Who needs to be “more equal” and why? Doing gender equality in male-dominated industries

Date02 March 2020
Pages337-353
DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1108/EDI-01-2019-0042
Published date02 March 2020
AuthorLisa Ringblom,Maria Johansson
Subject MatterHR & organizational behaviour,Employment law,Diversity,equality,inclusion
Who needs to be more equaland
why? Doing gender equality in
male-dominated industries
Lisa Ringblom and Maria Johansson
Department of Business Administration, Technology and Social Sciences,
Lule
a University of Technology, Lule
a, Sweden
Abstract
Purpose This study aims to deepen the understanding of inequality regimes in male-dominated industries,
specifically in Swedish forestry and mining, by exploring how conceptions of gender, class and place are
articulated and intertwined when doing gender equality in these organizations.
Design/methodology/approach The article draws on empirical material from four research and
development projects inspired by a feminist action research methodology.
Findings This paper shows how gender equality works in these male-dominated organizations
simultaneously constructing gender, class and place. When men are at the focal point of gender equality,
our empirical findings suggest that blue-collar workers in rural areas are described as being the problemfor
gender inequality in these organizations. Addressing specific groups such as women or blue-collar workers in
rural areas is not enough to challenge the inequality regimes that exist in these organizations, since a unilateral
focus on certain groups leads to skewed problem formulations.
Originality/value Research on gender equality work and its relation to intersectionality in male-dominated
industries is limited, and by focusing on men and masculinities, this paper contributes to knowledge
concerning gender equality in male-dominated industrial organizations.
Keywords Intersectionality, Feminist action research, Mining, Forestry, Organizations
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Gender segregation and inequality in organizations and workplaces continues to be a
highly topical issue because of its seemingly persistent nature, and male-dominated
industrial organizations are illustrative examples of this issue. The male-dominated
Swedish industries of forestry and mining, the empirical subjects of this study, are seeking
to become more gender equal and less gender segregated. In recent decades, these
industries have been working on improving gender equality in their organizations, arguing
that this could strengthen their competitiveness in a number of areas (Johansson and
Ringblom, 2017). When participating in research and development projects concerning
gender equality in these industries, a recurring discussion concerns who needs to be more
equaland why? Departing from this question, this paper uses empirical examples from
four research and development projects. The aim of this paper is to explore how power
relations in work organizations are interrelated and expressed in gender equality work.
What notions of gender, class and place emerge when doing gender equality? How are
these constructions intertwined?
Just as gender here is understood as something that people do (West and Zimmerman,
1987), striving for improved gender equality most certainly requires action. In other words,
organizations do gender equality when they aim to improve the situation concerning gender
inequality. Gender equality and gender equality work in organizations are highly dependent
on the national context because of, e.g., legislation and societal norms. Gender equality work
is here seen as an organizational process (Choo and Ferree, 2010) in which multiple power
relations are constituted, challenged and upheld in relation to each other. Even though male-
Gender equality
in male-
dominated
industries
337
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/2040-7149.htm
Received 30 January 2019
Revised 3 June 2019
15 October 2019
12 December 2019
Accepted 23 December 2019
Equality, Diversity and Inclusion:
An International Journal
Vol. 39 No. 4, 2020
pp. 337-353
© Emerald Publishing Limited
2040-7149
DOI 10.1108/EDI-01-2019-0042
dominated industrial organizations have been the subject of significant previous research
regarding gender relations (Abrahamsson, 2009;Andersson, 2012;Cockburn, 1991;Kanter,
1977;Lindgren, 1985;Pettersson, 1996;V
anje, 2005) and to some extent, regarding
intersectionality (Wright, 2013,2016), less work has been done regarding gender equality
work in these types of organizations (Andersson et al. 2018;Ringblom and Abrahamsson,
2017;Johansson et al. 2019;Wahl and Linghag, 2013) and even less work concerning its
effects on other power relations in organizations; in this case, on power relations between
gender, class and place. This study contributes to developing an understanding of the
inequalities in these male-dominated industries by arguing that a more complex image of how
problems of gender inequality are constructed is needed, since power structures can be
described as co-operating (Acker, 2006;2012;Cho et al. 2013).
Work organizations as inequality regimes
To understand inequalities in these male-dominated organizations when doing gender
equality, we turn to Acker (2006,2012) and her two interlinked concepts of inequality regimes
and intersectionality. These two concepts emphasize the complexity of organizational
inequalities by showing that work organizations, through their organizing practices, produce
and uphold inequalities. Acker (2006) defines inequality regimes as loosely interrelated
practices, processes, actions and meanings that result in and maintain class, gender and
racial inequalities within particular organizations(p. 443) and as interlinked organizing
processes that produce patterns of complex inequalities. These processes and patterns vary
in different organizations; the severity of inequalities, their visibility and legitimacy and the
possibilities for change towards less inequality also vary from organization to organization
(p. 459). The result of these intertwined processes and practices is persistent inequalities, even
if Acker (2006) also describes inequality regimes as fluid and changing, since they are closely
connected with the surrounding society and its culture, politics, norms, etc.
Previous studies on forestry and mining have shown that these organizations primarily
see themselves as meritocratic and rational, rather than as part of (re)producing inequality
(Andersson et al. 2018;Johansson et al. 2019;Johansson and Ringblom, 2017). Understanding
work organizations as inequality regimes, however, we see how organizing practices such as
wage setting, recruitment processes, routines and informal interactions at work produce
patterns of complex inequalities (Acker, 2006). While the Swedish forestry and mining
organizations are working to improve gender equality, these organizations simultaneously
affect power structures other than gender. Acker (2012) suggests that gender inequality is
closely linked with other types of power structures and that to assess these complexities, an
intersectional perspective is needed.
Intersectional theory, with its roots in black feminism and postcolonial feminist research,
is often used to give nuances to understandings of power and oppression in relation to
otherwise marginalized groups (Crenshaw, 1991;Mohanty, 2003). The intersecting power
dynamics of special interest to us in the present study is the relationship between class, place
and gender, specifically that concerning men and masculinities. This is motivated by the fact
that specific notions of masculinities, class and place have traditionally been key in
constituting norms in forestry and mining concerning who is a realworker and what kind of
knowledge and skills real workers possess. However, this does not mean that other power
structures, such as race and sexuality, are not also co-constituted in these dynamics.
The group of men who constitute the majority of the workforce in Swedish forestry and
mining, the focal point of this paper, is usually not described or understood as an unprivileged
or marginalized group. Atewologun and Mahalingam (2018) ask the question who is
intersectional?(p. 153); in other words, what social categories or intersections are to be
EDI
39,4
338

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT