Discussion questions

Description

Part 1

Use the principles of the health belief model (attached) to argue what may have been some barriers to following provider recommendations in the following case. Then provide some strategies to facilitate health promotional and illness prevention practices

Case: A 35-year-old Muslim woman who has newly immigrated to the US is seen in the ER for complains of severe abdominal pain. Her husband accompanies her and is speaking on her behalf. She is referred to a Gyn specialist after it is determined she will need to be seen for a pap smear and cervical cancer screening. They call to make an appointment and find out the OB/Gyn is a man. Since she no longer experiences pain, they decide she no longer needs to be seen.

Part 2

After reading the articles for this week (attached) that describes how certain groups are perceived, discuss the following:

Do any of the descriptions provided in the 2 articles about steroetyping surprise you? If so, why and if not, what have you heard or observed?
In what aspects of life other than health care do these stereotypes serve these cultural groups? What barriers can you see these groups facing as a result of these stereotypes?
Reflect on what you are taking away from these readings and how this might impact the way you interact with people who fall in these or other cultural groups?

Part 3

Review the following case and respond to the questions below:

Case: A military RN is ordered to force feed a terrorist prisoner while he is undergoing interrogation. The prisoner is on a hunger strike protesting his capture and highlighting his cause. The nurse is to ensure the prisoner remains hydrated and fed so he can provide information, and does not starve. The nurse is torn. On the one hand, the nurse has strong loyalty to the military objective of ensuring public safety by uncovering terrorist plots along with fear of reprisal if orders are disobeyed. Yet the nurse is appalled at the over-riding a patient’s wishes by force feeding him against his wishes.

Is this an ethical dilemma or a moral dilemma? Justify your response
What ethical principles are in contention? How?
Watch the short video clip “No Easy Answers”as a general overview of the wide ranges of situations that fall under the umbrella of “Bioethics”. Select one of the other video clips “Do Not Resuscitate” or “What Happened to Josie King”. Discuss ethical principles that are in contention and state your rationale for your answer. What role(s) did nurses have in the case you chose? What would you have done if you were the nurse in this case? https://youtu.be/VoBtT-vHemw?si=hVd_Y8YUSNg4ES5r

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Kristy Y. Shih
California State University Long Beach
Tzu-Fen Chang
California State University Bakersfield
Szu-Yu Chen
Palo Alto University
Impacts of the Model Minority Myth on Asian
American Individuals and Families: Social Justice
and Critical Race Feminist Perspectives
Asian Americans have been portrayed as the
model minority for seemingly having achieved
socioeconomic success and being free of problems. Such stereotypes may have lasting and
negative impact on Asian American individuals,
families, and communities. Utilizing the social
justice framework and critical race feminist
theory, we interrogate and problematize the
model minority stereotype and its impacts by situating Asian Americans in the Black-and-White
racial hierarchy, offering a brief history of
the term, providing disaggregated statistics on
Asian Americans’ socioeconomic conditions,
reviewing recent literature on Asian Americans
and their families, and discussing some consequences that this myth generates. We focus
on the roles of family and community contexts
and acculturation status on Asian Americans’
educational achievement, gender, and psychological adjustment and mental health issues.
Our review illustrates the diversity and nuance
in Asian Americans’ educational, psychological,
social, and economic outcomes. We conclude
Department of Human Development, California State
University, Long Beach, 1250 Bellflower Boulevard,
LA-103B, Long Beach, CA 90840 ([email protected]).
Key Words: Asian Americans, educational adjustment, gender, mental health, model minority myth.
412
with some recommendations for professionals
working with Asian Americans.
