Research in the Sociology of Education

Hyunjoon Park, Grace Kao, Hyunjoon Park, Grace Kao

• Publisher: Emerald Publishing Limited
• Year: 2018
• Print ISBN: 9781787690783
• eBook ISBN: 9781787690790
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Education General
• Index: Social Sciences

Research in the Sociology of Education is an important and established series, highlighting how societal contexts shape the educational experiences and outcomes of individual children and youth. 

Including five single-country studies from settings as diverse as rural China, Germany and the United States, as well as two cross-national comparative studies, this insightful new volume continues the series tradition for publishing research from across a broad range of settings. It demonstrates that various educational issues (including student victimization at school, immigrant-native gaps in educational aspiration, and STEM outcomes) are not limited to specific societies but are relevant worldwide. By exploring national and regional situations and then placing them within this broader context, readers are able to see both the commonality and uniqueness of educational issues around the globe.

SOCIALIZATION EXPERIENCES AND RESEARCH PRODUCTIVITY OF ASIANS AND PACIFIC ISLANDERS: “MODEL MINORITY” STEREOTYPE AND DOMESTIC VS. INTERNATIONAL COMPARISON

Josipa Roksa, Soojeong Jeong, David Feldon and Michelle Maher

ABSTRACT

Studies of inequality in higher education on both undergraduate and graduate levels have rarely examined experiences of Asians and Pacific Islanders (APIs). In this study, we focus on the experiences and outcomes of API students in doctoral education. More specifically, we examine socialization experiences and research productivity of three groups of students: domestic API, international API, and domestic white students. The results, based on a national cohort of PhD students in biology, reveal notable differences in experiences and outcomes of domestic and international API students. Although variation in socialization experiences explains differences in research productivity in the first year, that is not the case in the second year of doctoral study. In the second year, international API students have publication productivity comparable to their white peers, despite less favorable socialization experiences. Domestic API students, however, have lower research productivity than their white peers, even though they have comparable socialization experiences. Given the presumption of APIs’ success, especially in the STEM fields, findings for domestic API students are surprising and not aligned with the model minority stereotype. Contributions to research on API students, doctoral education, and socialization theory are discussed.

Keywords Doctoral education; socialization; inequality; model minority; Asians and Pacific Islanders

Asians and Pacific Islanders (APIs) have the highest rates of entry into higher education and the highest proportion of adults 25 years and older with a college degree of any racial/ethnic group in the United States (Aud, Fox, & KewalRamani, 2010). Statistics such as these have contributed to the popular depiction of APIs as the “model minority.” Museus and Kiang (2009) define the model minority stereotype as the idea that API students will “achieve universal and unparalleled academic and occupational success” (p. 6). While the operationalization of the model minority stereotype varies across disciplines and studies, we interpret it as implying that API students will have strong academic performance that exceeds that of other groups, including white students. That assumption is likely to be particularly salient in the science, technology, math and engineering (STEM) fields, where the enrollment of API students is high at both undergraduate (Chen, 2009) and graduate (NSF, 2014) levels.

One consequence of the model minority stereotype is a lack of research on API students. Museus (2009) noted that only approximately one percent of articles in the top five higher education journals have focused on API students. A few recent studies have begun to describe experiences of API students in doctoral education (e.g., Le & Gardner, 2010; Sato, 2016; Sato & Hodge, 2009; Zhang, 2016; Zhou, 2014). However, these studies tend to focus on small sample interviews of specific groups. As such, they provide a thick description of a specific group’s experiences, but they rarely compare those experiences with other groups (including white students) or link them to outcomes such as publication or persistence. While describing doctoral experiences of specific groups is valuable, comparisons are necessary for gaining analytical leverage and understanding whether those experiences are unique or representative of broader trends in doctoral education. Moreover, the model minority stereotype is fundamentally relational – it implies that API students perform better than other groups, necessitating a comparison.

