often favour male membership, systematically limiting women's access to crucial resources and collective learning opportunities. They suggest that creating formal female networks can counter this exclusion, engaging women in collective learning. McDonald (2011) adds to the debate by showing that inequalities in accessing social capital are not limited to gendered networks but are also strongly influenced by racialized network structures, thereby shifting the debate toward a more intersectional perspective.
We adopt a “doing” approach, emphasizing how the “doing” of networking (Benschop, 2009; Mickey, 2022; Papafilippou et al., 2022) involves the “doing” of gender (Brands et al., 2022; Butler, 1990, 2004; De Souza et al., 2016; Hancock and Tyler, 2007; Meeussen et al., 2022; Nentwich and Kelan, 2014; West and Zimmerman, 1987). Networking, here defined as “interdependent activities and the processes of forming relationships in networks” (Benschop, 2009), maintains gendered networks. Through networking, gendered patterns within networks are both reinforced and potentially transformed. Selective homosocial ties sustain “old boy” structures and inequalities (Ibarra, 1992; McPherson et al., 2001; Ozkazanc-Pan and Clark Muntean, 2018). In contrast, networking can also expand access to visibility, support and upward mobility for diverse members (Cross and Armstrong, 2008; Dennissen, 2020), contributing to greater equality within professional environments (Benschop, 2009; Bleijenbergh et al., 2021; Brands et al., 2022). Mickey (2022) highlights gendered differences in networking: while men tend to engage in informal networking, strategically socializing and leveraging these relationships to access key resources, women tend to rely on formal, company-sponsored women's networking.
While research has primarily focused on how networking reproduces gendered inequalities, networking may also offer opportunities to work towards gender equality. This study conceptualizes the network as a site where gender is done, not only in sustaining prevailing gender orders but also in ways that may challenge these. We draw on the social constructivist concept of “doing gender” (West and Zimmerman, 1987) to highlight how gender is actively constructed through the social interactions of network members. Rather than treating gender as a fixed attribute, we use doing gender to direct attention to the multidimensional processes through which gender is constructed, enacted and sustained in social contexts. We distinguish three different dimensions of doing gender that are relevant for our study (Nentwich and Kelan, 2014). A first dimension refers to doing gender as a performative process (Butler, 1990, 2004), shaped by history, culture, societal norms and material and symbolic arrangements. De Souza et al. (2016) summarize this dimension of doing gender as processes of identification, non-identification and performativity. While gender performativity is grounded in poststructuralism, this dimension also fits within the social constructivist approach we take in this paper, because it helps us see gender identities as performative accomplishments. A second dimension emphasizes the interactional and relational character of doing gender as it unfolds between the self, the interpretation of others and the broader social context (Brands et al., 2022). This dimension involves norms for appropriate tasks and appropriate behaviour, rewarding people for fitting in while punishing those who deviate from gendered expectations (Meeussen et al., 2022). The third dimension of doing gender is the institutional dimension that illustrates how formal policies, informal work practices and idealized organizational symbols and images (Hancock and Tyler, 2007) reinforce how gender is done and institutionalized in patterns such as segregated jobs. We draw on these three dimensions to explore how gender is done in the STEM network under study. Networks in STEM are not particularly known as vehicles of (gender) equality change, but rather as barriers to such change. Existing research documents how STEM networks reinforce inequality, and this study also explores their untapped potential to be restructured from within and to do gender in ways that foster equality.
While research has documented how gender is a basis for exclusion within STEM (Beede et al., 2011; Bloodhart et al., 2020; Casad et al., 2021; Sattari and Sandefur, 2019), inequalities are structured along multiple axes. Intersectionality, defined as the interaction between multiple categories of difference (Crenshaw, 1989), highlights how interconnected forms of oppression and privilege shape experiences beyond a single axis (Boogaard and Roggeband, 2010; Choo and Ferree, 2010; McCall, 2005; Nkomo, 1992). In the context of STEM, intersectional research has explored how ethnicity, skin colour and gender interact to shape career trajectories. For example, Sparks (2017) examines how under-represented women of colour develop their professional identities in STEM, showing how overlapping social categories create distinct challenges and opportunities often overlooked in traditional STEM networks. In addition, Corneille et al. (2019) highlight the systemic barriers faced by women of colour in STEM, who are under-represented in academia and most drastically in full professor ranks. Some intersectional research shifts the focus toward the dominant groups, examining how structural privileges operate. For example, Cech (2022) deconstructs the privileges of white, able-bodied, heterosexual men in STEM, while showing how they enjoy greater access to resources, recognition and career advancement than their peers. This underscores the importance of moving to an intersectional analysis of doing gender in networks that takes into account multiple social axes of difference (McDonald, 2011).
Methodology
The case: a STEM network
We chose a case study approach because it can bring deep insights into organizational processes (Lee et al., 2007; Verschuren et al., 2010), which is relevant for our research question. Our case is a natural science research network within STEM, organized around a consortium that received four-year EU Horizon 2020 funding.
