Using culturally sensitive frameworks to study Asian American leaders in higher education

Asian and Asian American cultural perspectives can addvaluable insight to the process of designing and executinginquiries of the lived experiences.

Using Culturally Sensitive Frameworksto Study Asian American Leaders inHigher Education

Patricia A. Neilson, Karen L. Suyemoto

Most existing research on higher education administrators has focused pri-marily on the experiences of white European Americans, which is somewhatunderstandable given that most higher education administrators are ofEuropean descent. However, as an increasing number of racial/ethnicminorities have assumed leadership positions in higher education, scholarsshould focus more attention on the experiences and trajectories of admin-istrators of color. In doing so, they are likely to continue to employ the the-oretical understandings of leadership development primarily as it isunderstood in relation to and by white European Americans. Critical racetheorists (CRT) would argue, however, that such Eurocentric conceptualunderstandings might not give adequate consideration to contextual vari-ables (for example, race and culture) that are inherently related to the expe-riences of Asian American and other minority higher education leaders.Furthermore, according to CRT, these Eurocentric conceptual frameworksshape not only the literature reviews, but also the methodological ap-proaches used, including the research questions asked and the approachesto data collection and analysis employed.

If researchers who are studying racial/ethnic minority administratorsdo not use conceptual frameworks that include important knowledge thatis culturally specific to those administrators of color, they risk employing

83

7

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH, no. 142, Summer 2009 © Wiley Periodicals, Inc.Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com) • DOI: 10.1002/ir.298

84 CONDUCTING RESEARCH ON ASIAN AMERICANS IN HIGHER EDUCATION

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH • DOI: 10.1002/ir

perspectives that constrain their ability to fully comprehend the lived expe-riences and realities of the very leaders they wish to understand. If this isso, then higher education researchers might consider broadening their con-ceptual and methodological approaches to consider race and culture notonly as variables that can be used to compare white and minority individu-als and groups, but also as important considerations in choosing and devel-oping frameworks that shape their research questions and methods.

This chapter offers a brief discussion of challenges posed by traditionalapproaches and the need for race- and culture-specific methods in the studyof Asian American administrators, a discussion of a research project that dis-tinguishes these two types of frameworks, and a discussion of the implica-tions for future research on Asian Americans in higher education.

Researching the Trajectories of Higher EducationAdministrators

Much of the research related to career mobility is focused on explainingthe influence of family or individual characteristics (for example, parentalsocioeconomic status, intelligence, or job satisfaction and productivity)on the success or failure of individuals (for example, Blau and Duncan,1967; Duncan, Fetherman, and Duncan, 1976). Although this body of lit-erature provides useful insights regarding status attainment, it might pro-vide a limited understanding of the career trajectories of postsecondaryeducation leaders. Another small body of research does include a consid-eration of career trajectories. For example, Slocum (1974) describes andcontrasts an occupational career path, which is a series of progressivelymore responsible experiences within an occupation, with an organiza-tional career path, which is a sequence of increasingly responsible jobswithin the same institution.

In a national study of higher education administrators, Moore (1983)examined the career mobility of upper-level administrators: the presidents,provosts, and deans of four-year colleges and universities as principal offi-cers responsible for academic affairs. The focus of Moore’s study was to pro-vide information about the individuals who govern colleges and universitiesand describe the structure of administrative careers generally. Although thisresearch did provide a more nuanced understanding of the experiences ofhigher education administrators by considering individual trajectories, itdid not focus on cultural and social contextual factors that might affectthese trajectories. In another inquiry, Moore (1982) found little variation inthe career trajectories of white and minority administrators. In light ofeverything that is known about how race, culture, and gender shape indi-vidual experiences, how does one make sense of this finding? Furthermore,if there is little difference between white and minority administrators, thenwhy are so few Asian Americans becoming college and university leaders?

85FRAMEWORKS TO STUDY ASIAN AMERICAN LEADERS IN HIGHER EDUCATION


To answer these questions, researchers must venture to transcend traditionalconceptual frameworks and research methods.

Are We Constrained by Our Methods?