In addition, the model minority stereotype has produced a misconception that all API students are the same (Museus & Kiang, 2009). Studies at the K-12 and college levels have illuminated variation among API students related to the country of origin (e.g., Hune, 2002; Kao, 1995; Kim, Yang, Atkinson, Wolfe, & Hong, 2001; Palmer & Maramba, 2015). However, attention to variation among API students on the graduate level remains limited. One of the crucial distinctions in graduate education is that between domestic and international students. Prior studies on API doctoral students overwhelmingly focus on international API students. International students face unique challenges in higher education (e.g., Erichsen & Bolliger, 2011; Knox et al., 2013; Lee & Rice, 2007; Suspitsyna, 2013; Zhou, 2015), but their outcomes are distinctly positive. International students, for example, have higher degree completion rates than domestic students (Sowell, Bell, & Mahler, 2008) despite less positive socialization experiences, illuminating the importance of distinguishing between domestic and international students.

The present study contributes to the prior literature by focusing attention on experiences and outcomes of API doctoral students, who have received scant attention in prior research. Moreover, it addresses important limitations of prior research on doctoral education by: (1) considering both experiences and outcomes of doctoral students and (2) comparing three groups: domestic API, international API, and domestic white students.¹ The results, based on a national cohort of PhD students in biology, reveal notable differences in experiences and outcomes of domestic and international API students. Although variation in socialization experiences explains differences in research productivity in the first year, that is not the case in the second year of doctoral study. In the second year, international API students have publication productivity comparable to their white peers, despite less favorable socialization experiences. Domestic API students, however, have lower research productivity than their white peers, even though they have comparable socialization experiences. These findings offer notable contributions to the literature on graduate education and socialization theory. Moreover, the findings for domestic API students counter the model minority stereotype, which would predict that they would have a higher (or at the very least an equal) level of research productivity as their white peers. The results for international students align with the predictions of the model minority stereotype; yet, finding variation within the API student population in itself counters the stereotype.

These findings are particularly notable because they are observed in a STEM field where API students are well represented. They also illuminate the importance of broadening the definition of success – while API students may enroll in high numbers in STEM fields, that does not automatically mean that they have particularly positive experiences or outcomes. Indeed, despite high enrollments, API students have the lowest PhD completion rate in life sciences among all racial/ethnic groups (Sowell et al., 2008).² Developing effective ways to support API students will require a nuanced approach that not only discards stereotypes but also considers a range of different outcomes and attends to within-group variation.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Theoretical Framework: Socialization

Socialization has become the dominant theoretical framework for research on doctoral education (e.g., Gardner, 2010; Holley, 2009; Weidman, 2010). While socialization has roots in many disciplines, the definition underpinning most doctoral education research draws on Merton’s work (Merton, 1957; Merton, Reader, & Kendall, 1957). Merton, Reader, and Kendall defined socialization as: “The process through which [an individual] develops [a] professional self, with its characteristic values, attitudes, knowledge and skills […] which govern [his or her] behavior in a wide variety of professional (and extraprofessional) situations” (p. 287).

As applied to doctoral training, socialization is more specifically defined as “a process of internalizing the expectations, standards, and norms of a given society, which includes learning the relevant skills, knowledge, habits, attitudes, and values of the group that one is joining” (Austin & McDaniels, 2006, p. 400). The socialization process evolves over time as novice disciplinary researchers become well versed in the values, attitudes, knowledge, and skills of their chosen discipline (Braxton & Baird, 2001; Gardner, 2009a; Weidman, Twale, & Stein, 2001). The intended outcome of the socialization process of doctoral training is the creation of autonomous disciplinary researchers who are able to extend their discipline’s knowledge base (Lovitts, 2005; Weidman, 2010).