The consortium includes 13 academic institutions and 6 industrial partners, divided over 8 European countries, the US and China. The network involves roughly 60 people. Most members are natural scientists, with a minority of social scientists. Virtually all participants had some form of formal academic training in STEM disciplines. The primary focus of the network is developing, communicating and introducing new technologies. Three-quarters of the work packages focus on research and development, while the remaining quarter address dissemination, exploitation and project management. About half of the members work on developing technologies, 25% focus on introducing or communicating technologies and 25% engage in interdisciplinary tasks, which include management and gender equality work. Management is primarily undertaken by natural scientists, except for the project manager. Although open to all genders, the network is numerically dominated by members who identify as men. To illustrate, documents of the assembly network meeting in 2021 listed 44 participating members, 32 men, 11 women and one person who does not strongly identify with any gender [2].
Most of the members who identify as women (roughly 20% of members) work on interdisciplinary tasks like management, new technology introduction and communication and gender equality. The majority of members hold or are pursuing doctorates (approximately 80%). At the moment of entry in 2021, all three key management positions, project coordinator, research manager and project manager, were occupied by men. After the project closed in 2025, out of seven peer-reviewed publications that formed project output, six were first authored by men and one was first authored by a woman. From the eight non-peered-reviewed publications, seven were authored by men and one was by a woman.
Consistent with the grant proposal, the project initiators and management established an internal gender board. The gender board had seven members, including the project coordinator, research manager and project manager, and took on the responsibility of monitoring and promoting gender diversity within the network. They convened biannually, with an additional reserved slot at the general assembly meeting, and organized network events focused on gender equality. We got access to the network through the second and third authors' connection with members of the gender board who reached out for advice on gender equality. We were allowed to collect data within the network in exchange for sharing our gender expertise and research outcomes. The European Commission mandates Horizon 2020-funded projects to address and report on gender equality, making our expertise valuable to the project members.
Data collection
We applied triangulation of methods by combining participant observations, semi-structured interviews and the collection of networking maps to validate our findings.
Participant observations
The first author conducted participant observation of seven network meetings between February 2022 and October 2022. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the geographical distribution of members, nine observations of meetings were conducted online, and one was held in person over a span of 2.5 days. The online meetings provided approximately 16 h of observation, while the in-person meetings accounted for around 25 h, resulting in a total of 41 h of observation. The first author conducted an open field role (Flick, 2018), informing the participants in advance through email and repeating her presence and role orally at the beginning of the meeting. We realize that online meetings provide less information than physical meetings, but in this period the network only met online.
Our observations included informal interactions before and after formal meetings, as well as during coffee breaks, drinks and dinners during in-person meetings. To analyse the doing of networking and the doing of gender, the observation focused on the interactions between the members including role divisions, speaking patterns, participation levels, the way members referred to each other, instances of ignoring or interrupting and informal exchanges.
Interviews
The first author conducted 12 semi-structured interviews (about 20% of the network membership) to complement participant observations. The interviews, on average taking 1.5 h, were based on a questionnaire (Appendix A1). The questions focused on the members' biographical background, their networking activities, their position within the network, role models, resources they rely on and communication with fellow network members (Löblich and Pfaff-Rüdiger, 2011). The first four interviewees were approached as members of the gender board; the remaining eight were derived through snowball sampling. Sample characteristics, including gender, pronouns and disciplinary background, are provided in Appendix A2. To respect gender identity, interviewees were given the option to choose their alias and preferred pronouns. Three interviewees opted to select their alias, while the others deferred to the first author. For anonymity, some self-chosen aliases were adjusted during the analysis phase. Eight interviewees identified as men, three as women and one did not identify with any gender. All interviewees signed an informed consent form. The interviews were all recorded and verbatim transcribed.
Networking maps
During the interviews, the first author asked interviewees to draw so-called networking maps (Ahrens, 2018; Löblich and Pfaff-Rüdiger, 2011; Richter, 2021), indicating their relations within the network and identifying strong and weak ties. While the mapping was intended to support the interview focus, it also facilitated information flow. Drawing the networking maps helped interviewees recall, visualize and reflect on relationships, emotions and specific situations or stories they wished to share – or perhaps avoid sharing. The maps allowed the interviewer to delve into the interviewees' networking through detailed questions. Overall, the interviewees described their engagement in formal and informal meetings, friendships, work-oriented relationships and various communication methods. This approach provided insights into the interviewees' actual sayings and doings: “I ask Bill for advice”; “I try to work with Thomas as much as possible”.
Context of COVID-19
During the early stages of the research, both our work and that of network members was limited to remote interaction, restricting initial data collection to virtual observations of meetings and online interviews. While easing of restrictions later allowed for in-person observations, interviews remained online to accommodate access to international participants and reduce travel.
