University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

The journey: Asian American females in higher education administration

(USC Thesis Other)

The journey: Asian American females in higher education administration

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content THE JOURNEY:
ASIAN AMERICAN FEMALES
IN HIGHER EDUCATION ADMINISTRATION

by

Jiah “Rhea” Chung

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

May 2008

Copyright 2008 Jiah “Rhea” Chung

ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to sincerely thank my husband, Don,

for all his unprecedented love, patience and support,

Dr. Alex Jun for his wisdom and challenging inquiries, and

Dr. Evette Castillo-Clark for her unfathomable courage and genuineness.

iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii

LIST OF TABLES vi

ABSTRACT vii

CHAPTER ONE: Introduction
Introduction 1
Problem Statement 7
Significance of the Study 9
Purpose of the Study 12
Research Questions 13
Asian Americans and Model Minority Myth 15
Women in the Workforce 19
Definitions 23
Limitations 26

CHAPTER TWO: Review of Literature
OVERVIEW 29
RACE AND CULTURE
Education and Economic Achievement of
Asian Americans 34
Asian Americans in the Labor Market 38
Assimilation vs. Acculturation 42
Hyphenated, Triangulated Race 47
The Success of Asian Americans 49
Culture Shyness and Invisibility 50
Emotional Intelligence and Personal Control 52
Ethgender Identity 55
Family Values 56
GENDER
The Evolution of Asian American Women 58
Women in Management 68
The Cult of Domesticity 74
Attributional Patterns of Asian American Women:
Feminine Modesty 79
Marriage, Work, Motherhood 81
“Doing” Gender Across Cultural Worlds 82
Minority Women in Higher Education 95

iv
SOCIAL CAPITAL
Overview 98
Theory of Social Capital 104
Functions of Social and Cultural Capital 112
POLITICS
Glass Ceiling 118
Bargaining 125
ORGANIZATION
University Structure and Culture 128
Rules of the Game 130
Member Identity and Status 131
Insider-ship and Membership 133
Revisiting University Culture and Membership 135
Help-seeking Orientation 136
Instrumental and Expressive Motivations 138
Revisiting the Conceptual Model 140

CONCLUSION 142

CHAPTER THREE: Methodology 148
Ethnography 150
Critiquing Ethnography 152
RESEARCH DESIGN
Voice, Perspective, Reflexivity 154
Selection Process 158
Gatekeepers 161
Methods 162
Data Collection 165
Establishing Trustworthiness 167
Challenges 170
First Step 172

CHAPTER FOUR: Journey
THE WOMEN 175
THEIR TALES 178
UNIQUE CHALLENGES AND ISSUES
Politics 181
Racism, Sexism, and Ageism 187
Glass Ceiling 189
“The Only One” 191
The Package: Presenting the Unexpected and
Cracking the Stereotype 193
Value Conflict 195

v
“Saving Face” 197
Leadership Styles 198
Coping Strategies 204
EI: Emotional Intelligence 207

NETWORKS 209
Mentoring as Instigator and Equalizer 210
Professional Organizations 216
Community and Family 219

ETHGENDER AND CULTURAL IDENTITY 226

THE REASON
A Serendipitous Choice 233
Motivation 236
Attributions of Success 238
Regrets 241
Advice 243

CHAPTER FIVE: Destination 245
Analysis of Data 252
Limitations 273
A New Theory of Cultural Integrity 275
Recommendations for Future Research 284
Next Step: A Greater Understanding of a New Generation
Of Leaders in Higher Education 286

REFERENCES 291

APPENDICES
Appendix A: Informed Consent Form 325
Appendix B: Interview Protocol 328

vi
LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.1: College and University CEOs 5