When we, as researchers, obtain findings that are contradictory to previ-ously well-established research, there are multiple possible interpretations.One is that we have indeed found something unique and contradictory toprior studies. To conclude that their findings are contradictory to pastresearch, however, researchers must be confident in their methodology. Thatis, they must be confident that they are asking the best or most appropriatequestions, measuring many of the variables that shape the phenomenonunder investigation, and analyzing these variables in ways that fully exam-ine multiple facets of this phenomenon. However, empirical research onhigher education administrators rarely seems to employ such an intricatemethodological approach and account for unique gendered, racial, and cul-tural experiences. Thus, while there may appear to be little differencebetween female or minority individuals and their white male counterpartswhen using traditional frameworks and methods, this does not necessarilymean that there is in fact no difference; it could also be an indication thatour methodology is not enabling us to effectively examine the differencesthat do exist.

Moore’s (1982, 1983) findings that the career trajectories of white andracial/ethnic minority administrators are similar contradicts some existingevidence that Asian American administrators encounter a glass ceiling (thatis, unique barriers that hinder professional advancement) in higher educa-tion (Der, 1993). The reality that Asian American leaders do encounter aglass ceiling suggests that culture and race play a role in the experiences ofhigher education administrators and supports the notion of differences inthe experiences of white and Asian American professionals in higher edu-cation. In fact, one human resource expert has described the glass ceiling asthe result of two cultures clashing or, more specifically, two cultural stylesin conflict (Chou, 1992). Indeed, the Asian work style has been describedas contextual, indirect, inner directed, and self-reliant, while the predomi-nant work style among white males is commonly described as hierarchical,controlling, aggressive, and oriented toward win-lose outcomes. In light ofsuch differences, a scholar using CRT might conclude that other researchersinherently infuse cultural bias into their methodology by using frameworks,asking questions, focusing on variables, and using approaches to data analy-sis that are associated with one of these two very different cultural styles.For example, positivist and postpositivist frameworks inherently reflect ide-ologies of control, hierarchy of knowledge, hierarchy of the researcher (asexpert) and subject (as object), and the goal of finding a single “truth” andrejecting what is relative (win-lose). Postpositivist methods may include the



use of semistructured interviews that are literature driven and standard fromparticipant to participant, the selection of the complete sample before thestudy rather than the incorporation of theoretical sampling, the establish-ment of categories before the study is executed and the attempt to codeinterview data into these categories, or the calculation of the number of par-ticipants who are represented in each thematic category (Ponterotto, 2005).

Alternatively, there are increasing calls in higher education research forthe use of constructivist-interpretivist frameworks that locate research ques-tions and topics in context, including the social contexts that are particu-larly relevant to race and culture, that help explain individual experiencesand knowledge, as well as rely on participants as experts. Thus, these per-spectives frequently and explicitly encourage and enable the considerationof the whole person in context and attention to race and cultural realities.Constructivist-interpretivist frameworks also call for greater attention to therole of the researcher, epistemological questions regarding knowledge pro-duction and maintenance, and the ways that knowledge is coconstructedbetween the researcher and the researched.

Culturally informed and specific methods are also associated with thesetraditions. Such culturally informed methods can help tailor data collectionand analysis approaches to the questions and participants in a given studyrather than assuming that a single analysis approach—which itself couldreflect a biased, culturally derived perspective according to CRT proponents—can and should be applied to all research questions and samples.

In the remainder of this chapter, we discuss a research project, con-ducted by the first author, that focused on exploring the experiences of AsianAmerican senior administrators in higher education in order to illustrate theincorporation of a constructivist racially and culturally specific analyticalapproach to researching the trajectories of higher education administrators.