The pandemic shaped the everyday lives and interactions of network members, including their networking opportunities. Although the project had been running for two years, in 2022 some members had never met in person or had one-on-one conversations. Interestingly so, the disruption had the unintended effect of making networking, as a conscious doing, more visible, prompting members to reflect on how they maintained connections and adapt to remote communication. Moreover, COVID-19 contributed to the normalization of remote, online work (Amankwah-Amoah et al., 2021; Carroll and Conboy, 2020). In the context of the research, this shift facilitated easier access to interviewees, as it removed the need to travel to various locations.
Data analysis
To analyse the doing of networking and the doing of gender, we used an abductive approach with gender, networking, equality and inequality as predefined main concepts we entered the field with. We applied qualitative content analysis (Bengtsson, 2016; Schreier, 2012) and qualitative network analysis (QNA) (Ahrens, 2018). The first author did content analysis and QNA. The second and third authors validated the process.
For the content analysis we used thematic coding, following a method of constant comparison (Strübing et al., 2018) of the interview transcripts and observation field notes. The first round of codes included categories like: “COVID”, “international setting”, “role models”, “management background”, “informal networking”, “STEM knowledge” and “networking: writing an E-mail “. We then grouped codes together under new headings like “networking organized within segregated field”, “communication: conflict”, “women/gender/management” and” men/knowledge/STEM”, to elaborate connections between codes, continuously testing through comparison. Going back and forth between data and literature about the intertwining of doing networking, doing gender and reproduction of gender equality and/or inequality within the network, we used coding to integrate theoretical concepts and come to the core themes of analysis. These themes are “networking within limits,” “gender construction in relation to disciplines”; “gender in relation to atmosphere”, “informal cracks in the gender order” and “formal working on gender equality”. An excerpt of the coding table can be found in Appendix A3.
As for the qualitative network analysis, we applied QNA to make networking patterns visible (Ahrens, 2018; Löblich and Pfaff-Rüdiger, 2011; Richter, 2021). The individual networking maps provided a visual understanding of how interviewees construct their everyday realities regarding their “doing gender” and “doing networking”. Comparing the networking maps and translating them into a matrix facilitated identification of networking patterns in relation to disciplinary backgrounds and gender. Focusing on these networking patterns allowed us to critically examine the contexts of established connections, revealing how these connections provided access and inclusion for some members while constituting obstacles and exclusion for others.
Results
In this section, we first discuss how networking produces inequalities across gender and other dimensions. We then look into how networking contributes to equality in informal ways and through formal equality work.
Networking and gender
Our analysis reveals three ways in which networking and gender intertwine in the STEM network and the consequences for inequality. We find that networking across segregated disciplines is gendered, that the networking reproduces traditional gendered images and that the masculine culture affects the network's atmosphere.
Networking in disciplines
Networking within the STEM network is mainly confined to formal meetings within disciplinary boundaries. During in-person meetings we observe that members who knew each other before the project formed groups:
Scanning through the room there are three rows of four round tables with a different amount of people on it. Knowing a little about the teams from the interviews, I can tell that the members that I know sit with members they knew from before [THE PROJECT. AUTHOR]. (field notes first author)
Through the interviews, we learn that these groups mainly emerge around STEM expertise. Network members with a different disciplinary background sometimes have a hard time connecting. Manuel, an early-career researcher who works on communicating and introducing technology, indicates the exclusive character of this networking:
They all have their very special language that is hard to connect to. They also stay between each other and it’s hard to join their group. (field notes first author)
Our analysis shows that while management facilitates formal interactions, informal networking is self-organized and mainly takes place between natural scientists and members who knew each other before the project. Moreover, we find that pre-existing relationships and STEM expertise intersect with gendered networking patterns. The networking maps reveal a homosocial sphere, with networking ties concentrated among men working in natural sciences who knew each other before the project. Our interview data illustrate how these homosocial patterns are reproduced in everyday interactions. We interpret this as a manifestation of the interactional and relational dimension of doing gender. Thomas, a natural scientist involved in technology development, for example refers to other men in natural sciences when describing his networking (see Figure 1):