Table 2.1: Breakdown of Degrees by Asian Americans 67

Table 3.1: Ethnicity 159

Table 3.2: Generational Status 159

Table 3.3: Age 160

Table 3.4: Marital Status 160

Table 3.5: Geographic Location 161

Table 3.6: Divisions 161

Table 4.1: Descriptors 227

vii
ABSTRACT
Women and racial minorities are thought to face particular disadvantages
in managerial and professional settings. The research studies exploring the
influence of gender and racial discrimination, campus politics, and stereotyping
on the status of women suggest there are barriers for all women being hired,
promoted, or mentored. The previous findings also suggest that the stated
progress of women, particularly minority women, even more specifically, Asian
American females, in the higher education workforce requires further
investigation.
With ever-increasing number of Asian American students in colleges and
universities and the fast-changing demographics in the higher education
landscape, there needs to be an urgent action to encourage, recruit, and support
the new generation of leaders that is more indicative of this change. The lack of
representation of Asian American women in higher education administration
needs more attention.
Through in-depth interviews, the author explores the socialization process
of Asian American female administrators at various four-year institutions in the
United States. The lack thereof in the proportional representation of women
administrators by race and ethnicity will be examined. This study provides
insight to what they experience in workplace setting in terms of politics, network,
and ethgender identity. Also questioned is the availability of pipeline for these
women and the new strategies to implement to aid their career mobility. The

viii
researcher also asks the question of the “chilly campus climate” for these women
and if it has thawed for minority women in administration. The socio-cultural
experiences of these women will be closely examined in terms of politics, access,
stereotype threats, and internal support links which include mentoring,
professional development, and internal and external advocacy groups.
Through the personal, socio-cultural experiences intertwined with their
careers, the socialization process of these women with regard to gender, racial,
and ethnic identity in their current positions in higher education administration
will be thoroughly navigated.
Chapter One
Introduction
See the Invisible; Hear the unspoken.
- Knowledge Nugget, NASPA-APIKC, 2007
The past twenty-five years of increasing inclusion in higher education
show a clear pattern: the lower the level in the institutional hierarchies the greater
the degree of inclusion achieved (Rosaldo, 1993). Changes in student bodies have
been greater than those in teaching faculties, and changes in teaching faculties
have been greater than those in central administrations. Processes of institutional
change appear to have gone through more or less characteristic phases. Initial
efforts concentrated on getting people in the door — institutions of higher
learning appeared to tell those previously excluded, “Come in, sit down, shut up.
You’re welcome here as long as you conform to our norms.” This was the Green
Card phase of short-term provisional admission in the name of increasing
institutional inclusion and change (Rosaldo, 1993, p. x).
Rosaldo (1993) asserts that colleges and universities stand to be the

primary beneficiaries of democratizing movements both in relation to their

communitarian existence and in relation to their central agendas of education and

critical thought. Do our major institutions continue to include only a narrow

spectrum of the population? The central administration of four-year universities

1

2
and colleges reflects this narrowness and exclusivity with its lack of

representation by minority women — specifically Asian-American women.

The 2000 U.S. Census reported that there are 11.9 million Asian
Americans in the United States, a 72% increase since the previous census in
comparison to the total U.S. population growth of 13% for the same period. In
2005, the numbers are estimated at 12.4 million according to the 2006 U.S.
Census and 44% of Asian Americans over age 25 have graduated from college,
the highest percentage for any racial group. In 2004, 1.5 million Asian-
Americans in the age 25 years and over received advanced degrees out of 12.3
million total population (The White House Initiative on Asian-Americans and
Pacific Islanders Report, 2007).
Asian Americans are the fastest-growing minority group, and the
population is expected to double by 2020 and triple by 2030 (Lew, 2005). (The
56% represents those Asian-Americans who identify with one group, while 74%
represents those who identify with Asian-Americans, as well as another group,
“multi-ethnic”/ “multi-racial”). The Census noted that Asian-Americans have the
highest multi-racial rates of all major ethnic groups at 14%.
With regard to gender, American Council on Education (2006) reported
that in fall 2003, 9.6 million women enrolled for credit in higher education at all
levels — a 57% female majority in total enrollment. It is also reported that
among the 40% of undergraduates who are aged twenty-five or