Asian Americans are a culturally and experientially diverse racial group consisting of
more than 30 ethnic subgroups from various
Asian countries. The late historian and civil
rights activist Yuji Ichioka coined the term
Asian American in the late 1960s during the
ethnic-consciousness movements to reject the
Western-imposed Oriental and to help unify
different Asian ethnic groups. Today, Asian
American is an umbrella term to describe both
U.S. citizens and immigrants who trace their
roots to Asia. In 2015, there were 20.4 million
individuals of Asian descent in the United
States, making up approximately 6.4% of the
country’s total population. Asian Americans are
the third-largest and among the fastest-growing
racial groups in the United States (U.S. Census
Bureau, 2007), growing 72% from 11.9 million
in 2000 to 20.4 million in 2015 (Lopez, Ruiz,
& Patten, 2017). The same report projected that
Asians would become the largest immigrant
group in the country by 2055, accounting for
38% of all U.S. immigrants, surpassing Hispanics/Latinos who will make up 31% of the
nation’s immigrant population. In addition, most
Asian-identified individuals are foreign-born
Journal of Family Theory & Review 11 (September 2019): 412–428
DOI:10.1111/jftr.12342
Asian American Families
immigrants (67%), having arrived in the United
States after the Immigration and Nationality
Act of 1965 (also known as the Hart-Celler
Act). The largest Asian ethnic group is Chinese
American, followed by Filipino, Asian Indian,
Vietnamese, Korean, Japanese, Cambodian,
Hmong, Thai, and Laotian. Smaller Asian ethnic
groups include Bhutanese, Malaysian, Nepalese,
Indonesian, Bangladesh, and Burmese.
Immigrants of Asian descent differ in their
immigration history, resettlement patterns and
experiences, socioeconomic status, occupational
skills, primary languages, religion, cultural values and beliefs, and ethnic identity. Despite
these myriad differences, and regardless of
when they entered this country and their generational status, individuals of Asian descent
have been stereotypically viewed as the “model
minority” in the United States for seemingly
having achieved social and economic parity with
their White counterparts. This image of success
often leads others to assume that Asian Americans do not experience difficulties and/or are
problem-free, thus leaving them out of research
and policy considerations. The classification of
a multitude of groups under the single rubric
Asian American is problematic. It overgeneralizes the experiences of Asian Americans and
masks important diversity among and within
these groups (Ishii-Kuntz, 2000). Further, it
could lead people to overlook disparities of the
Asian American communities and their various struggles. The model minority myth could
have detrimental influences on Asian American
individuals, families, and communities, as it
creates the impression that these groups are
monolithic and comparable. This stereotype
also undermines other minority groups to which
Asian Americans are compared.
Scholars have critiqued the model minority
stereotype in fields such as sociology (Chou &
Feagin, 2015; Kibria, 2002; Park, 2008; Tuan,
1999; Zhou, 2000), psychology (Niwa, Way,
Qin, & Okazaki, 2011; Okazaki & Lim, 2011;
Qin & Han, 2011), education (Museus & Kiang,
2009; Ng, Lee, & Pak, 2007; Poon et al., 2016),
and law (Ancheta, 2000; Wu, 2002). However,
family scholars have largely been absent from
this discussion. Given the diversity of the Asian
American population and the timeliness of this
topic, it is important for family scholars and
practitioners to develop a more comprehensive
understanding to work effectively with this
rapidly growing population. For example, Amy
413
Chua’s (2011) controversial book Battle Hymn
of the Tiger Mother utilized her own parenting
experiences and the high educational achievement of her two daughters to emphasize the
existing model minority myth that all Asian
Americans are hardworking, highly successful,
and problem-free. The book further reiterated
the stereotypes of Asian American parenting as
authoritarian, monolithic, and static. In addition, the recent affirmative action case in which
rejected Asian American applicants sued Harvard University for discrimination against Asian
Americans by penalizing their high academic
achievement as a group further reinforced the
model minority stereotype of Asian Americans
(for discussion, see Balingit, 2019; Poon, 2018).
Utilizing the social justice framework and
critical race feminist theory, we interrogate and
problematize the model minority stereotype and
its impacts on Asian American families. We provide a brief history of the term model minority and some disaggregated statistics on selected
Asian American subgroups (e.g., higher education, employment, income and wealth, poverty).
We then review recent literature on Asian American families, focusing particularly on the roles
of family and community contexts and acculturation status on Asian Americans’ educational
achievement, gender, and psychological adjustment and mental health issues. Our discussion of
these topics showcases the fact that Asian Americans are not monolithic as the model minority myth implies but are diverse and nuanced
in educational, psychological, social, and economic outcomes. In addition, our discussion
highlights historical legacy and challenges ideological framework and institutional patterns and
practices that unequally structure social relations
between Whites and Asian Americans (Bell,
2016). We conclude with some consequences of
the model minority stereotype and offer some
recommendations for professionals who work
with Asian Americans.
