artifact 3 analytical inquiry

Running head: LITERATURE REVIEW 1

Literature Review: Asian American Pacific Islander Student Development Theory

Brett M. Stachler

Loyola University Chicago

LITERATURE REVIEW 2

Introduction

Student development theory provides a lens to a world that allows us to be empathetic to

students’ stories and lives where we may not have a particular understanding. Asian American

Pacific Islander (AAPI) stories and student development theory are tied to a uniqueness of

having Asian and/or Pacific Islander lineage within the context of racism in the United States

that exists on individual and systemic levels (Alvarez & Helms, 2001; Skrentny, 2008). Asian

American, Pacific Islander students have a unique experience in higher education. On one hand,

they have been systemically oppressed by racist rhetoric stemming from World War II (Park,

2008). On the other, AAPI students are branded by as model minorities by researchers,

institutions, and other students (Alvarez & Helms, 2001; Ngo & Lee, 2007; Park, 2008; Park,

Poon, Chang, 2009). Understanding the many lives and development of AAPI students proves

the hegemonic and stereotypical views of AAPI students is much more complex. The term

Asian American is a construction of historic racism in the United States and plants a blanket

identity over thirty different ethnicities with vast differences in culture (Parks, 2008; Renn, 2000,

2003). Yet these differences are not accounted for, and the dominant narrative for Asian

Americans reflects the successful stories and statistics of students with cultural capital, while

oppressed stories and statistics are lost within the model minority myth (Ngo & Lee, 2007; Park,

2008). These stories and theories are intertwined in historical oppression that all people of color

face in the United States, but AAPI stories are specifically unique due to the lens of a model

minority that is applied by those with power and privilege (Kohatsu, Victoria, Lau, Flores, &

Salazar, 2011; Yeh, 2002). AAPI students also have intersecting identities of being second-

generation immigrants, multi-racial, gay, and lesbian, and these are also stories and theories that

ought to be heard (Chan, 1989; Khanna, 2004; Park, 2008). All of these stories and theories of

LITERATURE REVIEW 3

AAPI students are as diverse as every individual, but provide a narrative to student affairs

educators for why their unique lives matter. To understand AAPI stories and theory, a brief

background, history, and context will be provided.

The Asian American Pacific Islander Identity

AAPI people at a certain point in time represented the largest population of immigrants in

the United States, the largest portion of this population still exists on the west coast of the United

States, particularly in California (Ying & Lee, 2009). In the United States currently, the majority

of AAPI people are first, or second generation (Ying & Lee, 2009). Like most identities in the

United States, the term Asian American is institutionalized as one of five races documented for

census purposes, yet the term Asian American was taken back as an inclusive umbrella term

during racial equity campaigns during the Civil Rights era (Park, 2008; Skrentny, 2008). The

Yellow Power movement is a rarely talked about movement within the civil rights era that

brought to light racism and discrimination during the Vietnam War by mainly by Chinese and

Japanize Americans (Park, 2008). The drawback in creating a wide umbrella for Asian

Americans is the differences between each group. Southeastern Asian people immigrated to the

United States with little cultural capital present in the U.S. and without resources from the war

torn countries they were leaving (Ngo & Lee, 2007).

Asian American Pacific Islander Students in Higher Education

In higher education settings, Asian American Pacific Islander students have been

institutionally un-prioritized because of the myth of racial success in the model minority myth,

where AAPI students are labeled as the highest of educational achievers (Alvarez & Helms,

2001; Laanan & Starobin, 2004; Poon, 2011). The model minority myth contends AAPI

students are immune from racism due to their high educational status, work ethic, and culture of

LITERATURE REVIEW 4

sacrifice (Perry, Vance, & Hemls, 2009). This connects with a narrative in higher education of

White fear in loss of education attainment status, leading to anti-affirmative action campaigns in

California and other states (Poon, 2011). Even though these campaigns continue to unravel,

AAPI students are the fastest growing population in higher education (Park, Lin, Poon, & Chang,

2008).

AAPI students occupy a variety of institutional types in higher education (Laanan &

Starobin, 2004). Until 2007, no federal legislation existed for AAPI students until The College

Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007 federally recognized institutions of higher education

with AAPI students representing 10% of the total enrolment as Minority Serving Institutions

(MSI) (Park & Chang, 2010). Yet, the model minority myth plots AAPI students occupying

spaces in highly selective four-year colleges and universities, when in fact the 40% of AAPI

students attend two-year community colleges (Lew, June, & Wang, 2005). This is significant for

two reasons. AAPI students are a bimodal population, where students are polarized on two

extremes of success (Lew, et al., 2005). What some consider AAPI students who are

educationally at risk (due to a variety of different factors, such as ethnicity, immigration status,

parental values of education) by largely attend community colleges (Yeh, 2002). Secondly, little

resources for AAPI students exist specifically for their identity development from the community

colleges, which can be supplemented by AAPI student organizations (Lew, et al., 2002; Museus,

2008). The subject of AAPI identity development will be discussed next.

Asian American Pacific Islander Identity Development

The filter used to describe the lives, stories, and theories of development for Asian

American Pacific Islander students can be wide and specific. AAPI students can be categorized

as People of Color (POC) in the United States in the context of historic and systemic White

LITERATURE REVIEW 5

supremacy (Kohatsu, Victoria, Lau, Flores, & Salazar, 2011). AAPI students can also be viewed

in a paradigm of their own collective race, or ethnicity to characterize differences between POC,

and ethnicities that fall in the AAPI umbrella. AAPI students are also more than their race or

ethnicities, they are also Men, Women, Gay, Lesbian, Religious, and different in terms of

immigration status, which accounts for differences in stories and theories based on

intersectionality.