The network map contains several circular nodes connected by arrows to a central cluster enclosed within a large oval labeled “w p 4”. In the middle is a circular node labeled “Me”. Within this oval are three smaller ovals arranged vertically, labeled “Bill”, “Sara”, and “Elias”. A downward diagonal dashed line extends from “N. N.” to “Me”. A diagonal double-headed arrow extends from “Bill” to “Me”. Further to the right is a circular node labeled “Dav. Noah”. Two double-headed arrows extend between “Me” and “Dav. Noah”. Above the connection between “Me” and “Dav. Noah” appears the text “University”. Above the node labeled “David & Noah” appears the text “Tech-econom”. A diagonal rightward arrow points from “w p 3” to “David & Noah”. Below the center of the large oval is another circular node labeled “N. N”. A downward diagonal arrow extends from “Me” toward the lower right interior of the large oval where the text “storage” appears. Outside w p 4 circular nodes are visible. Starting from the far left, a circular node labeled “w p 1” and “w p 2” appear at the upper left. To its right is another circular node labeled “w p 3”. Below these on the left side is a circular node labeled “w p 5”. Slightly to the right of “w p 5” is another circular node labeled “w p 6”. Rightward arrows extend from “w p 5” and “w p 6” to “w p 4”. A dashed line extends from “w p 3” to “N. N” positioned above the center within the oval “w p 4”.Networking map of Thomas, a natural scientist involved in technology development
The network map contains several circular nodes connected by arrows to a central cluster enclosed within a large oval labeled “w p 4”. In the middle is a circular node labeled “Me”. Within this oval are three smaller ovals arranged vertically, labeled “Bill”, “Sara”, and “Elias”. A downward diagonal dashed line extends from “N. N.” to “Me”. A diagonal double-headed arrow extends from “Bill” to “Me”. Further to the right is a circular node labeled “Dav. Noah”. Two double-headed arrows extend between “Me” and “Dav. Noah”. Above the connection between “Me” and “Dav. Noah” appears the text “University”. Above the node labeled “David & Noah” appears the text “Tech-econom”. A diagonal rightward arrow points from “w p 3” to “David & Noah”. Below the center of the large oval is another circular node labeled “N. N”. A downward diagonal arrow extends from “Me” toward the lower right interior of the large oval where the text “storage” appears. Outside w p 4 circular nodes are visible. Starting from the far left, a circular node labeled “w p 1” and “w p 2” appear at the upper left. To its right is another circular node labeled “w p 3”. Below these on the left side is a circular node labeled “w p 5”. Slightly to the right of “w p 5” is another circular node labeled “w p 6”. Rightward arrows extend from “w p 5” and “w p 6” to “w p 4”. A dashed line extends from “w p 3” to “N. N” positioned above the center within the oval “w p 4”.Networking map of Thomas, a natural scientist involved in technology development
The network map centers on a node labeled “Me”. Starting from the left side, an oval labeled “Elizabeth” appears to the left of “Me”. A leftward arrow extends from “Me” to “Elizabeth”. Below it, on the lower left, is a larger oval labeled “Miro”. A leftward diagonal arrow extends from “Me” to “Miro”. Above “Me” is an oval labeled “Elias”. An upward arrow extends from “Me” to “Elias”. On the right side, an oval labeled “Diana” appears to the upper right of “Me”. A rightward arrow extends from “Me” to “Diana”. Below it, on the lower right, is another oval labeled “Bill”. A rightward diagonal arrow extends from “Me” to “Bill”.Networking map of Sara, a female member working on management and gender board tasks
The network map centers on a node labeled “Me”. Starting from the left side, an oval labeled “Elizabeth” appears to the left of “Me”. A leftward arrow extends from “Me” to “Elizabeth”. Below it, on the lower left, is a larger oval labeled “Miro”. A leftward diagonal arrow extends from “Me” to “Miro”. Above “Me” is an oval labeled “Elias”. An upward arrow extends from “Me” to “Elias”. On the right side, an oval labeled “Diana” appears to the upper right of “Me”. A rightward arrow extends from “Me” to “Diana”. Below it, on the lower right, is another oval labeled “Bill”. A rightward diagonal arrow extends from “Me” to “Bill”.Networking map of Sara, a female member working on management and gender board tasks
Thomas puts Bill on the map, saying that he is trying to interact with Bill “as much as possible”, as they “are writing papers together.” Thomas “appreciates [Bills] feedback on [Thomas'] work”. They are calling almost every day, even if it is just to catch up. Thomas also adds David and Elias to the map, who are both natural scientists. […] He has known both for years, worked with them on other projects before. Thomas refers to Elizabeth, his female workgroup colleague he has regular meetings with too. He does not add her as he says her research is not yet relevant for his work. (field notes, first author)
Thomas's case illustrates how networking between male national scientists upholds institutionalized and hegemonic norms: his strongest professional ties are with male colleagues who share similar traits, consolidating shared advantages within male-dominated networks, while his connections with female colleagues remain marginal. This pattern is also visible with his STEM peers. It's only when I directly ask Thomas towards the end of the interview, “Does gender play a role in his networking map?” that he realizes the absence of women. This moment makes the gendered dynamics within networking visible also for Thomas. He responds by adding the name of a female colleague and emphasizing her recent inclusion by noting that she just started, “but she is also good”. Cross-referencing maps of different men working in natural sciences with our observations, we also find examples of male members breaking out of the homosocial sphere. Members who work on developing technologies or management tasks and are members of the gender board show a more balanced gender distribution of networking connections. However, their indicated strong ties remain predominantly homosocial.