3
older, women outnumbered men by almost a two to one margin (ACE, 2006).
According to the most recent National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS,
2006), men comprised 42% of total enrollment at the graduate level in 2003-2004,
but the gender balance varied tremendously by degree program and field of study.
Men still are the majority in theology (77%), MBA (59%), noneducation
doctorate (55%), law (54%), and master’s of science (52%) programs. Women
held the largest majorities in education programs (80% at the master’s level and
64% at the doctoral level), but also have made strides in traditionally male fields.
Women now have a slight majority in enrollment in medicine (51%) and other
health science professional programs (53%) (ACE, 2006). Further, according to
American Association of University Women (AAUW), Asian American women
have steadily closed the gap with Asian American men on attaining a 4-year
degree in the last decade decreasing from a 14% gap to 8% at 39.8% and 47.6%
(AAUW, 2007).
In the United States, women held 50.3% of all management and
professional positions, but only 7.9% of Fortune 500 top earners and 1.4% of
Fortune 500 CEOs were women (Catalyst, 2005). Further, white males are the
favored group in all areas of higher education (Lindsay, 1999) and very few
women hold top-level administrative positions in higher education institutions in
the United States (Andruskiw & Howes, 1980) when women make up more than
52% of the current student body at colleges and universities (Chliwniak, 1997).
Lindsay (1999) added that at major research institutions or prestigious

4
undergraduate ones, the disproportionate representation of men to women
administrators is even greater. Wilson (1995) reported that of 453 female top
administrative executives at American colleges and universities, only 72 were
women of color. Touchton (1995) reported that of the 453 women presidents in
1995, 16% were women of color, 39 (9%) were African American, 24 (5%) were
Hispanic, seven or (2%) were American Indian and 2 (less than 0.01%), were
Asian American. However, these data may be misleading since most of the
women presided over small schools that had enrollments under 3000 (Touchton,
1991). According to the 2005 Association of American Colleges and
Universities (AACU) report, between 1983-4 and 1999-2000, the percentage of
full-time female administrators has increased 97.4%, while male administrators
have gained only 4.6%. In the same time period, minority women's representation
in the administrative ranks has increased 157.3%, compared to minority men's
increase of 48%. At the highest levels, minority women have also made small
gains, though they remain underrepresented. Since 1993, minority women overall
have gained 49 positions at the chief executive level, an increase of 72.1%.
While the number of African American and Hispanic women CEOs has
grown by 77.1% and 87% respectively, Asian American women CEOs have
increased by 400%. What that last staggering percentage does not reveal, though,
is the actual number of positions gained: Asian American women CEOs in our
3,191 colleges and universities now number only 5, compared to 1 in 1993. As
of 2006, the number remains the same (AACU, 2006). American Indian CEOs

5
are the only group to have declined in the past decade, losing 10 positions overall,
two of them being women CEOs. At the full-time administrator level, however,
the number of American Indian women nearly doubled between 1989-90 and
1999-2000.
Across the board, impressive gains for women administrators and chief
executive officers belie the fact that women, particularly minority women, still
have a long way to go before they are equally represented at the highest levels of
administration (Edghill, 2005). Calculated in percentages, the ranks of women,
particularly minority women, in administrative positions have indeed grown in
recent years. A growth in administrative positions has also helped boost the
numbers of women and minorities in these positions. However, those percentage
figures translate to a relatively small number of positions, as exemplified next in
the number of Asian American women Chief Executive Officers:
Table 1.1: College and University CEOs by race/ethnicity and gender
College and University Chief Executive Officers
1
(4-Year Institutions),
By Race/Ethnicity and Gender: 1993 and 2003

1993 2003 % of Change
Total 1,779 2,023 13.8
Men 1,531 1,653 7.9
Women 248 370 49.1
Caucasian 1,576 1,770 12.3
Men 1,360 1,461 7.4
Women 216 309 43.1
Total Minority 203 253 24.6
Men 171 192 12.3
Women 32 61 1.81

1
Defined as key individuals or leaders responsible for the entire operation of the institution

6

Table 1.1, Continued

African-American 118 137 16.1
Men 103 106 2.91
Women 15 31 106.7
Hispanic 62 85 37.1
Men 47 60 27.7
Women 15 25 66.7
Asian-American 13 24 84.6
Men 13 22 69.2
Women 0 2 200.0
American-Indian 10 7 -0.3
Men 8 4 6.25
Women 2 3 50.0

(American Council on Education, 2006)

Looking at the reported trends, it appears Asian American women had the lowest
number of administrators in 4-year institutions in 2003. In two-year institution
setting, representation of Asian American females is both prominent and
promising (ACE, 2006). Currently, 8% of administration in 2-year institutions
comprise of Asian American females according to the ACE report.
Central administration of higher education is gradually becoming more
diversified and more people of color are represented. However, there still
remains the question of equity when looking at the number of Asian American
women pursuing 4-year degrees in education and the number of administrators
represented by this group.