Asian Americans Pacific Islanders as People of Color

It is worth spending time on Asian American Pacific Islanders development within a

People of Color context because of the legacy of White supremacy and color-blind White

privileges that perpetuate the model minority stereotype (Kohatsu, et al., 2011). Helms & Cook

(1999) defined People of Color as people falling under the racial identities of Asian American,

Native American, Latino American, and African American people that are subject to socio-

political-economic racism that is then internalized. Historically, AAPI student development

theory began within the umbrella of POC because they were rarely represented in research and

theory pertaining to race, largely because of the model minority myth (Perry, et al., 2009).

Helms & Cook’s (1999) POC Theory contends that POC face similar oppression in the

United States. The types of oppression towards each race may be different, but POC face a

similar internalization process when facing racism, assimilation, and acceptance from White

people (Helms & Cook, 1999). Helms & Cook (1999) contend that the core of racial

development is to overcome internalized racism, and this development comes in ego-stages

where “cognitive-affective-conative intapsycic principles for responding to racial stimuli in one’s

internal and external environments” occurs (p. 244). This is as opposed to previous stage

theories where similar stimuli are experienced and development occurs when one masters the

LITERATURE REVIEW 6

criteria for the developmental stage, as Helms & Cooks (1999) contend racism is experienced

differently by each race. The ego stages range from conformity or pre-exposure, where a POC

may not understand the effects of racism on their lives and acceptance of White culture is

idealized, to immersion where POC positively idealize their identity and dualistically segregate

Whiteness, to integrated awareness where POC can value and empathize with the racial identity

of self and others and also identify and empathize with other members of oppressed groups

(Helms & Cook, 1999).

Perry, et al. (2009) used the POC theory in an exploratory factor analysis to discover if

the POC theory is a relevant theory of development for AAPI students. In particular, Perry et al.

(2009) challenges the POC theory, the People of Color Racial Identity Attitudes Scale (PRIAS)

in particular, in how overall constructs to the theory are applied to AAPI students in the same

way they are towards POC in general. Using a largely first-generation AAPI population for their

study, Perry et al. (2009) found AAPI students are less likely to experience confusion or

idealization of Whites or western culture because of acculturation gaps or conflicts with elders,

meaning AAPI students may not experience the anxiety or anger as saliently as other POC

towards Whites or western culture. Perry et al. (2009) also empirically discovered that POC and

AAPI students are not a homogeneous group, and therefore distinctions between ethnicities and

races must be made.

Asian American Racial Identity Development

Different stage based racial identity models stem from Helms & Cook’s (1999) People of

Color racial identity model and frame it reflect the racial umbrella of Asian American Pacific

Islander students (Kim, 2001; Alvarez 2002; Alvarez & Helms, 2001). Like the POC research

paradigm, scholars have critiqued the paradigm of AAPI people as a race because of its assumed

LITERATURE REVIEW 7

homogenous grouping, not accounting for vast socioeconomic, cultural, linguistic, and ethnic

differences (Alvarez, 2002). Despite the wide range of responses of how salient an AAPI racial

identity is, many different AAPI students come together to form a larger salient identity at

predominantly White institutions (PWI), and AAPI students face individual and systemic racism

within a racial context (Alvarez & Helms, 2001; Museus, 2008). Up to the point of Kim’s

(2001) research on racial identity development, little research had been produced on AAPI

students except for psychological diagnosis, and college recruitment and retention (Alvarez,

2002).

Kim (2001) introduced the Asian American identity development model in his work with

Japanese American Women as a model for AAPI to understand their racial identity and resolve

racist experiences in their lives. The assumption in Kim’s (2001) identity model center on AAPI

people and students discovering and unlearning racism perpetuated towards AAPI people in the

United States, and constructing a positive self-image to replace internalized racism. Kim’s

(2001) identity model is experienced in stages that are characterized in experience and

timeframes, and the formerly mentioned assumption is necessary to progress to different stages.

Ethnic awareness is experienced before schooling, and any other major socialization experience

other than the family context. AAPI students living in predominately AAPI communities may

feel salience and community in their identity, whereas AAPI living in White communities may

feel neutral salience in their AAPI identity (Kim, 2001). Once schooling or another major

socialization process outside of the family begins, AAPI students experience the white

identification stage and may have values of “enduring suffering quietly, avoiding public shame,

and valuing collective group orientation” (Evans, Forney, Guido, Patton, & Renn, 2010, p. 265).

These values may differ from others students, and those students may shame AAPI students for

LITERATURE REVIEW 8

their differences (Kim, 2001). Because AAPI students may have collectivist and belonging

values, they may internalize and acculturate the beliefs of their oppressors (Alvarez & Helms,

2001; Chae & Foley, 2010; Kim, 2001).

Alvarez & Helms (2001) use Kim’s (2001) white identification stage as a springboard to

connect symbolic interaction, racial adjustment, and collective self-esteem. Symbolic interaction

theory is based on a premise that students will self-characterize themselves based from appraisals

from others, and collective self-esteem is how individuals evaluate themselves based on group

identification (Alvarez & Helms, 2001). Alvarez & Helms (2001) found that AAPI college

students who have positive symbolic interaction regarding their AAPI identity had high

collective self-esteem and racial appraisal, and conversely students with negative symbolic

interaction had low collective self-esteem, negative racial appraisal, and moved towards

acculturation in the surrounding culture at PWI’s. This study highlights that Kim’s (2001) White

identification state can still be developmentally present in AAPI college students.