In contrast, members who identify as women within the network primarily indicate strong ties with other members who identify as women or focus on social science-related tasks or are members of the gender board. This pattern is illustrated in the interview with Sara, a female member primarily working on management and gender board tasks (see Figure 2):
So, I put Elias first, obviously, just because. […] [he is] in the back of my mind when I do anything […]. I'm also quite involved in things that are related to communication- so- Diana and Bill […]. Elizabeth especially, but lately also Miro are quite involved in the GEEB issues […]. I think Elizabeth is quite irregular because it goes from very intense to nothing […]. Elias, Diana, Bill, they are more regular because the management team meets every two weeks […]. [INTERVIEWER QUESTION: Is Thomas someone for the map?] No, because now there's not really much connection with Thomas. He works from the technical point of view, works and thinks […]. Not really something that I'm particularly involved with.” (Sara, working on management and member of the gender board)
Analysing observations, networking maps and interview excerpts revealed gendered networking patterns that favour those who are attributed “STEM-related knowledge and education” and have access to established professional networks. This has consequences for inequality, as it sustains a homosocial sphere that privileges men with recognized expertise and established ties, while marginalizing women and non-binary people working in other areas of expertise. In the next section, we will discuss how members reproduce traditional gender stereotypes in their networking.
Traditional images in networking
We find how network members intertwine doing gender and networking by describing other members using gendered characteristics. Examples from the interviews include:
She is …
… open and good in small talk, able to bring some informal dynamic into the formal communication structure
… Important for the gender issue. And she is also having the role of a scientist
… Comforting and supportive
… Caring and supportive
… has many family responsibilities and commitments
… Relevant for my research
He is …
… grumpy in his tone but actually nice and intelligent
… the mastermind
… important partner and advice giver
… young and successful, in a leading position
… I admire him for scientific achievements and knowledge
We analyse these qualifications as examples of the interactional and relational dimension of doing gender. Women are primarily constructed as caregivers, as managers and in supportive roles, rather than as capable natural scientists working on technology-related tasks. As a result, women's roles as scientists are less recognized in networking, because of which they may miss out on professional collaborations, information and advice regarding career development. Men, by contrast, are constructed as naturally and self-evidently possessing technological knowledge and skills that are highly valued within the network. This attribution helps to legitimize the largely unquestioned dominance of male scientists, who often dominate discussions, act as spokespersons, assume leadership roles and provide advice to others.
Observations from an in-person meeting corroborate how gender is performed in everyday networking:
I see people meeting Sara in the coffee break for the first time. They ask her about her family and her kids. For me personally it feels a bit odd to ask that two seconds after you met someone for the first time. Sara answers that she is actually quite ok with being away from home and gone for a while […]. Afterwards the others ask her more questions about not being with her family right now. (fieldnotes first author)
In conclusion, we find that members are doing gender by constructing, performing and reinforcing traditional gender stereotypes in their networking with consequences for the networking opportunities of female members in particular.
Networking atmosphere
Thirdly, we find that the masculine culture affects the network's atmosphere. This atmosphere is described by the members as “male-dominated”:
I can definitely recognize that we're not there yet. […] I think it's more the kind of old-fashioned way of working that affects my work with them. […]. Obviously, the consortium is very male-dominated. […] Sometimes even my[male] colleagues say “Oh, well, that was a male only meeting”. (Diana, working on communicating technologies)
We illustrate how masculinities are done in the networking, using an observation of a technical meeting in which a discussion unfolds exclusively between two male scientists, while the other participants remain silent. The tone, intensity and the domination of the meeting by the two members left the first author feeling uncomfortable and tense.
Tim formulates a statement. […] Achilles interrupts with “I don’t agree with you Tim”, followed by a long monolog of why […]. Tim tries to answer with “Yes but (−)” and again gets interrupted by Achilles. The discussion gets headed by their voices getting louder and faster and the tone gets a bit passive aggressive. […] No one of the other members present intervene. Achilles, still with his camera off, states “That’s the law Tim”. Tim laughs and tries to go on. Achilles interrupts him a last time and points out. “Do you know that, Tim? I can send you something to that!” He now has a hearable passive aggressive undertone. Tim does not seem impressed and just calmly answers, “That would be amazing, thank you”. […] (field notes first author).
In this excerpt, we observe how masculinity is performed through conversational dominance, repeated interruptions and an argumentative style oriented toward confrontation and authority. The absence of dissent, self-reflection or orientation toward the larger group illustrates the performative dimension of doing gender: taking up exclusive discursive space as a male natural scientist is treated as self-evident and legitimate. The performative dimension of doing gender is later commented on in an interview with one of the female network members:
Achilles and Tim “were just talking, but they are like – they are another level. I mean, they were talking between each other basically. We were just listening and it was very interesting. It was very interesting, but I wanted to talk, I just didn't feel like I was up to it […].” The discussion took place in a context of “like 90%, 95% male. And then like 5% others”, between those two “very knowledgeable men” who occupy all the room as a matter of course. (Sara, working on management and member of the gender board)
Although the interviewee describes the discussion as “very interesting”, she also describes how she “wanted to talk” but “just didn't feel like she was up to it” – the “very knowledgeable men” “occupy all the room” for conversation, in her words. Masculinity is performed in such a way that it functions as a barrier to participation, which has consequences for inequality as it limits participation of diverse members, constrains the expression of different viewpoints and reduces the visibility of under-represented groups.