7
Problem Statement
You have to be used to being the only one. That’s it. At my level,
I’m the only one. But I’m okay with that.
- Elora

Where are the minority women in higher education administration?
Further, where are Asian American women in leadership positions at American 4-
year universities and colleges? The lack of representation of Asian American
women in higher education administration needs more attention. Also questioned
is the availability of pipeline for these women and the new strategies to
implement to aid their career mobility. With ever-increasing number of Asian
American students attending colleges and universities in the U.S. and the fast-
changing demographics in the higher education landscape, there needs to be an
urgent action to encourage, recruit, and support the new generation of leaders that
is indicative of this growing trend. The socio-cultural experiences of the
underrepresented group of administrators should be closely examined. Analyzing
trends in career mobility for Asian American women; exploring patterns and
trends influencing career mobility of Asian American women in gender and race
specific positions; and examining how hiring and promotion influences race,
gender, and job titles are possible topics for further research. More importantly,
the lack of literature on this particular group is a grave concern for the future of
higher education and this study will provide framework for future research
associated with the topic.

8
To answer these questions, access to data that indicate where all women
are located in higher education administration by race and position title/level as
well as whether women are in mainstream positions or race or gender specific
ones is in need. However, such data are not routinely gathered, and too many of
the studies that disaggregate data by race and gender use only broad categories of
administrative positions (executive, managerial, or professional staff). As a
result, current research offers only a macro-level analysis of women’s
occupational locations and career mobility in higher education, while erasing the
complexities of the status of women of color employed in higher education
(Edghill, 2005).
The dearth of research in this area is a major deterrent to the progress of
minority women to uniquely contribute to the notions of leadership and power.
Black, Hispanic, Asian, and Native American women are not only invisible in the
higher education profession but are also invisible in the related literature (Sagaria,
1988). Some critical studies have recently emerged, however, that shed light not
only on why there are so few minority women educational administrators but that
argue for more focused studies of each minority group as well (Montez, 1988).
A growing research interest in the areas of women in management,
administration, and leadership has accompanied social changes of the past decade
(Adkison, 1981). The study of women in school administration initially
concentrated on the problem of explaining the disparity between the percentages
of women in teaching and in administration. To understand this problem,

9
researchers examined characteristics of women and their socialization that affect
career selection and ambition. Women’s underrepresentation in school
administration, specifically higher education, continues to generate research
interest. However, attempts to solve this problem and to explain the experiences
of the few women in administrative positions have led to an interest in the impact
of formal and informal organization on the behavior, effectiveness, and mobility
of men and women (Johnsrud, 1991). Further, minority women in educational
administration rarely are the focus of study (Adkison, 1981). Researchers have
attempted to develop profiles of black women in administration (Doughty, 1980;
Payne & Jackson, 1978) and Chicanas in administration (Ortiz & Venegas, 1978),
and have reported on minority women as part of larger studies of women in
administration (Paddock, 1978, 1979).
Significance of the Study
To reiterate, no research study to date has examined the experiences of
Asian American female administrators or how the concept of social capital
contributes to the success of Asian American female administrators in achieving
career advancement. Although certain strategies (i.e., mentoring, utilization of
support groups, and the value of collegiality) are explicitly mentioned as
necessary both for career ascension and for the psychological survival of
marginalized administrators, researchers have not directly studied these strategies
as part of the broader theoretical concepts—namely, the framework of social
capital and social support (Turner & Meyers, 2000; Garcia, 2000; Smith et al,