A Study of the Career Trajectories of Asian AmericanAdministrators

In this qualitative investigation, the author conducted an in-depth explo-ration of the career trajectories of ten Asian American senior administratorswho have broken through the glass ceiling (Neilson, 2002). In qualitativeresearch, purposeful sampling can be used to maximize diversity within aparticipant sample (Patton, 2002). In this study, purposeful sampling pro-cedures were employed to maximize variation in gender, ethnicity, and professional role. This resulted in a sample of five men and five women. Interms of professional roles, participants held positions at both two-yearcommunity colleges and four-year universities: one associate president of auniversity system, a chancellor of a community college system, the presi-dent of a four-year institution, two community college presidents, a vicechancellor of a community college district, a vice president of academicaffairs of a four-year university, a vice president of academic affairs of a com-



munity college, a vice president of student services at a four-year university,and a vice president of student affairs of a community college. With regardto ethnicity, despite the use of purposeful sampling to achieve variationamong participants, most of the administrators were East Asian (four Japan-ese Americans, four Chinese Americans, one Okinawan American, and oneAsian Indian); and no Southeast Asian American (Vietnamese, Cambodian,Lao, or Hmong) senior administrators could be identified.

Purpose of the Study and Research Questions

The initial purpose of this study was to examine the trajectories of AsianAmerican higher education administrators and comparatively consider thosecareer paths in relation to the previously studied trajectories of white highereducation administrators. The overarching research question that guidedthe exploration was, “What are the career paths of Asian American senior-level administrators in higher education?” In addition, two more questionshelped guide data collection and analysis: How did these administrators’academic preparation and professional training shape their success in edu-cational administration? And, how have institutional cultures influencedthe career paths of these administrators?

All three of those research questions emerged from a review of the lit-erature, thereby suggesting an inherent assumption that previous findingseffectively speak to the experiences and trajectories of Asian Americanhigher education administrators. Two additional questions, however, wereincluded to address issues not examined in previous literature but antici-pated to be particularly important for Asian American higher educationadministrators: What are some of the individual characteristics that shapethe success of these senior-level administrators? And, how have the differ-ent cultural and linguistic backgrounds of these administrators facilitatedor hindered their career development?

Each of the participants participated in one individual face-to-faceinterview, lasting approximately sixty to ninety minutes. Prior to the inter-views, participants completed a survey questionnaire that provided demo-graphic information. Once all of the interviews were completed, they weretape-recorded, transcribed, and thematically analyzed by the researcher.

Methodological Frameworks: A Contrast ofTraditional and Culturally Sensitive Approaches to Data Analysis

In this section, the first author of this chapter describes the findings thatemerged from the traditional framework and research questions using afirst-person narrative. She discusses the struggles she faced throughout thisresearch process and then explains how she approached meeting those chal-lenges using the application of a culturally sensitive framework to the same



empirical inquiry. In doing so, she underscores how such alternative, cul-turally sensitive perspectives can add value and provide new insights intothe research process and interpretation of participants’ experiences.

The Traditional Analytical Approach. I initially approached dataanalysis by focusing on the research questions. Based on a postpositivist per-spective, I employed an analytical framework constructed from four the-matic categories that emerged from a review of existing literature onadministrator trajectories. I used open- and axial-coding procedures todeductively generate themes within each of those four categories. I alsoexamined themes related to how the data contrasted with the analyticalframework. This analysis led to the following results:

• Predetermination of career paths. Only one of the interviewees had plannedto become an administrator. The other nine participants describedunplanned ascents to senior levels of administration. This was different fromwhite European American administrators described in previous studies.

• Salience of occupational career paths. Seven of the ten participants in thisstudy reported following occupational career paths. This finding was incontrast with the existing literature, which suggested that minorities andwomen, like their white male counterparts, are more likely to profession-ally advance within an organization.

• Professional opportunities outside the institutions. All ten participantsbelonged to multiple professional associations, which offered them accessto important professional information and networks that included otherAsian American colleagues. For a few of the participants, involvement inthese associations represented critical reference points and professionalopportunities that were not possible within their own institutions.

• The role of mentors. Mentoring was a crucial factor that facilitated theadministrative advancement for all but one participant in the study. Thisfinding is in contrast to Moore’s (1983) conclusion that just over half ofsenior-level administrators identified mentors as important to their success.