Kim’s (2001) next stage is awakening to social political consciousness were AAPI

students can consciously understand that they are an oppressed people in the United States, that

their experience is an interaction of individual and systemic racism, and as a result can built

coalitions with other POC. Redirection to Asian American consciousness occurs when an AAPI

person moves beyond an oppression paradigm to their identity and actively identifies as Asian

American Pacific Islander (Kim, 2001). Finally, incorporation completes development when a

students’ AAPI identity is positively self-reflected, an AAPI person can interact with other races

positively, and the AAPI identity is seen only as one part of the self (Kim, 2001). Kim’s (2001)

stages set the stage for a variety of different theories that will be discussed in further length later.

LITERATURE REVIEW 9

An adaption of racism towards AAPI students in the 21st century is the idea of color-

blindness, a meritocracy where race and racism do not matter in attaining cultural capital

(Kohatsu, et al., 2011). The model minority myth sustains the notion of color blindness, because

AAPI students are depicted as attaining more cultural capital gains than White students who are

considered privileged in the United States (Kohatsu, et al; Poon, 2011). Because of colorblind

ideologies towards AAPI people by all races (their participants were all people of color),

Kohatsu et al. (2011) argue that individuals, and thus larger institutions perpetuate the myth that

AAPI students are high academic achievers who are overrepresented in higher education. Thus

AAPI students are need seen as an institutional priority, and may not receive programs or

services to foster development, succeed educationally, or seen as an oppressed member of

society (Kohatsu, et al., 2011; Lew et al, 2005). Still limits exist with casting a wide umbrella.

Stories and theories that pertain to different ethnicities are lost when framing AAPI students in a

racial context; these stories and theories will be explored next.

Asian American Ethnic Identity Development

Ethnic identity differs from racial identity because it focuses on the aspects of self as it

relates to an identification that comes from a connection with culture, customs, languages, rituals,

music, food, values, and norms (Perry, et al., 2009). In this assessment of AAPI identity

development, AAPI students do not exist as a homogeneous race but rather a variety of different

ethnicities falling under an AAPI umbrella, usually defined by heritage to a geographical region.

Ethnic identity development is framed through a few different paradigms. There are paradigms

that focus on ethnic development as stage based development, contextualized though values and

norms associated with AAPI people (Kawaguchi, 2003; Kim & Omizo, 2005; Yeh & Huang,

1996; Ying & Lee, 1999). Others focus on development on ethnicity from the context of a

LITERATURE REVIEW 10

specific geographical region, and how it may differ or be similar to AAPI racial or ethnic

development (Chae & Foley, 2010; Ibrahim, Ohnishi, & Singh, 1997; Maramba, 2008; Nadal,

2004; Ngo & Lee 2007). AAPI people are the most ethnically diverse population in the United

States, which can complicate understanding their ethnic identity development, so different

models and their critiques will be explained first and geo-ethnic identity research last (Yeh &

Huang, 1996).

The ethnic identity development for AAPI students is important because the majority of

AAPI students are raised in families with caretakers who are first or second-generation AAPI

immigrants where ethnic AAPI heritage may be more salient (Ying & Lee, 1999). Different

frameworks of AAPI ethnic identity development stem from Phinney’s (1990) model of ethnic

identity development, where Phinney describes four distinct stages: diffusion, foreclosure,

moratorium, and achieved. Diffusion and foreclosure is characterized by little or no exploration

of ethnic identity, and foreclosure is only distinct in how the person may be aware of the

oppression their ethnicity faces, yet it is still an unexamined identity (Phinney, 1990). In

moratorium, students may face an overtly racist encounter or gradually begin to understand and

make meaning of their ethnic identity, and may encounter confusion about the meaning they

make (Phinney, 1990). Students achieve an ethnic identity by having a healthy and positive

understanding of their ethnic identity that can be bicultural within a racial and ethnic context

(Phiney, 1990).

Kawaguchi (2003) found that AAPI students faced multiple ethnic aggressions both pre-

college and in the college context. Students felt overt racism from how their White counterparts

would self-segregate, say demeaning things, and how the institution would perpetuate the model-

minority myth by not understanding their ethnic identity; yet the AAPI students in the research


(graduating students) still held a positive image of their ethnicity (Kawaguchi, 2003). Ying &

Lee (1999) discovered that about half of the students in their study were in the achieved stage of

their ethnic identity development, but only 1/3 of males had met this stage and were instead in

diffusion/foreclosure or moratorium. Yeh & Huang (1996) differ from stage-based theorists,

citing that AAPI ethnic identities are diverse and vast, and therefore Phinney’s (1990) model is

incapable of comprehending the ethnic development of AAPI ethnicities.