Our analysis shows that members explicitly link the masculine atmosphere to the broader STEM field:
We were just focusing on this network. Right? And this is STEM. You know, testosterone dominated a field. [Miro, working on management and member of the gender board]
Moreover, we find that members associate this masculine atmosphere with the high level of competitiveness in academic research, describing it as shaped by power dynamics and strong egos:
There is like an atmosphere of that sort of challenging power. […] I mean, all the researchers have very high egos. And I mean, […] not everybody, but many people in our network, even though they are great, they have also moments of this sort of patronizing. [Sam, working on communicating technologies]
As a potential way to counteract this masculine and competitive atmosphere, male members propose increasing the presence of women within natural science-related working groups:
I think [the network AUTHOR] is fair to both genders. […] It's good to have diversity in a way, so that we can we can tell jokes. […] Gender equality, I think it makes it more complete in a way. […] I would think in [a AUTHOR] male environment things can become tougher in a way, like tone that you have with each other. […] it is less relaxing, more competitive. […] Somehow when we have women, girls present the environment becomes more, I think, relaxed more friendly in a way.And not necessarily very kind of high speed, high strength movement { …]. It make it less competitive, less agitated. (Thomas, working on technology development)
Our analysis suggests that the atmosphere is identified as exclusionary not only by women or people working in social science but also by men and those accustomed to a masculine STEM environment. While interviewees describe the men's networking as rough and competitive, they assign women the role of making the environment friendlier and counterbalancing the male energy in the network. This identification of femininity as compensating hegemonic masculinity is an example of the performative dimension of doing gender and reproduces inequality.
Summing up, we interpret all our findings on how gender and networking are intertwined in a traditional STEM network and with what consequences for inequality through the lens of doing gender (West and Zimmerman, 1987) and hegemonic masculinity (Connell, 2005). Within the network, members prioritize technical expertise, knowledge acquisition and a focus on content rather than process. This expertise and knowledge are historically associated with masculinity and often perceived as innate to men rather than socially constructed skills for example through education and socialization in STEM fields. Situated within the homosocial sphere and embedded in a collective habitus (Bourdieu, 1997; Meuser, 2007), we observe that masculinity is performed in line with institutionalized gender norms that define legitimate forms of expertise and authority and reinforce gendered hierarchies. Within everyday networking interactions, members orient their behaviour toward these norms. In doing so, they produce a male-dominated atmosphere that not only normalizes and stabilizes a masculine atmosphere but also sustains the reproduction of hegemonic masculinities.
We propose to broaden the concept of hegemonic masculinities to hegemonic profiles by extending it beyond the relational hierarchy between different forms of masculinities to include how power operates through the intersections of gender with other categories, such as academic discipline and professional relationships, within institutional and organizational structures. Members construct hegemonic profiles around well-connected male members, particularly those engaged in new technology development and who maintain strong relationships with similar men. While women within the STEM network experience marginalization, the women complying with the hegemonic profile regarding disciplinary background and research connections have more access to visibility and participation. This construction is reinforced by the “subordination and complicity” (Connell, 2005) of other members, who validate the hegemony of natural scientist members by emphasizing their technical skills while downplaying or dismissing their own or others' abilities.
Informal cracks in the gender order
In our analysis, we identify cracks in the existing gender order where members began to question stereotypical forms of masculinity. These moments emerge subtly and informally, particularly in discussions around parenthood and careers.
Cracks emerge regarding the interactional and relational dimension of doing gender when David problematizes that a former supervisor jokingly advised him to pursue his career and never have children. Similar to this, Achilles, another natural scientist who is focusing on technological development, describes how his career was only possible because his wife renounced her own career in order to stay at home with their children. Both statements show awareness of an image of masculinity where men are identified with being “workers” and “breadwinners”, rather than “fathers” or “caregivers”.
We see another crack when Thomas, in his role as natural scientist, whose expertise is well recognized within the network, mentions his networking with David is based on both their roles as fathers, as well as on David's scientific reputation. David articulates in his interview that spending active time with his children is a priority for him, and he wants to facilitate that for his colleagues as well. With that, he is performing a non-hegemonic form of masculinity.
