Diplomatic Studies, once a conservative backwater of the International Relations discipline, has witnessed theoretical and empirical flourishing over the last three decades. Nowhere is that more evident than in the long overdue explorations of gender in and around diplomacy. Combining insights from new diplomatic history, diplomatic studies, and feminist international relations, our knowledge of the changing gendering of diplomacy and international affairs is growing rapidly. In particular, we have a much better grasp of how women have been excluded and/or made invisible in diplomatic work. Answers to the question, “where are the women?”, can now be given both in the past and in the present tense.

And yet, research has only begun to scratch the surface of how gender and diplomacy/international affairs intersect. We have macro perspectives detailing the gender breakdown of ambassadorial posts, studies of individual women and national diplomatic services, studies of gendered diplomatic practices, and much more, but there is a distinct need for more research at the meso-level, where national and international contexts and institutions are interwoven, and for establishing historicized national case studies.

Elise Stephenson’s new book goes to the heart of this knowledge need. Drawing on feminist institutionalism and a combination of in-depth interviews, historical explorations, and descriptive statistics, Stephenson presents a very interesting case study of the developing gendering of Australia’s outward-looking posture in international affairs, looking specifically at the women who lead the relevant institutions in Australia and who represent Australia abroad. The importance of her book lies partially in the setup of the analysis, and partially in her illuminating core findings.

The first core strength concerns the scope of the analysis. Even though it has been recognized for decades that ministries of foreign affairs have lost a lot of their gatekeeper function between the inside and the outside of the state, a majority of studies still stick to MFAs and diplomatic services. Deeming this unsatisfactory, Stephenson casts the net wider, analyzing not only the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) but also Defence, Home Affairs, and the Australian Federal Police, all of which have personnel abroad. And the scope is not only wide but also deep. For each of the institutions, we get rich historical analyses, showing how the institutions have developed, and the roles gender has played within them. At points, this focus on institutional development overshadows the specific international and representational dimensions of the institutions, but generally, the detailed explorations demonstrate the important path dependencies and institutional inertia that help perpetuate gender (and other) inequalities. Finally, it is also praiseworthy that Stephenson moves beyond locating the women, also problematizing “which women” and as such questions of intersectionality.

Moving on to the findings, Stephenson points out that even if overt gender inequalities have been reduced, gender continues to structure how the institutions work. Simply creating numerical balance is not enough to create gender equality. Furthermore, there are striking differences (but also some similarities) between the different institutions. While women are overall least represented in the more militaristic organizations, their relative likelihood of attaining leadership positions and working internationally is highest in the very same institutions. However, even with significant internal differences between the institutions, the gendered experiences of women posted abroad are relatively similar, suggesting strong international institutional pressures. Reflecting on their differing experiences, women, somewhat surprisingly described worse challenges with their institutions than at international postings. This is not to downplay challenges at postings, Stephenson’s analysis underscores a key finding in feminist studies of diplomacy, namely that international representation hinges on (typically) unpaid labor, often conducted by women. At the level of the family unit, women who were accompanied by a wife found life easier than other women.

The overall structure of the analysis is strong, and the core findings are convincing, even so, the book would have benefitted from exploring alternative explanations, comparing more between genders and countries and problematizing the data somewhat more. At times the observed oppression and marginalization seem predetermined rather than a result of the analysis, and words like “may” and “likely” do significant interpretative work where the data seem inconclusive. It is thus somewhat unclear what sort of findings could have led to the conclusion that oppression and marginalization are not pervasive phenomena. Two short examples might provide food for further investigation.

One salient point concerns trend lines for development over time. The gender breakdown of DFAT employment is instructive in this regard. Stephenson argues that “for over three decades a relatively consistent gap appears to exist between women’s overall representation and their representation in SES leadership [the top leadership level]” (p. 155). However, the accompanying graph suggests that said gap was around 35% (40% vs. 5%) in 1984 but had been reduced to 15% (60% vs. 45%) in 2021. Moreover, it is hard to interpret the data without having accompanying data on the gender ratios of entry into the service and retention and without some cohort analyses. An alternative reading of the presented graph could be that women’s representation in DFAT leadership positions has increased dramatically over the last four decades and that the remaining gender gap could be a result of historical lag in recruitment. It could also be a result of women taking longer to advance their careers, lower recruitment, and retention rates, or something different. Is the remaining gap simply what one would expect from a gradual historical development, or does it reflect continued marginalization?

At a more overarching level, the book would have benefitted from pondering the changing gendering of interlocking institutions a bit more. One example concerns how Stephenson finds that a surprising number of women leave the service when returning from international posting. In the Norwegian MFA, which I have studied in some detail, we see the same tendency for men as well, or to be more precise, both men and women plan their diplomatic careers and family life to be able to take leaves of absence when kids are in their formative school years. To me, this suggests that what we might be seeing is not only (and perhaps not predominantly) gender inequality but also a more profound challenge of modern (dual-earner) families for modern diplomacy. This, in turn, reflects that some of the core international gendered structures of diplomacy have not changed all that much, even as the gendering of domestic life and family life has changed significantly.

These final remarks should not detract from the overall impression that Elise Stephenson has produced an invaluable case study of the progress made by, and the challenges still facing, women in Australian international affairs. It should be an inspiration both to those wanting to conduct similar analyses of other states and to those eager to compare and contrast cases.