Theoretical Foundation: Social Justice
Framework and Critical Race Feminist
Theory
Social Justice Framework
We draw on Bell’s (2016) definition of social
justice:
It refers to reconstructing society in accordance with principles of equity, recognition, and
414
Journal of Family Theory & Review
inclusion. It involves eliminating the injustice
created when differences are sorted and ranked
in a hierarchy that unequally confers power,
social and economic advantages, and institutional
and cultural validity to social groups based on
their location in that hierarchy (Adams, 2014;
Johnson, 2005). [It] requires confronting the
ideological frameworks, historical legacies, and
institutional patterns and practices that structure
social relations unequally so that some groups are
advantaged at the expense of other groups that are
marginalized. (p. 4)
Further, Bell indicated:
The goal of social justice is full and equitable
participation of all groups in a society that is
mutually shaped to meet their needs … a vision
of society in which the distribution of resources is
equitable … and all members are physically and
psychologically safe and secure. (p. 3)
When applied to the study of families, a social
justice framework emphasizes how structural
inequalities, differential access to privilege and
power, and oppression can influence the lives
and well-being of all individuals and families.
Critical Race Feminist Theory
Critical race feminism emerged from critical
race theory in legal studies and is informed
by the scholarship of various multicultural
feminists (e.g., Baca Zinn, Chow, Collins,
Dill, Glenn). To challenge mainstream feminist
theorizing that tends to generalize the lives of
White, middle-class, and heterosexual women
and families to all women and families, critical
race feminism moves beyond the notion of a
single experience to emphasize multiplicity,
intersectionality, and fluidity of voices (for
extensive discussion, see Baca Zinn & Dill,
1996; De Reus, Few, & Blume, 2005; Few,
2007, 2009). It incorporates race as a central
analytic mechanism that intersects with other
structured inequalities to shape gender. Further,
it rejects the essentialization of all minorities
(Wing, 2000). It also focuses on how social and
legal policies empower or oppress racial/ethnic
minorities (Crenshaw, 1989).
Central to both social justice framework and
critical race feminist theory is the concept of
intersectionality: Multiple systems of inequality
simultaneously construct one another to shape
the experiences of racial/ethnic minority individuals and families. This framework makes
clear the interlocking nature of social categories
(e.g., race, ethnicity, class, gender, sexual orientation, age) and the overall organization of
power in a society through a matrix of domination (Collins, 2000). It is concerned with “the
politics of location and the intersection of multiple identities” (De Reus et al., 2005, p. 459) and
emphasizes the standpoints of different groups
as well as acknowledges that their experiences
and knowledge are socially situated—thus how
one perceives one’s experience is always partial
(Haraway, 1988). It challenges us not to assume
that one representative can speak for all members of a group, as there are multiple “partial
truths” from within-group differences.
The Model Minority Myth
Model minority is a term used to describe
Asian Americans as a hardworking, successful,
and law-abiding ethnic minority that has overcame hardship, oppression, and discrimination
(Alvarez, Juang, & Liang, 2006; Lee & Joo,
2005). In addition, values such as filial piety,
respect for elders, and gender and generational
hierarchies are also part of this image. However,
the term model minority is a racial framing that
has been externally imposed on Asian Americans, typically by elite powerful Whites (Chou
& Feagin, 2015). Because Asian Americans are
racialized as “forever foreigners” in the United
States and often classified as “ethnic”—more
Asian than American—and assumed to be
non-English speakers and/or non-citizens (e.g.,
the question, “Where are you from?”), the term
model minority has overwhelmingly been forced
on them regardless of the recentness of their
immigration or generational status (Tuan, 1999).
The sociologist William Petersen first coined
and popularized use of the term model minority
to make comparisons between Japanese Americans and African Americans. In his 1966 New
York Times Magazine story “Success Story,
Japanese-American Style,” Petersen solidified a prevalent stereotype of Asians (e.g.,
Japanese) as hardworking, rule-abiding citizens
who were able to rise above the adversity of
their World War II incarceration in internment
camps in merely 20 years. Similar portrayal
has been applied to other Asian American
ethnic groups. Petersen’s depiction marked a
significant departure from how Asian immigrants and their offspring had traditionally been
represented in the media, such as “apelike,”
Asian American Families
“dirty,” “docile,” “alien,” and “dangerous.” He
attributed Japanese Americans’ success to their
cultural values, strong work ethic, family structure, and genetics, which stood in direct contrast
to the controversial 1965 Moynihan Report
(U.S. Department of Labor, 1965) that blamed
African American culture and family structure
for the socioeconomic problems African Americans faced in the United States. However, these
comparisons falsely conflate anti-Asian discrimination with anti-Black racism (see Ancheta,
2000).