I was offered a few jobs and I came up to LOCATION because I knew (…) it as a very relaxed, family centered place (…). I guess it was the decision to have a family as that changes how you have to manage. I mean, if we're talking about networking, the ability to actually go out and do that is heavily impacted by your by having kids. And I think I've had to accept that I can't get to all of the meetings. In fact, I don't want to get to all of the meetings if it's abroad, just so that I can be at home and see my girls grow up. […] In my research group […] I try to say the same to them. That I'm not expecting you to push your family life away […]. If there's a point where you just need to go off and be with your family, then just tell me. I would say that that wasn't the experience that I had when I was there. (David, natural scientist involved in technology development)
We note that performing masculinity differently – by men networking around the topic of fatherhood (as well) – challenges the hegemonic image and institutionalized norm of the “male breadwinner”. Recognizing fathers' caregiving as a relevant aspect of masculinity within networking allows for constructions of masculinities that integrate both care and careers, potentially challenging institutionalized gender norms.
In regard to motherhood, Thomas describes his networking with Sara, who works on multiple tasks related to tech development and management as well as being a member of the gender board. Thomas says that they are not “interacting that much on the project. I think she is more on the management side rather than research.” He says that they are planning to meet with their families and kids in the future, though. Like networking based on “fatherhood”, networking based on “motherhood” opens opportunities for informal, personal-level networking, yet it tends to veil the professional expertise of female members. While we see the hegemonic image of masculinity slowly opening up to be constructed around combining science and caregivers, the hegemonic image of femininity reinforces the association with motherhood and caregiving.
Another crack in the existing gender order occurred during one of our observations, when members reflected on the role of alcohol and vulnerability in their networking:
I sit on the table with David, Noah and other three men that I do not know. […] The discussion turns to the topic of drinking […]. The group tells me that in their work there are huge hierarchical difference, and even with their (male) friends and colleagues there is no form of open conversations. David admits that he is actually quite over the whole drinking phase, but the pub is the only place where you can openly and directly express your feelings and emotions to your friends. (field notes first author)
This observation illustrates how (hegemonic) masculinity is performed and subtly challenged within informal networking. Drinking emerges as a gendered social practice through which belonging and emotional expression among men are negotiated (Mullen et al., 2007; Nash and Moore, 2024). When David opens up to the group that he is “over the drinking phase”, expressing that he would want differently, but continues to participate because it is the only accepted space to express emotions, it highlights the contradictory position men occupy within hegemonic masculinity: longing for intimacy yet relaying on practices that both enable and constrain it. At the same time, David's reflexivity marks a potential change. The men informally discuss the meaning of drinking and acknowledge its exclusionary effects. This shared reflection temporarily destabilizes the gendered norm of “drinking as bonding” and opens space for alternative forms of connection that are not tied to stereotypical performances of masculinity. In this moment, networking becomes not merely a reinforcement of the gender order but a site of negotiation and resistance, offering a small but important crack in the network's existing gender order, offering opportunities for change and equality. In the following section, we discuss the more formal commitment of the network members to work on gender equality.
Formally working on gender equality
Beyond the informal cracks in the gender order, the network also engages formally with gender equality work. To present gender equality as a topic for the whole network, the gender board was established by the management in compliance with Horizon 2020 guidelines. Among its initiatives, the board serves as a formal collective that meets to discuss gender equality issues within the network. It also organizes events, such as a workshop on women in STEM, which provides a platform to discuss gender-related challenges and experiences open to all members in the STEM field.
The members of the gender board put gender equality on the formal agenda for the overall network, institutionalizing more egalitarian gender norms. We observed that during a general assembly meeting, the members of the gender board address the need to reshape the gendered dynamics of the network. They push for a collective reflection on the dominance of male leaders and the masculine atmosphere, which is seen as barriers to opportunities for women and early-stage researchers. In response, the network agrees to improve gendered dynamics and diversify the speakers at future meetings to ensure a broader representation of members:
During the General Assembly meeting, Elisabeth gives a talk about the Gender Board. After she sits down, Elias gets up to thank her. […] Then Catherina raises her hand and addresses Elias directly “so what do we do about it?” […] Stefano brings himself in, directing himself towards the table of Elias. He asks whether, for talking and presenting, it might be a good idea if not only the leaders spoke, “but the one actually doing the work”. Stefano highlights that most of the work in his work package is done by a woman “who happens to not be able to join this day”, but who otherwise would have, of course, given the presentation. Elias agrees. Elizabeth adds “or rotating like Catherina’s group was doing it yesterday. [She AUTHOR] is already giving opportunities to her young members to speak.” (field notes first author)
Summarizing, we find the network reflecting on patterns of hegemonic masculinity and contributing to equality initiated by the gender board. We note how this equality work did not emerge bottom up but was enforced by the management in response to the European Commission's obligation to address gender equality in the grant proposal. While this top-down emphasis on gender equality is met with approval, it is also met with reservations. When analysing how the network fosters gender equality, we use Schiebinger's (2016) strategies for promoting change within the gender-unequal STEM field: (1) “fixing the numbers” by improving representation, (2) “fixing the institution” through policies that promote equality in organization structures and cultures and (3) “fixing knowledge” by integrating sex and gender analysis into all phases of basic and applied research. In our case, most energy went into gender equality based on fixing the numbers, raising awareness about under-representation of women within the network. Also attempts to “fix the institute”, including the prevailing culture within the network, were evident in the discussions about the visibility of different identities. We did not observe efforts towards “fixing the knowledge” through the development of gender-specific technological innovations. Schiebinger (2016) highlights that equality efforts that concentrate on either “fixing numbers”, “fixing the institute” or “fixing knowledge” fail to achieve lasting change. Building on that, we consider the formal work on gender equality as the first steps towards addressing unequal gender representation and fixing the institution.