This brief overview of the findings from the traditional analysis does not, ofcourse, do justice to the more comprehensive thematic analysis that wasconducted. Furthermore, although there were many commonalities in thestories of these senior administrators, subthemes also emerged from the datathat revealed great diversity and complexity within and across the partici-pants’ experiences. The results from the initial analysis therefore gave a rel-atively in-depth picture of the experiences of these administrators in relationto career plans, organizational and occupational career trajectories, and therole of mentoring on those trajectories.

Methodological Challenges. After completing the analysis, I ques-tioned whether I had captured the essence of the participants’ experiencesand realities because of theoretical or methodological limitations inherentin my traditional approach. The traditional framework employed inherently



reflected the cultural values and assumptions inherent in the methodolog-ical approaches employed in previous research on administrators. Thus, theexperiences of the Asian American participants were framed using the experiences of participants in past research and therefore were analyzedand understood through a white Eurocentric perspective. Based on my ownunderstanding of Asian and Asian American cultures, I suspected that abetter comprehension of participants’ experiences had yet to be revealed,but that such an understanding could not be generated using a Eurocen-tric framework.

Researcher Reflexivity: Changing Methodological Perspectives. As Iexplored why I felt that the findings were not sufficient, I realized that theydid not illuminate how being Asian American shaped the participants’ expe-riences. If some evidence exists suggesting that culturally and racially spe-cific characteristics can serve as barriers to Asian Americans’ success inadministrative careers (Chou, 1992), it is likely that being Asian Americanhad an impact on the trajectories of these higher education leaders and theirexperiences progressing along their career paths. How did my research cap-ture the realities of being an Asian American higher education administrator?

As I experienced and reflected on the challenges I faced in reconcilingmy cultural understandings with the findings that emerged from my origi-nal analysis, I underwent a personal struggle to find voice as an Asian Amer-ican researcher and emerging Asian American administrator. Indeed, Istruggled with what it means to be Asian, Japanese, and Okinawan Ameri-can within a Eurocentric system of higher education, with how my culturalvalues and inclinations shaped my role as a researcher and perspectivesregarding my participants, and with how to apply my own cultural values toresearch traditions within which these cultural values have historically beenexcluded or ignored. As I became increasingly aware of both the method-ological and personal struggles during this process, I began to consider howliterature on and knowledge regarding Asian Americans could add value tothe methods employed and analyses conducted in this research project.

Qualitative researchers, and particularly those from constructivistic andinterpretivistic philosophical perspectives, emphasize the role of researcherreflexivity within the research process (for discussions see MacBeth, 2001;Nightingale and Cromby, 1999; Willig, 2001). In addition to other issues,reflexivity includes developing awareness of the researchers’ own positions,and possible biases related to the research topic, as well as the commun-ity and individuals being researched. Another aspect of reflexivity is consid-ering the interactional process, whereby the researcher affects the participantsand the research process, just as the researcher is simultaneously affected bythe participants and the research process (Finlay, 2002). During data collec-tion, I was aware that my own position as an Asian American would mostlikely shape the interview interactions and the information that participantsshared with me. I considered this as I planned my interview questions andconducted the actual interviews, but I had not fully considered the role of



reflexivity in data analyses processes. Finlay (2002) notes, “At a more activelevel, it [reflexivity] involves a more wholesale embracing of subjectivity,for example, by exploiting researcher’s/co-researcher’s reflective insights” (p. 536). She also asserts, “Reflection on oneself (in action, in relationship)is carried out to gain a new perspective and it is not an aim in itself” (p. 543). Accordingly, reflection on my own experiences as an Asian Amer-ican in higher education and on my struggles with the research analyticalprocess led to the development of a new methodological perspective.

Developing a Culturally Sensitive Analytical Framework. In order todevelop a more culturally sensitive approach to analyzing the interview data,I switched from a wholly deductive to a more mixed inductive-deductiveapproach. First, I inductively generated themes from the individual interviews.Participants’ stories clearly indicated the importance of Asian cultural valuesin the trajectories of these administrators. For example, a cultural value suchas a reticence to speak assertively or an honest humility could hinder profes-sional advancement. In addition, powerful cultural values or traits clearlyguided the interviewees and influenced their steady and sometimes mercurialrise within the higher education profession. Those cultural values and char-acteristics included working hard, working collaboratively, and taking partic-ular kinds of risks, all characteristics associated with Asian cultures.