The department is considered “the locus of control for doctoral education” (Golde, 2005, p. 671) and the stage upon which doctoral student socialization unfolds. In disciplines like biology, in which laboratory-based research teams are common (Cumming, 2009; Parry, 2007), the socialization process is further reinforced within interactions among research team members. Team members often include the lead faculty supervisor and possibly other associated faculty, postdoctoral fellows, doctoral students, master’s-level students, and sometimes undergraduate researchers. While all team members participate in the socialization process (Knorr-Cetina, 1999), faculty are considered the primary socialization agents in doctoral students’ development as disciplinary researchers (Nettles & Millett, 2006; Parry, 2007; Wisker, 2005). In the lab environment, faculty supervisors or mentors play a crucial role in students’ academic and social integration into the discipline (e.g., Gardner, 2009b; Lee, 2012; Weidman et al., 2001; Wisker, 2005). This often extends to opportunities for coauthorship. Kamler (2008) suggested that without faculty to initiate the process, many students would fail to publish at all, and a number of other studies have described the importance of collaboration between faculty and graduate students in producing scientific publications (Maher, Feldon, Timmerman, & Chao, 2014; Maher, Timmerman, Feldon, & Strickland, 2013; Paglis, Green, & Bauer, 2006).

Although the socialization process is deemed central to doctoral education, traditionally underrepresented groups of doctoral students report receiving less academic and emotional support from faculty mentors than their white peers (e.g., Felder, Stevenson, & Gasman, 2014; Gardner, 2008; Herzig, 2006; Ramirez, 2016). Prior studies also reveal racial and ethnic disparities in opportunities to publish or present at conferences (e.g., Millett & Nettles, 2006). Comparing experiences of majority and minority women doctoral students across disciplines, Turner and Thompson (1993) noted that minority women were much less likely to coauthor with a faculty member and that they attributed this disparity to a lack of mentorship by faculty. In addition, underrepresented groups of students do not always feel supported by their white peers (Gildersleeve, Croom, & Vasquez, 2011; Sato & Hodge, 2009). For example, Gildersleeve and colleagues found that minority students reported experiencing racially charged moments of discomfort among peers, such as being asked to represent one’s racial group to classmates. Not surprisingly, students from underrepresented groups in the study described a sense of academic and social isolation within their doctoral programs.

While prior studies have considered the socialization process and outcomes of traditionally underrepresented groups of students, experiences and outcomes of API students remain poorly understood. This is captured in the opening line of a chapter on Asian American doctoral students written by Poon and Hune (2009): “One might ask, ‘What is a chapter on Asian American doctoral students doing in a volume on underrepresented minority graduate students?’” (p. 82). These authors contend that while Asian American students have become visible on campus, the model minority stereotype contributes to their invisibility within dialogues on race in education studies. Students in the study described experiencing racial isolation, being mistaken as a foreigner, and being dismissed as, “not a ‘legitimate’ population of color and instead viewed as a ‘model minority’” (p. 100).

Experiences of Asian American Students

Most research on the experiences and outcomes of Asian American students in higher education to date has focused on undergraduates and documents myriad challenges experienced by these students, including identity confusion, discrimination, hostility, and prejudice (Iwamoto & Liu, 2010; Museus & Park, 2015; Museus, Sariñana, & Ryan, 2015; Wong, Tsai, Liu, Zhu, & Wei, 2014). Museus ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Educational Outcomes of Heterogeneous Groups of Students in Diverse Contexts
• The Variation in Educational Aspirations among Immigrant Students in Germany1
• School Violence in China: A Multilevel Analysis of Student Victimization in Rural Middle Schools
• Global Patterns of the Use of Shadow Education: Student, Family, and National Influences
• Narratives of Interdependence and Independence: The Role of Social Class and Family Relationships in Where High-Achieving Students Apply to College
• Jumping on the STEM Train: Differences in Key Milestones in the STEM Pipeline between Children of Immigrants and Natives in the United States
• Socialization Experiences and Research Productivity of Asians and Pacific Islanders: “Model Minority” Stereotype and Domestic vs. International Comparison
• Gender Gaps in Student Academic Achievement and Inequality
• Index