Conclusion
This paper started from the research question of “How are gender and networking intertwined in a STEM network and with what consequences for inequality and equality?” We explored this within a European STEM network, which serves as an empirical case of a mainstream, male-dominated network that addresses gender equality.
The notion of doing gender allowed us to analyse how gender and networking intertwined within the STEM network. The interactional and relational dimension of doing gender came to the fore at the intersection of gender, academic discipline and prior connections, prioritizing technical tasks, STEM knowledge and established relationships between male natural scientists. Traditional gender images were reproduced in networking interactions, to the point that the professional identity of women as scientists was underplayed and their role of mothers highlighted. The performative dimension of doing gender manifested in how male network members enact authority and confrontation in network meetings, which perpetuates existing gender orders. At the same time, we noted how members' networking sometimes challenges constructions of gender, problematizes gendered interactions and fosters institutionalization of equality work. Our analyses thus show how gender and networking are intertwined in STEM networks and produce both inequality and equality. We observe how formal networking efforts aimed at fostering gender equality go some way to institutionalize the attention for gender, but more is needed to counter gender inequalities and transform gendered organizational norms and processes or change processes of knowledge production.
We make two contributions to the literature on doing gender in networking and networking for equality. Building on the concept of hegemonic masculinity (Connell, 2005), we identify how members construct hegemonic images around different forms of masculinities within STEM networks. Our first theoretical contribution is the conceptualization of hegemonic profiles as a way to capture intersectional power dynamics within STEM networks. Drawing inspiration from Crenshaw's (1989) intersectionality concept, hegemonic profiles stretch hegemonic masculinities to include more social categories. The concept directs the attention to how certain profiles, understood as constellations of social categories and structural elements (DeVault, 2017), shape hierarchies and inequalities. We understand the profiles as “hegemonic” because they represent a taken-for-granted distribution of power deeply embedded in network structures and atmosphere, maintained through implicit rules, norms and customs and reproduced through the “doings” of members (Benschop and Doorewaard, 1998). Within the male-dominated STEM context, masculinities play a central role but do not constitute the only axis of significance. Within this study, we advance existing research on gendered networking by showing how hegemonic profiles emerged at the crossroads of gender (masculinity), disciplinary field (STEM) and research connections. Therefore, identifying hegemonic profiles can help to explain how women, non-binary people or gay men can accumulate power through their networking within the STEM field. The notion of hegemonic profiles can also inform the analysis of power in other settings.
As an implication from this notion, we call for increasing the awareness of hegemonic profiles as a first step to redistribute power in networks. This awareness can spur critical reflection and the unlearning of patterns that perpetuate inequality. When network members recognize taken-for-granted norms for what they are, this creates space to acknowledge and value the contributions of participants who diverge from the hegemonic profile.
Our second contribution to the literature is that we explore how networking in traditional STEM networks can contribute to doing gender equality. Our research furthers findings of previous studies that analyse networks and networking through a gender lens, revealing the intertwined processes of equality and inequality (Van Den Brink and Benschop, 2012, 2014). We show how a traditional STEM network can deliberately work on and institutionalize gender equality. Merely placing equality on the agenda of a gender board, alongside formal interventions, is, however, insufficient to drive change: despite conscious efforts towards gender equality, inequalities persist in everyday networking. To transform traditional gender orders, formal initiatives for gender equality need to be matched by and integrated with informal networking for equality. We appreciate the requirements of the European Commission to integrate gender equality in grant proposals. The implications of this study are that the institution of a formal gender board needs to be paired with additional guidelines about the need for learning to deepen understanding of gender inequalities in networking. Gender equality work requires a broad engagement across the network, with multiple members actively considering how inequalities manifest in their day-to-day networking and countering those manifestations. We suggest that those seeking change must advocate for targeted gender equality interventions and policies that critically address how inequalities are produced in all facets of day-to-day networking.
Declaration of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in the scientific writing process
Statement: During the preparation of this work, the author(s) used ChatGPT in order to improve the readability and language of the manuscript. After using this tool/service, the author(s) reviewed and edited the content as needed and take(s) full responsibility for the content of the published article.
Notes
European Commission (2023): Gender equality in research and innovation. Achieving gender equality in research, how it relates to the European Research Area, networks and news. https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/strategy/strategy-2020-2024/democracy-and-rights/gender-equality-research-and-innovation_enq
We base the gender labels on network documents and on personal knowledge of members' self-identifications.
The supplementary material for this article can be found online.