Yeh & Huang (1996) highlight three unique experiences in ethnic identity development:

acculturation, collectivism, and shame. Acculturation happens when an individual assimilates or

absorbs the culture of a dominant group they are socialized in for survival purposes (Kim &

Omizo, 2005). Pieces of acculturation are present in Kim’s (2001) white identification stage,

and is a byproduct of AAPI students potential viewing relationships as interdependently and

collectively rather than individualistically (Alvarez & Helms, 2001; Yeh & Huang, 1996). Kim

& Omizo (2005) found that AAPI college students who held the notion of biculturalism –

positively viewing, valuing, and separating the ethnicity of their family and of the dominant

culture – had higher collective self-esteem. Yeh & Huang (1996) found the students in their

research were collective rather than individual orientated in their relationships, more likely to

value relationships and family commitments, and more likely to fit in and not separate the self

from larger society (Yeh & Huang, 1996). AAPI students also reported shame as a salient

emotion in conforming to White culture in order to avoid embarrassment for being different, and

also conforming back to an ethnic identity around their caretakers or AAPI friends (Yeh &

Huang, 1996). This finding validates Kim & Omizo’s (2005) finding of having a positive ethnic

identity by holding a positive bicultural identity and Kim’s assumption of racial identity

development needing a positive reframing of identity in order to overcome internalized racism.


Nadal (2004) reviews ethnic identity development through the lens of Filipina/o

Americans, the largest ethnic population enrolled in US colleges. Filipina/o Americans have a

unique lineage and identity in terms of how their race is constructed. Filipina/o Americans are

classified as Asian Americans by the U.S. census, yet as Pacific Islanders by the U.S.

Department of Education, while still differing from their AAPI counterparts in terms of their

identity both in terms skin color, and racial and ethnic affiliation (Nadal, 2004). During the

Yellow Power movement during the Civil Rights Era, Filipina/o Americans distanced themselves

and opted for a Brown Asian Caucus, and continue to identify as Brown people rather than

Yellow (Nadal, 2004). Concurrently, Filipina/o Americans differ from other AAPI people

because of colonization from both Spain and the United States. Filipina/o Americans are more

likely to identify as Catholic because of Spanish heritage, more likely to learn and speak English

and view family members neutrally in terms of gender because of U.S. heritage (as opposed to

males being heavily favored in other AAPI ethnicities), and more likely to be marginalized by

AAPI counterparts by different ethnic jokes (Nadal, 2004). Filipina/o Americans are also more

likely to have lower high school and college graduation rates and less cultural and economic

capital, which can get lost within umbrella AAPI research, and lodged within the model minority

myth (Nadal, 2004; Yeh, 2002). In research with college students, Maramba (2008) looks at

ethnic identity development through the lens of Filipina Americans as well and found that the

students had a hard time navigating the balance between home/family expectations and college

because they were both second-generation immigrants to the United States and first-year college

students, which represent two unique and different struggles in terms of identity development.

Ibrahim, et al. (1997) researched the development for south AAPI, particularly Burmese,

Kashmiri, Indian, Pakistan, Nepali, Sri Lankan, and Tibetan American ethnicities. South AAPI


Americans differ from the AAPI umbrella for a variety of different reasons pertaining to culture,

which has roots back to the regions different colonizers: the Caucasus, the Turks, the Greeks, the

Arabs, the Huns, and the British (Ibrahim, et al., 1997). The regions religious practices vary

from country, with most countries practicing Hinduism, Buddhism, or Muslim religious.

Although Ibrahim et al. (1997) discusses the salience of these values in the context of how many

generations a South AAPI has lived in the U.S., they frame south AAPI ethnic identity

development through six values. In terms of how south AAPI students develop identity through

the external world, respect for family, respect for age (in the context of knowledge increasing

with age), and respect for the community as a family member are lenses of southern AAPI

developing ethnic identity (Ibrahim, et al., 1997). Self-respect, dignity, and self-control, fatalism

(a belief that no matter what a person goes through, there will still be inevitable struggles), and

humility are internalized constructs in which a southern AAPI student may construct identity

(Ibrahim, et al., 1997).

Ngo & Lee (2007) highlight south southeastern (Vietnamese Americans, Hmong

Americans, Cambodian Americans, and Lao) AAPI students in their research due to how this

particular population of students is nestled within the model minority myth, yet have double,

even triple higher rates of high school and college attrition than their south AAPI, Chinese, and

Japanese counterparts. Southeastern AAPI students come from cultural heritages of immigrant’s

from war torn countries with the majority of refugees having little English proficiency, little

formal education, and little transferable skills in the post-industrial U.S (Ngo & Lee, 2007).

Prioritizations of college assess, retention, academic success, and identity development is often

lost in this ethnicity largely because the model minority myth uses a wide umbrella of AAPI

identities (Ngo & Lee, 2007; Yeh, 2002). Dissecting and understanding the stories that fall in


the wide range of AAPI ethnicities is necessary to understand the differences and struggles that

are agitated when lumped into an umbrella of AAPI race and ethnicity identity development.

Intersectionality and Post Structural Frameworks

Intersectional and post-structural framers of AAPI stories and theories critique both the

rigidness and mono-complexity of the AAPI framework, and the lack of intersectional identities

into a person’s development (Chen, 2005; Maramba, 2008; Teranishi, Behringer, Grey, & Parker,

2009). Kim’s (2001) Asian American identity development model does not speak of the

potential for intersectionality until the last stage, and assumes that the person developing only

has one oppressed racial identity. Similar critiques are reflected in Helms & Cook’s (1999)

research as well. While these theories should be critiqued for their one-dimensional lens, their

framework sets the stage of intersectional and post-structural frameworks of AAPI student

development. To give credence to post-structural frameworks, a review of critical race theory

will be discussed first and intersectional identities within AAPI students second.