The model minority stereotype reinforces
the illusion that racism is no longer a problem
in the United States. It promotes the notion
of the United States as a meritocratic society
that accords equal opportunity to all, regardless
of race, class, gender, or sexual orientation,
and equitably rewards individuals’ hard work
and labor through economic upward mobility. According to this false notion, those who
fall behind are believed to be because of their
own poor choices and/or inferior culture. This
assumption reiterates the cultural deficit model,
popular in the 1960s and 1970s, that informed
the works of Petersen and Moynihan. The notion
of a model minority does not imply full citizenship rights for Asian Americans, however.
This White-constructed label also does not
protect Asian Americans from prejudice and
racism. Rather, it suggests an inferior status
“reserved for particular minorities who ‘behave’
appropriately and stay in their designated secondary space without complaint” (Park, 2008,
p. 135). Moreover, “as a hegemonic device,
the model minority stereotype maintains the
dominance of Whites in the racial hierarchy by
diverting attention from racial inequality and
by setting standards for how minorities should
behave” (Lee, 1996, p. 6). Further, by referring
to Asians as the “model,” it simultaneously
implies that African Americans, Latinos, and
other racial groups are “bad” minorities. The
argument typically goes, “If Asian Americans
can make it without government support, why
can’t African Americans or other racial minority
groups?” By pitting minority groups against one
another, it diverts attention from challenging
institutional racism and structural inequality
and hinders other racial minorities’ demand for
social justice (Osajima, 2000; Zhou, 2003).
Assimilationist frameworks of immigrant
adaptation reinforce the model minority myth.
Classical assimilation theory presumes that with
415
each successive generation in the host country,
immigrants and their offspring gradually give
up their old cultural and behavioral patterns as
they acquire new values and behaviors, thus
becoming more like Whites (for review, see
Zhou, 1997). It further suggests that “there
is a natural process by which diverse ethnic
groups come to share a common culture [the
dominant culture] and to gain equal access to
the opportunity structure of society” (Zhou,
1997, p. 976). However, assimilationist theories
fail to recognize the many social and structural
constraints in the host society that seriously limit
racial/ethnic minorities’ access to resources and
opportunities. Assimilation theorists, drawing
on Asian Americans’ socioeconomic progress
(e.g., educational and income achievements),
have posited that Asian Americans are on their
way to full integration into U.S. society (Chou
& Feagin, 2015). It further assumes that Asian
Americans are exempted from experiences of
racial discrimination and racism and other forms
of oppression and have “made it” in U.S. society.
This is far from Asian Americans’ lived experiences and social realities. Asian Americans have
confronted racism and discrimination since Chinese immigrants’ early arrival in the mid-19th
century to work in California’s gold mines and
construction of the transcontinental railroad.
Their number and work ethics contributed to
nativist sentiment that perceived them as the
“yellow peril,” a racist term used to describe
that the peoples of East Asia are a danger to the
Western world, leading the U.S. Congress to
pass a series of restrictive laws prohibiting the
entrance of Asians between 1880s and 1920s. It
was not until 1965 when restrictions on Asian
immigration were lifted with the passing of the
Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.
The model minority stereotype also serves
as an ideological frame. Such a label shapes
not only how others perceive Asian Americans
but also how Asian Americans view themselves
and their coethnic others (Osajima, 1993).
Consistent with how oppression operates, Asian
Americans internalize an identity that resembles
the images the dominant group defined and
imposed on them (e.g., the model minority) and
come to accept and believe the myths and stereotypes about their group (Osajima, 1993). This
creates tremendous pressure for Asian Americans to have to assimilate to a White-dominated
culture and conform to White-defined images
of themselves. As we discuss later, this
416
Journal of Family Theory & Review
internalization could have devastating effects
on Asian Americans’ self-concept and mental
health, what Osajima (1993) describes as “the
hidden injuries of race,” even when no active
instances of discrimination take place.
