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
LITERATURE REVIEW 11
(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.
LITERATURE REVIEW 12
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
LITERATURE REVIEW 13
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
LITERATURE REVIEW 14
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
LITERATURE REVIEW 15
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).
LITERATURE REVIEW 16
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
LITERATURE REVIEW 17
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
LITERATURE REVIEW 18
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 &
LITERATURE REVIEW 19
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.
LITERATURE REVIEW 20
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
LITERATURE REVIEW 21
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
LITERATURE REVIEW 22
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
LITERATURE REVIEW 23
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.
LITERATURE REVIEW 24
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.
LITERATURE REVIEW 25
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.
LITERATURE REVIEW 26
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.
LITERATURE REVIEW 27
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.
LITERATURE REVIEW 28
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.
Top Related