Critical race theory (CRT) frames the discussion of racial and ethnic identity

development as a deconstruction of race, ethnicity, and the power components held within those

identities (Evans, et al., 2010). The four assumptions of CRT are that racism is so systemic in

the U.S. that it is often invisible, the stories of POC must be heard in order to unearth power,

privilege, and oppression, the oppressors will only deconstruct their power only when they see

the benefit to them, and colorblindness and the tents of its existence (such as the model minority

myth) must be challenged (Evans et al., 2010; Kohatsu et al., 2011; Teranishi, et al., 2009).

Teranishi et al. (2009) use CRT to discuss a variety of different higher education subjects from

the paradigms of research to college access. In student development theory, Teranishi et al.

(2009) argue that many fundamental theories used in student affairs are race-less, or critiqued


within a Black race – White race paradigm, forgetting the stories and theories of AAPI students.

Dismantling the invisible power structures that race hold should always be a tenant when student

affairs educations are acting in good company to facilitate identity development, as race and its

power structure will always be present no matter what race is in the room.

Intersectionality refers to a fusion of two or more identities that are salient to the core of a

person, and are not the sum of its parts, but rather a unique fusion (i.e. AAPI + Woman does not

equal AAPI Woman) (Holvino, 2012). Intersectionality stems from Abes, Jones, & McEwen’s

(2007) multidimensional theory of identity where multiple identities exist in a dimensional

sphere, and the salience of the identity is visually represented by how close (salient) or far

(invisible) the identity is from the core of the student. Chen (2005) discovered that the most

salient identities of AAPI students were ethnicity, gender, and race; the least salient identities

being sexual orientation and religion. Because ethnicity, gender, and race may are salient

identities for AAPI students, they may be view as intersectional with the majority of AAPI

students (Chen, 2005).

Gender roles, depending on ethnicity and generational status in the United States, can

either be more rigid or more gender neutral. In AAPI ethnic identity development, males were

found to be less likely development compared to females (Ying & Lee, 1999). Shek & McEwen

(2012) found this develop related to males having higher statues in families, and thus

assimilating to care taker norms, delaying their exploration outside of their families’ norms and

values. Ibrahim et al. (1997) also spoke of gender roles being clearly defined in south AAPI

culture as life outside of the home being mainly controlled by men, and the domain inside of the

home being mainly controlled by women. The salience of these values however depended on the

generational length of the south AAPI student (i.e. first, second generation) (Ibrahim et al., 1997).


Nadal (2004) found in his literature review that Filipina/o Americans viewed gender more

neutrally because of historically colonization of the United States. Maramba (2008) found

Filipina women were imposed under stricter rules and expectations as it pertained to their social

and academic life in college. Women also voiced different inequities compared to their brothers,

who were allowed to disagree and talk back to their parents, did not have to complete chores

done before college enrollment where women did (Maramba, 2008). Women also voiced that

their parents looked down their involvement in co-curricular activities as a waste of time

(Maramba, 2008).

Chan (1989) and Chen’s (2005) research focuses on AAPI identities intersecting with

Heterosexual, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Gay (LGB) college students’ idenitites. Chen (2005)

discovered that sexual orientation identities were one of the least salient identities in AAPI

students, while Chan (1989) discovered that LGB AAPI college students did not feel connected

with their AAPI race or ethnicity. Differences were found when the students had family

members that were accepting, experiences of racism with the LGB community, or after finding

other AAPI members within the LGB community. Chan (1989) critiques Cass’s model of sexual

orientation identity development because it does not account for the assimilation experiences of

LGB AAPI students. Because the majority of the family members of those studied did not

believe in or acknowledged an LGB identity as a western, White identity, AAPI students felt fear,

anxiety, and shame in their coming out process (Chan, 1989). Yeh & Huang (1996) discuss the

ethnic uniqueness of collectivism, assimilation, and shame in AAPI students, and this collectivist

identity intersects with AAPI LB students’ apprehension to come out to heteronormative family

members (Chan, 1989). AAPI identity development theory is pivotal to understanding the


stories and development of AAPI students. To complement AAPI identity development,

cognitive and psychosocial theories will be discussed next.

Cognitive and Psychosocial Development in Asian American Pacific Islander Students

Psychosocial development theory involves putting an individual’s development in a

context both historically and socially (Evans, et al., 2010). Chickering & Reisser (1993) focus

on the timespan of college for a student to develop their identity through the resolution of a

number of issues that they define as vectors: developing competence, managing emotions,

moving through autonomy toward interdependence, developing mature interpersonal

relationships, establishing identity, developing purpose, and developing integrity (Evans, et al.,

2010). Chickering & Reisser (1993) differ from pervious psychosocial theories in providing a

framework of development that consists of vectors, as opposed to stages that build off of each

other with progression through vectors not as linear stage based development, even though the

stages are interconnected (Evans, et al., 2010).

Although Chickering & Reisser (1993) have an identity development component to their

theory, their theory has been critiqued for being race-less (Kodama, McEwen, Liang, & Lee,

2002; Teranishi, 2009). Before Pope (2000), little research existed on how racial identity

development is paramount to identity development, no matter what racial identity one has.

Using Pope’s correlational findings of psychosocial developmental tasks and racial development,

Kodama, et al. (2002) created their own conception of AAPI psychosocial identity development

by reframing Chickering & Reisser’s theory. Central to the reframing, Kodama, et al. (2002)

explain the two largest domains that interact with the AAPI self are western values and racism

from U.S. society and AAPI values from family and community. Like many POC, AAPI

students are not exposed to the struggles and contributions their ancestors have made, and


simultaneously experience racism and oppression, during which their race or ethnicity may

become a central point to their identity development (Kodama, et al., 2002). Kodama et al.