(60.2%), Sri Lankan (57.5%) and Malaysian
(56.2%) groups having the highest rates of
bachelor’s degree attainment, while Burmese
(25.7%), Cambodian (17.0%), Hmong (16.7%),
Laotian (14.5%), and Bhutanese (13.9%) having
the lowest.2
Demographic Profile
The first step toward dispelling the model
minority myth is to demonstrate the diversity
within and across those groups categorized as
Asian Americans. Asian Americans may seem
to have achieved social and economic parity
with their European American counterparts
(some reports have referred to Asian Americans as “honorary Whites”); however, a deeper
examination of disaggregated statistical data on
Asian American subgroups reveals otherwise.
We provide disaggregated statistical data on
selected Asian American subgroups, focusing on rates of higher education attainment,
employment, median household income and
wealth, poverty, and access to health insurance.
We utilize data analyses from the Demographic
Data & Policy Research on Asian Americans &
Pacific Islanders (AAPI Data).1
Higher Education
Educational achievement is a major contributing
factor to Asian Americans’ being viewed as
the model minority. As a group, Asian Americans seem to have achieved great educational
success in the United States, with 50.5% of
those who identify as Asian (both alone and in
combination) reported having obtained a bachelor’s degree or higher (compared to 33.2% of
Whites and 29.8% of the U.S. total population).
Asian Americans’ high educational achievement
has often been attributed to their cultural heritage (e.g., Confucianism) and its emphasis on
education (including parental investment in children’s education and emphasis on achievement)
(Okazaki & Lim, 2011). However, a closer analysis suggests that educational attainment varies
widely across Asian subgroups, with Taiwanese
(75.3%), Asian Indian (71.3%), Mongolian
1 Data are available at the website http://aapidata.com.
Because respondents can identify as belonging to more than
one racial/ethnicity category on the 2010 Census, we utilized
data from those who identified as Asian alone or Asian in any
combination.
Employment
Asian Americans are employed in a wide variety
of fields, but they are significantly more likely
to be concentrated in management, professional,
and related occupations than other racial groups
(about 50% of Asian Americans work in these
occupations compared to 38% of the national
average, 38.8% of White, 20.2% of Latino, and
28.7% of African Americans) (Ramakrishnan &
Ahmad, 2014). However, Asian Americans continue to face racism and discrimination in their
workplaces. A study examining the five largest
Asian American groups (Chinese, Indians, Filipinos, Vietnamese, and Koreans) found that
the distinctive “Asian second-generation advantage” in educational outcomes does not transfer
to the labor market for most second-generation
Asians, except for second-generation Chinese
(Tran, Lee, & Huang, 2019). Asian Americans
comprise merely 2% of executive officers and
2.6% of board members at Fortune 500 companies, whereas Blacks and Latinos hold 7.4%
and 3.3% of Fortune 500 corporate board seats,
respectively (Chin, 2016). Asian Americans are
significantly underrepresented in the leadership
ranks of law firms, government, and academia,
even when they have entered virtually every sector of the legal profession (Chung, Dong, Hu,
Kwon, & Liu, 2017). The study further found
Asian American attorneys to report implicit bias
and stereotype perceptions as obstacles to their
promotion and advancement, with female Asian
American attorneys significantly more likely
to report experiencing discrimination based on
race. Despite Asian Americans having become
the largest racial cohort of professionals in Silicon Valley’s technology industry, they were the
least likely to become managers and executives
among all races, with Asian women the least
likely to become executives (Gee & Peck, 2017).
Similar patterns were also observed in academia.
2 Educational attainment data are obtained from AAPI
Data, at https://aapidata.github.io/quick_stats/national_data
.html#education.
Asian American Families
Of the 1.5 million faculty in degree-granting
postsecondary institutions in fall 2016, Asian
Americans and Pacific Islanders (AAPI) made
up 10% of all full-time faculty (6% males and
4% females) compared with 76% (41% males
and 35% females) of their White counterparts
(National Center for Education Statistics, 2017).
Among full-time assistant professors, 7% were
AAPI males and 6% were AAPI females. However, as they moved up the academic ranks, the
percentage of Asian American females dropped
and accounted for only 3% of full-time full
professors.