Second, I reviewed literature related to Asian cultural values and, in doingso, deductively generated a new culturally specific framework (Ariyoshi, 1997;Kitano, 1969; Ogawa, 1978). This literature was not specifically on highereducation administrators, but it was centrally focused on the experiences ofAsian Americans. Thus, the process of creating and applying the culturallysensitive framework consisted of both inductively generating themes from theinterview data and deductively identifying concepts in the literature that couldhelp make sense of those data. This alternative methodological approach wasvery different from the original traditional Eurocentric and postpositivist per-spective. Overall, this was a more eclectic approach, encompassing both post-positivistic, and constructivistic and interpretivistic, philosophies.

The Emergence of New Understandings. The intricacies of Asian cul-tures are complex, as were the struggles and successes that the ten partici-pants in this study experienced. While recognizing the enormous diversityof values, traditions, religions, languages, and historical evolutions of dif-ferent Asian cultures, I grounded the new analytical framework in Japanesecultural values. Four particular values originated in the Meiji period(1868–1912) and influenced Japanese, Japanese American, and JapaneseHawaiian cultures: on (ascribed obligation), giri (contracted obligation),ningo (humane sensibility), enryo (modesty in the presence of one’s supe-rior), and haji (shame) (Kitano, 1969).

These cultural values were instrumental in making sense of the expe-riences and trajectories of participants. Specifically, they helped explain thevalues and behaviors of these successful Asian American leaders in the con-text of higher education. The findings that emerged from this new analysis



can be separated into three categories: hard work as moral obligation, col-laboration as interconnection, and risk taking as sacrifice for the future.

Hard Work as Honor, Legacy, and Moral Obligation. Participants repeat-edly referenced hard work to achieve excellence. One participant dedicatedextra time to reading grant proposals to gain a better understanding ofresearch projects within his institution, rewriting memos until his supervi-sor had no more corrections, and producing a major admissions com-pendium in one week. Hard work was an internalized expectation ratherthan a professional orientation. Moreover, it was not simply for purposes of career advancement but was an obligation to honor the legacy of hard-working family members.

Collaboration as Interconnection in the Present. Participants expresseda sense of interconnectedness and the internalization of the concept ofokage sama de—that people are extensions of one another and everythingis connected. This valuing of connectedness explained the collaborativeorientations of many of the participants. One administrator, for example,characterized himself as “a leader of teamwork, collaboration, and consen-sus building.”

Risk Taking for the Sake of the Children. A third theme emerging fromparticipants’ career stories was risk taking at pivotal moments in order toshape the future. However, the experiences shared by the administrators inthis study exemplify risk taking of a different nature. The motivations forrisk taking among participants were making a point, doing the “right thing,”fulfilling a moral obligation, or righting a past wrong. In this way, risk tak-ing reflects an additional cultural principle, kodomo no tame ni, which sym-bolizes working hard for future generations. That belief, in conjunction withokage sama de, is fundamental to understanding the trajectories and suc-cesses of these Asian American leaders in higher education.

Implications for Future Research on Asian Americans

The findings that emerged from the culturally sensitive framework permit-ted the understanding of these three central themes, which were absent andexcluded from the original analysis that employed traditional frameworkand methods. By switching from a deductive to an interactive, reflective, andinductive-deductive approach, a new and insightful perspective emerged.This section outlines implications for researchers qualitatively studyingAsian Americans. Although the previous example was focused on adminis-trators, we present the following implications under the assumption thatthey can inform research on all Asian Americans in higher education.

Consider Nontraditional Frameworks and Methods. This study func-tions as an example of how conceptual frameworks and methodological con-straints can limit the sense making of researchers in the data analysis processand the understandings that they attach to the realities of their participants.Thus, it is critical that researchers explore nontraditional conceptual and



theoretical frameworks in their work, which can be instrumental in fullyunderstanding the realities of Asian Americans in higher education.