(2002) creates their own version of vectors of: emotions, competency, interdependence,

relationships, integrity, and family/culture vs. society.

Cognitive theory for AAPI students, focuses on how students think, understand, and

make meaning by asking the developmental question ‘who are we’, rather than the westernized

developmental question of ‘who am I’ (Evans, et al., 2010; Pizzolato, Kim Nguyen, Johnston, &

Wang, 2012)? A fundamental theory in cognitive development is Baxter Magolda’s (1992)

theory of self-authorship, where she accounts for cognitive development in both men and women.

Key to Baxter Magolda’s (1992) theory is movement from dependence on authority figures,

towards self-authorship where individuals can author their own experience without external

forces. Although this framework does have relevance for AAPI students, it is created in a

westernized framework valuing individuality and does not take into account the collectivist

orientation of AAPI students (Love & Guthrie, 1999; Pizzolato, et al., 2012). Collectivist

cultures like AAPI students, cognitively develop in a non-gendered lens using Baxter Magolda’s

(1992) theory, developing in the women orientated stages of receiving knowledge, interpersonal

knowing, interindividual knowing, and contextual knowing; all considered cognitive

development that considers the value of one’s own ideas equally with the ideas of others (Evans,

et al., 2010; Love & Guthrie, 1999).

Limitations and Future Directions of Theory

Many of the different theoretical paradigms that are used for stage-based theories are

westernized theories that may not align with AAPI ethnic identities by valuing individualism,

where AAPI students may desire to socially construct their identity interdependently (Ying &


Lee, 1999). The model minority myth is systemic in nature, and is perpetuated in research in a

few different ways. To revisit, the model minority myth within the AAPI identity frames their

identity as success stories of high educational achievement and immunity from racism (Alvarez

& Helms, 2001; Perry, et al., 2009). Up until the late 1990’s, little research on AAPI identity

development and little higher education literature (except for recruitment and retention) existed

(Alvarez, 2002). AAPI people and students were one of the last identities researched with under

the POC umbrella (Alvarez, 2002; Helms & Cook, 1999). Although there are numerous other

reasons for the former argument being the case, such as AAPI students only recently occupying a

larger presence in higher education where identity based research is usually researched, the

western internalization of the model minority myth may be a reason why the AAPI identity was

not prioritized in research until the late 1990’s (Alvarez, Kawaguchi, 2003; Teranishi, et al,

2009). Teranishi et al., (2009) using a CRT framework, argues for AAPI students to be actively

involved in the research process using a constructivist framework, which is one of the key

tenants of dismantling power structures within race and ethnicity (Evans, et al., 2001). Different

stages based theorists use positivist frameworks for developing their theories and ask little or no

input from students as to how they would like their stories constructed (Chickering & Reisser,

1993; Helms & Cook, 1999; Kim, 2001).

Implications for Higher Education

When framing the experiences of AAPI students, student affairs educators must consider

the unique experience of AAPI students by understanding: their potential student development

based on the discussed theories, inequities within different AAPI ethnicities that cannot been

seen, internalized-socialized biases student affairs educators have towards AAPI people.


In order to fully understand the identity development of AAPI students whether regarding

their race, ethnicity, or intersectional identity, student affairs educators must realize and reflect

on their westernized frameworks of understanding relationships which value independence over

interdependence (Kodama, et al., 2002). In this framework, people socialized in a western world

framework may devalue or look over the potential needs of AAPI students. Graduating college

students in Kawaguchi’s (2003) research reflected on how the model minority myth grew from

their families and their AAPI community in ways that education is prioritized, and wealthy,

prestigious jobs are valued higher. Yet, individuals and systems in higher education perpetuated

these myths by not reflecting on how the model minority myth may have become infused in their

ethnic identity (Kawaguchi, 2003). In discussing subjects of career and vocation, and

discussions of where motivations of their future is coming from, student affairs educators should

reflect on the potential of the model minority myth being a internalized piece of their ethnic

identity (Kawaguchi, 2003; Lew, et al., 1998). Additional positive stereotypes that exist for

AAPI students, such as a student interview in Kawaguchi (2003) who needing tutoring in math

who was told by their professor they were surprised due to their race, are invalidating as well.

Because the vocation that an AAPI student chooses may be indicative of personal success

and a family success, it is important to understand AAPI students’ motivations when it comes to

career and vocation (Yeh & Huang, 1996; Tang, 2002). As a comparative group, AAPI students

and Chinese students were more likely to choose science, technology, engineering, and

mathematics (STEM) vocations, whereas Caucasian students were more likely to choose social

orientated degrees (Tang, 2002). However given the option of choosing their ideal (with no

financial component) vocation, AAPI and Caucasian students’ responses were distributed and

balanced (Tang, 2002). Family and particularly parental influence in AAPI students’ vocation


can be a health measure of healthy student development however, and is often negatively

perceived by western orientated people who value individualism (Lew, Allen, Papouchis, &

Ritzler, 1998). Holding a bicultural, positive notion between western values of individualism

and the possible collectivist values of AAPI family members was seen as the best indicator of

students’ developmentally choosing their vocation (Kim & Omizo, 2005; Lew, et al., 1998).