Asian Americans typically have a labor-force
participation rate that is higher than the national
average, and since 2010, they have consistently
had the lowest unemployment rates of any
racial/ethnic group (Ramakrishnan & Ahmad,
2014). However, for the unemployed, Asian
Americans are among those with the longest
duration of unemployment (comparable to that
of African Americans). In 2013, 41.9% of
the unemployed Asian American population
was long-term unemployed (i.e., 27 weeks or
more) compared to 35.8% of the White unemployed and 34.6% of the Latino unemployed
(Ramakrishnan & Ahmad, 2014).
Median Household Income and Wealth
Overall, Asian Americans have the highest
average household incomes as compared to
other racial groups and the nation. American
Community Surveys between 2008 and 2012
suggest Asian Americans earned a median
household income of $71,709 compared to
Whites at $56,203 (with a national average
of $53,046). However, the model minority
stereotype falsely portrays Asian Americans
as categorically financially prosperous. There
is great disparity among Asian Americans,
with certain national origin groups earning
significantly higher household income (e.g.,
Asian Indian at $95,000, Filipino American at
$80,000), while others (e.g., Southeast Asian
population such as Cambodian, Hmong, and
Laotian Americans) have median household
incomes below the national average of $53,000.
In fact, analyzing Census data from 1970 to
2016, Asian Americans are found to have the
widest income gap among U.S. racial groups
(Lopez et al., 2017). The differences in median
household income reflect the structural conditions of these groups both in their home
417
countries and in the United States. For example,
Asian Indians and Filipinos find themselves
engaging in selective migration patterns to the
United States that are characterized by their
relatively higher level of educational attainment
as well as employer-based and high-skilled visas
(Ramakrishnan & Ahmad, 2014). In contrast,
Southeast Asian populations came to the United
States predominately as refugees, with limited
educational attainment in their countries of
origin. Such stark contrast in median household
income is one factor (along with rates of homeownership, retirement savings, and owing more
debt) that contributes to the growing wealth
gap among Asian Americans, who now also
see wider wealth gap than that among Whites
(Weller & Thompson, 2016).
Poverty
Asian Americans have the lowest poverty rates
among all racial/ethnic minority groups (overall
13% of those who identified as Asian reported
living in poverty compared to 16% of the U.S.
total population, 11% of Whites, 24% of Hispanics/Latinos, and 27% of African Americans).
However, like median household income, there
is great disparity among the different national
origin groups. For examples, Burmese (37.8%),
Bhutanese (34.3%), Nepalese (26.1%), Hmong
(26.1%), and Mongolian (25.1%) have the
highest levels of their populations living below
the federal poverty line, whereas Taiwanese
(12.2%), Sri Lankan (10.9%), Japanese (8.8%),
Asian Indian (8.1%), and Filipino (7.9%) have
the lowest rates.3 In terms of child poverty,
Asian Americans (13.6%) have the lowest rate
compared to children of other races (17.5%
of Whites, 33.4% of Latinos, 39% of African
Americans, and 22.2% of national average).
Poverty rates for seniors (i.e., age 65 and older)
provided a somewhat different, and troubling,
picture. Asian American seniors have a comparatively high poverty rate of 13.5% (compared to
7.8% of Whites and 9.3% of national average).
Further, data from 2007 to 2011 suggest that
Asian Americans are the fastest-growing population in poverty since the Great Recession;
their number increased by 60%, far higher than
any other racial/ethnic groups and surpassing
3 Poverty data were obtained from AAPI Data, at https://
aapidata.github.io/quick_stats/national_data.html#poverty.
418
Journal of Family Theory & Review
the national increase of 27% (Ramakrishnan &
Ahmad, 2014).
Review of Relevant Literature
Consistent with the social justice framework and
critical race feminist theory, the purpose of this
review is to illustrate how one’s social locations
could differentially shape one’s experiences,
make visible systemic and hidden disparities
within various Asian ethnic groups, and identify socially structured and institutionalized
oppression and privilege. We review relevant
literature on the roles of family and community contexts and acculturation status on Asian
Americans’ educational achievement, gender,
and psychological adjustment and mental health
issues. Despite the growing Asian American
populations in the United States, research on
Asian American families remains limited, and
not all ethnic subgroups are represented in
research studies (Fang et al., 2008). Even when
Asian American families are studied, most of
the research, drawing on survey methods, has
focused on the racial group as an aggregate
without making ethnic distinctions. Others that
studied specific ethnic groups have largely been
on Chinese American families. In our review,
we note ethnicity where such information is
available.