Consider Asian American Cultures. The cultural values, beliefs, andnorms of Asian Americans influence their behaviors, attitudes, and beliefs.Similarly the incongruence between those cultural traits and the predomi-nantly white European American cultural attributes that pervade most col-lege campuses can help explain the struggles and success of AsianAmericans in higher education. Therefore, comprehending those values andhow they contribute to the experiences and realities of Asian Americans canyield powerful new ways of examining individual and group attitudes, per-ceptions, experiences, and trajectories of Asian Americans.

Use Reflexivity Throughout the Research Process. All researcherswould benefit from engaging in reflexivity throughout the research process.An understanding of how one’s own cultural knowledge, experiences, andpossible biases can serve as an asset or a deficit in the research process canhelp researchers maximize the utility of the cultural knowledge they pos-sess or identify knowledge they may not yet have done so. These reflectionsmay also contribute to insights about the possible biases within particulardisciplines and research methodologies. Researchers should therefore con-tinually consider the importance of reflecting on their personal identities(ethnic, racial, and so on) and their identities as researchers within partic-ular disciplines in relation to the research they are conducting.

References

Ariyoshi, G. With Obligation to All. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1997.Blau, P., and Duncan, O. The American Occupational Structure. Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley, 1967.Chou, R. “Keynote Speech Comments by Rebecca Chou in Chinese for Affirmative

Action, Report of CAA 3rd Upward Mobility Conference.” San Francisco: Chinese forAffirmative Action, 1992.

Der, H. “Asian Pacific Islanders and the Glass Ceiling: New Era of Civil Rights Activism?Affirmative Action Policy.” In The State of Asian Pacific America: Policy Issues to theYear 2020. Los Angeles: LEAP Asian Pacific American Policy Institute and UCLAAsian American Studies Center, 1993.

Duncan, O., Fetherman, D., and Duncan, B. Socio-Economic Background and Achievement.New York: Seminar Press, 1976.

Finlay, L. “‘Outing’ the Researcher: The Provenance, Process, and Practice of Reflexiv-ity.” Qualitative Health Research, 2002, 12, 531–545.

Kitano, H. Japanese Americans: The Evolution of a Subculture. Upper Saddle River, N.J.:Prentice Hall, 1969.

MacBeth, D. “On ‘Reflexivity’ in Qualitative Research: Two Readings, and a Third.” Qual-itative Inquiry, 2001, 7(1), 35–68.

Moore, K. Women and Minorities, Leaders in Transition: A National Study of Higher Edu-cation Administrators. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1982.

Moore, K. The Top-Line: A Report on Presidents’, Provosts’, and Deans’ Careers, Leaders inTransition: A National Study of Higher Education Administrators. Washington, D.C.:American Council on Education, 1983.

Neilson, P. Career Paths of Asian American Senior Administrators in Higher Education: AnInquiry into Under-Representation. Boston: University of Massachusetts Boston, 2002.



Nightingale, D., and Cromby, J. Social Constructionist Psychology: A Critical Analysis ofTheory and Practice. Buckingham: Open University Press, 1999.

Ogawa, D. Kodomo No Yame Ni, For the Sake of the Children. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1978.

Patton, M. Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 2002.Ponterotto, J. “Qualitative Research in Counseling Psychology: A Primer on Research

Paradigms and Philosophy of Science.” Journal of Counseling Psychology, 2005, 52(2),126–136.

Slocum, W. Occupational Careers. Chicago: Aldine, 1974.Willig, C. Qualitative Research in Psychology: A Practical Guide to Theory and Method.

Buckingham: Open University Press, 2001.

PATRICIA A. NEILSON is an assistant director of the Emerging Leaders Programat the University of Massachusetts Boston.

KAREN L. SUYEMOTO is an associate professor in psychology and Asian Ameri-can studies at the University of Massachusetts Boston.

Documents

Using culturally sensitive frameworks to study Asian American leaders in higher education