Framing AAPI students within a POC and racial context is important to understand the

implications of oppression and racism, and how students develop through that context (Alvarez,

2002; Teranishi et al., 2009). Conversely, using the AAPI umbrella homogenizes vast

differences that exist within the AAPI umbrella within ethnicities and different identity

intersections such as gender and gender (Maramba, 2008; Ngo & Lee, 2007). These differences

can be lost because of the myth of racial success embedded within the model minority myth (Yea,

2002). Yeh (2002) discusses educational risk factors, which often stem from students' immigrant

status, English language proficiency, family expectations, and socio-economic status. Although

Teranishi (2009) argues that systems put AAPI students at risk rather than the students

themselves being at risk, it is important to understand the vast differences and inequities of

cultural capital that is potential in AAPI students our campuses.

Finally, student affairs educators should empathize, validate, and be good company for

AAPI students’ development during college. Although the institutional and student facilitated

resources available for AAPI students will range based on different higher education institution

types, missions, and student populations; creating and understanding these different resources for

AAPI students will effectively facilitate their identity development (Inkelas, 2004; Liang, Lee, &

Ting, 2002; Museus, 2008; Park, et al., 2008; Yeh, 2002). AAPI student development resources

largely came from their own advocacy and activism on campus, pushing the higher education


institutions to create Asian American academic programs and student affairs offices (Alvarez &

Liu, 2002; Park, et al., 2008). These academic programs have a wealth of knowledge regarding

AAPI current events and larger issues (i.e. affirmative action, immigration) that could be used as

speakers for speaker series, provide developmental and theoretical context to student affairs

practitioners during trainings, and serve as mentors to AAPI students (Alvarez & Liu, 2002).

Another catalyst for AAPI student development is AAPI student organizations, which can range

from being AAPI umbrellas, to specific ethnic groups (i.e. Chinese, Vietnamese). The

relationship between students who participate in race and ethnicity based student organizations

and understanding and awareness of their racial/ethnic identities is strong and significant (Inkelas,

2004; Museus, 2008). Some students may not be encouraged to join co-curricular activities

based on family or parental values, which should be valued and validated by student affairs

practitioners, but highlighted as an opportunity for growth for AAPI students (Maramba, 2008).

Within a White, westernized, and individualistic context however, AAPI students may be

stereotyped as compliant, passive, and unassertive in holding leadership roles (Liang, et al.,

2002). Validating the values of collectivism, humility, and preserving harmony over

assertiveness and decisiveness is necessary for AAPI students to develop leadership skills in a

healthy way, but this may not be understood by individualistically orientated students (Liang, et

al., 2002). Student affairs educators should be prepared to understand and validate AAPI

students’ personal leadership styles, and how their identity relates to their leadership style and

the larger sociopolitical context.

Conclusion

It is important for student affairs practitioners to remove a POC framework when

interacting with AAPI students, and rather reflect and frame conversations on their unique racial


and ethnic identities. To do this, student affairs practitioners socialized in a western world must

understand their framework of relationships. AAPI identity development needs continued

revisiting as AAPI people and students are framed differently in the upcoming years. Second-

generation and third-generation students experienced similar overt racism as their first-

generation counterparts, yet internalized and framed the racism through the lens of their

identities as United States citizens. Future generations may internalize racism through a unique

lens researchers may not understand yet, so it may need reframing for the next generation of

college students. Ongoing legal fights over racial and ethnic equity in higher education vis-à-vis

affirmative action will set the stage for diversity in higher education, and ultimately the student

development of AAPI students. With lower numbers of AAPI students at their campuses, AAPI

students may not have an environment capable of facilitating healthy identity development. Yet,

there are many different opportunities for AAPI students already in place to facilitate

development in higher education. Student affairs educators should support and validate these

opportunities for development, and the unique stories of these students.


References

Abes, E. S., Jones, S. R., & McEwen, M. K. (2007). Reconceptualizing the model of multiple

dimensions of identity: The role of meaning-making capacity in the construction of

multiple identities. Journal of College Student Development, 48, 1-22.

Alvarez, A. N. (2002). Racial identity and Asian Americans: Supports and challenges. New

Directions for Student Services, 92, 33-43.

Alvarez, A. N., & Liu, W. M. (2002). Student affairs and Asian American studies: An integrative

perspective. New Directions for Student Services, 97, 73-80.

Alvarez, A. N., & Helms J. E. (2001). Racial identity and reflected appraisals as influences on

Asian Americans’ racial adjustment. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology,

7, 217-231.

Chae, M. H., & Foley, P. F. (2010). Relationship of ethnic identity, acculturation, and

psychological well-being among Chinese, Japanese, and Korean Americans. Journal of

Counseling & Development, 88, 466-476.

Chan, C. S. (1989). Issues of identity development among Asian-American Lesbians and Gay

Men. Journal of Counseling & Development, 68, 16-20.

Chen, G. A. (2005). The complexity of "Asian American identity": The intersection of multiple

social identities. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Texas, Austin, TX.

Evans, N., J. Forney, D. S., Guido, F. M., Patton, L. D., & Renn, K. A. (2010). Student

development in college: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass.

Helms, J. E., & Cook, D. A. (1999). Using race and culture in counseling and psychotherapy:

Theory and process. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.


Holvino, E. (2012). The “simultaneity” of identities: Models and skills. In C. L. Wijeyesinghe, &

B. W. Jackson (Eds.), New perspectives on racial identity development: Integrating

emerging frameworks (2nd ed.; pp. 161-191). New York, NY: New York University Press.

Ibrahim, F., Ohnishi, H., & Singh, S. D. (1997). Asian American identity development: A culture

specific model for South Asian Americans. Journal of Multicultural Counseling &

Development, 25, 34-50.