Educational Achievement
A widespread image of Asian Americans as the
model minority emphasizes academic achievement and educational attainment (Okazaki
& Lim, 2011). For example, Asian American
students are often portrayed as hardworking, displaying good manners, and overrepresenting at
elite universities. Contrary to this public impression, our review suggests that the model minority
image is overgeneralized. In line with the common concept of intersectionality addressed in
both the social justice framework and critical
race feminist theory, some Asian Americans’
successful educational experiences cannot speak
for all members of the Asian American populations. Asian Americans’ social backgrounds
(e.g., familial socioeconomic status, or SES;
acculturation status) determine differential educational experiences and access to privilege and
resources in education, which explains variation
in educational achievement within this group. In
the following, we discuss how the variation in
educational outcomes is associated with familial
SES and one’s level of acculturation.
Familial SES. Family SES plays a crucial role
in determining variation in Asian Americans’
educational achievement. Low-SES Chinese
American and Korean American students are
more likely to have poorer academic adjustment
(e.g., lower grades, poorer school engagement) than their middle- or upper-class peers
because of exposure to various risk factors,
such as familial financial strains and low
parental educational involvement. Experiencing family financial strains have been found
to contribute to Chinese American students’
suffering from anxiety (Mistry, Benner, Tan, &
Kim, 2009) and lower educational aspirations
(Yeh, Kim, Pituc, & Atkins, 2008), and to
Korean American students’ limited access to
educational opportunities and resources (Lew,
2006). Compared to their middle- or upper-class
peers, working-class Chinese immigrant parents
reported lower involvement in children’s education because of their unfamiliarity with the U.S.
educational system, long work hours, and poor
English skills (Qin & Han, 2014).
In addition, in metropolitan cities such
as Los Angeles and New York City, ethnic
Chinese American and Korean American
community-based organizations provide various
after-school and weekend academic programs
(e.g., test-prep classes, tutoring programs) and
enrichment classes (e.g., Chinese painting and
calligraphy, Chinese or Korean language). These
programs and classes either directly strengthen
students’ testing skills or indirectly shape their
academic success via an exchange platform
where students and parents obtain information
on test preparation and college application
processes (Zhou, 2008; Zhou & Kim, 2006).
Community-based educational resources are not
evenly distributed among all members in the
ethnic communities, however. Low-SES Chinese American and Korean American students
are less able to afford for-profit after-school
and weekend academic programs and classes
(Lew, 2006; Zhou, 2008). As a result, more
students from middle- or upper-class families
were selected into academically competitive
math and science magnet high schools. Yet
when communities provide nonprofit academic
programs and classes, low-SES Chinese American and Korean American students can boost
their educational experiences and achievement
Asian American Families
(Zhou, 2008; Zhou & Kim, 2006; see also Zhou
& Lee, 2014).
Acculturation. Acculturation also explains
diverse educational achievement among the
Asian American population. Cambodian, Chinese, and Filipino American students who
adhere to a bicultural identity (heritage culture
and the mainstream American culture) outperform their peers who keep a monocultural
identity (either heritage culture or mainstream
American culture) (Dinh, Weinstein, Kim, &
Ho, 2008; Eng et al., 2008). When students of
these ethnic groups adopt a bicultural identity,
their ties to the heritage culture help them
receive support from their families and ethnic
community and their connection to the mainstream culture facilitates access to support for
formal education from teachers and peers. In
contrast, students of these ethnic groups who
adhere solely to their heritage culture are disadvantaged in English skills and knowledge of the
U.S. educational system. Similarly, research on
Vietnamese immigrant youth showed that those
with limited English-language skills are more
likely to underachieve and drop out of school
(Hong, 2010; Long & Ricard, 1997).
Consistent with the concept of intersectionality in both social justice framework and critical
race feminist theory, our review indicates that
educational privilege and resources are unevenly
distributed among Asian American students,
depending on SES and acculturation status.
This explains why the students with high SES
or those adhering to a bicultural identity tend
to outperform their peers. However, the gap in
educational achievement can be narrowed when
structural inequalities in access to educational
resources are alleviated, such as through nonprofit academic programs. This corresponds
to the concept that social advantages can be
eliminated through equitable distribution of
social resources in the social justice framework.
Gender
The model minority myth also has detrimental
consequences for Asia