Inkelas, K. K. (2004). Does participation in ethnic cocurricular activities facilitate a sense of

ethnic awareness and understanding? A study of Asian Pacific American undergraduates.

Journal of College Student Development, 45, 285-302.

Kawaguchi, S. (2003). Ethnic identity development and collegiate experience of Asian Pacific

American students: Implications for practice. NASPA Journal, 40, 13-29.

Khanna, N. (2004). The role of reflected appraisals in racial identity: The case of multiracial

Asians. Social Psychology Quarterly, 67, 115-131.

Kim, J. (2001). Asian American identity development theory. In C. L. Wijeyesinghe & B. W.

Jackson, III (Eds.). New perspectives on racial identity development: A theoretical and

practical anthology (pp. 67–90). New York: New York University Press.

Kim, K. K. S., & Omizo M. M. (2005). Asian and European American cultural values, collective

self-esteem, acculturative stress, cognitive flexibility, and general self-efficacy among

Asian American college students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 412-419.

Kodama M. C., McEwen K. M., Liang, T.H.C., & Lee, S. (2002). An Asian American

perspective on psychosocial student development theory. New Directions for Student

Services, 97, 45-59.


Kohatsu, E. L., Victoria, R., Lau, A., Flores, M., & Salazar, A. (2011). Analyzing anti-Asian

prejudice from a racial identity and color-blind perspective. Journal of Counseling &

Development, 89, 63-72.

Laanan, F., & Starobin, S. (2004). Defining Asian American and Pacific Islander-Serving

Institutions. New Directions for Community Colleges, 127, 49-59.

Lew, A. S., Allen, R., Papouchis, N., & Ritzler, B. (1998). Achievement orientation and fear of

success in Asian American college students. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 54, 97-108.

Lew, J. W., June C. C., & Wang W. W. (2005). UCLA community college review: The

overlooked minority: Asian Pacific American students at community colleges.

Community College Review, 33, 64-84.

Liang, C. T. H., Lee, S., & Ting, M. P. (2002). Developing Asian American leaders. New

Directions for Student Services, 97, 81-90.

Maramba, D. C. (2008). Immigrant families and the college experience: Perspectives of Filipina

Americans. Journal of College Student Development, 49, 336-350.

Museus, D. S. (2008). The role of ethnic student organizations in fostering African American and

Asian American students’ cultural adjustment and membership at predominantly white

institutions. Journal of College Student Development, 49, 568-586.

Nadal, K. L. (2004). Pilipino American identity development model. Journal of Multicultural

Counseling & Development, 32, 45-62.

Ngo, B., & Lee, S. J. (2007). Complicating the image of model minority success: A review of

Southeast Asian American education. Review of Educational Research, 77, 415-453.

Park, J. (2008). Second-Generation Asian American pan-ethnic identity: Pluralized meanings of

a racial label. Sociological Perspectives, 51, 541-56.


Park, J.J., Lin, M.H., Poon, O.A., & Chang, M.J. (2008). Asian American college students

and civic engagement. In Ong, P. (Ed.), The state of Asian America: The trajectory of

civic and political engagement (pp. 75-98). Los Angeles: LEAP Asian Pacific American

Public Policy Institute.

Park, J.J., & Chang, M.J. (2010). Asian American Pacific Islander serving institutions: The

motivations and challenges behind seeking a federal designation. AAPI Nexus: Policy,

Practice, and Community, 7, 107-125.

Perry, J. C., Vance, K. S., & Helms, J. E. (2009). Using the People of Color racial identity

attitude scale amount Asian American College Students: An exploratory factor analysis.

American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 79, 252-260.

Phinney, J.S. (1990). Ethnic identity in adolescents and adults: Review of research.

Psychological Bulletin, 108, 499-514.

Poon, O. Y. A. (2011). Ching chongs and tiger moms: The "Asian invasion" in U.S. higher

education. Amerasia Journal, 37, 144-150.

Pope, R. L. (2000). The relationship between psychosocial development and racial identity of

college students of color. Journal of College Student Development, 41, 302-312.

Pizzolato, J. E., Kim Nguyen, T., Johnston, M. P., & Wang, S. (2012). Understanding context:

Cultural, relational, and psychological interactions in self-authorship development.

Journal of College Student Development, 53, 656-679.

Shek, Y. L., & McEwen, M. K. (2012). The relationships of racial identity and gender role

conflict to self-esteem of Asian American undergraduate Men. Journal of College

Student Development, 53, 703-718.


Teranishi, R. L., Behringer, L. B., Grey, E. A., Parker T. L. (2009). Critical race theory and

research on Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders in higher education. New Directions

For Institutional Research, 142, 57-68.

Skrentny, J. D. (2008). Culture and race/ethnicity: Bolder, deeper, and broader. Annals of the

American Academy of Political and Social Science, 619, 59-77.

Tang, M. (2002). A comparison of Asian American, Caucasian American, and Chinese college

students: An initial report. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 30,

124-134.

Yeh, T. (2002). Asian American college students who are educationally at risk. New Directions

For Student Services, 97, 61-71.

Yeh, C., & Huang, K. (1996). The collectivistic nature of ethnic identity development among

Asian-American college students. Adolescence, 31, 645-661.

Ying, Y. W., & Lee P. A. (1999). The development of ethnic identity in Asian-American

adolescents: Status and outcome. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 69, 194-208.

artifact 3 analytical inquiry

Documents