10
1996; Glazer-Raymo, 1999; James & Farmer, 1993; Caplan, 1993). However, the
overriding theme in both the identified concerns and the proposed solutions
centers on the idea of instrumental relationships. As the literature reveals, higher
education implicitly understands that people matter, yet, because higher education
prides itself on the putative ideal of individualism and meritocracy, the suggestion
that instrumental relationships may play a pivotal role in the success of an
academic career is, paradoxically, hard to accept (Lee, 2003). Meritocracy which
has been defined as the “belief that, in academia, people are formally rewarded
(with a degree, a job, promotion, tenure, merit increases, or increases in power
and status) simply according to the quantity and quality of the work they do”
(Caplan, 1993, p. 48) is a myth. An example of this is “the insidious and
misguided implication that all men working in academia were hired solely on the
basis of merit, without networks, friendships, and so on” (p. 49). A Chicano
geophysicist who went into industry after receiving no offers for academic jobs
commented on the inaccuracy of this myth:
I thought that everything in academics was based on merit,
including scientific argument, reputation, and so forth. From what
I’ve seen, [as] compared to business, academics is much more
politically driven—especially in terms of hire and funding. It’s
much more a competitive and dog-eat-dog world than I ever
imagined (Smith et al, 1996, p. 110).

In Smith et al’s study (1996), the role of senior faculty members and other key
individuals made a crucial difference in getting a desirable tenure-track position.
The geophysicist’s comments illustrate that success in academia is not solely

11
based on individual merit, and that the politics of hiring cost people careers in
academe. Also, if administrators get jobs through professional and personal
contacts (Brown, 1967), it seems reasonable to assume they would also utilize
similar connections to succeed in those jobs. This example can be transferred to
the case of Asian American female administrators in higher education setting.
Within the confines of this dissertation, I investigated the factors of
socialization process for Asian American females in senior-level leadership
positions at four-year universities and colleges in the United States. The
timeliness of this study is supported by recent studies forecasting that Asian
Americans will increase double in number by 2020 and more Asian Americans
will be entering higher education in the United States.
Collecting and analyzing data related to gender equity issues for racially
diverse women could also help develop institutional strategies and solutions
around how to narrow the gender gap, as well as elucidate where racially diverse
women are located in the higher education administration hierarchy. These data
could also contribute to progress in hiring, promotion, and mentoring practices for
senior-level administrative positions for the minority women. Furthermore,
making job locations for minority women clear would indicate if these positions
help or hinder opportunities to be in the pipeline or to be groomed for the senior-
level administrative pipeline. Once these primary questions are addressed, it will
be possible to determine who is in the pipeline, what the career paths of diverse
women are, and where they are in the pipeline. This research could produce

12
strategies and solutions for advancing all women in the higher education
administrative pipeline and establishing parity amongst women in the field
(Edghill, 2005).
Purpose of the Study
Race, gender, and job location are integral variables in analyzing women
in the higher education labor force (Edghill, 2005). Research has shown that the
number of women in faculty and administrative positions has improved over time
(Bonner, 2001). Many studies point to the aggregate number of women compared
to men by race now employed in higher education to draw these conclusions.
These aggregate numbers help determine that women outnumber men in most
mid-level administrative positions, although decrease dramatically at the highest
levels. They also suggest that white women account for the majority of women
employed as faculty and administrators on American college campuses.
This study explored how social network impacts Asian American women in
leadership positions in the higher education administration. The various and
simultaneous ways gender, race, and ethnic forces affect the daily lives of
minority women in leadership positions in higher education, particularly in the
development of relationships and social support systems were explored through
the personal experiences of these women. I paid close attention to the vexing
problem of internalized oppression, or in terms conveyed by Bourdieu, how the
dominated always contribute to their own domination (Bourdieu, 1986). In order

13
to uncover the experiences of Asian American women in higher education
administration, I asked the following questions to begin the investigation.
Research Questions
• What do Asian American women in higher education administration
experience in terms of their socialization process?
• What role does mentoring play in these women’s socialization
process?
• What are the challenges and issues that are unique for these women as
Asian American women?
• What effect do cultural values have on these women in leadership
roles?
I also asked the question of the “chilly campus climate” for these women and if it
has thawed for women of color in administration.
The research studies exploring the influence of gender and racial
discrimination, glass ceiling, campus politics, and stereotyping on the status of
women suggest there are barriers for all women being hired, promoted, or
mentored. The previous findings also suggest that the stated progress of women,
particularly minority women, even more specifically, Asian American females, in
the higher education workforce requires further investigation. As such, issues of
equal playing field, access, career mobility/ascension, and internal support links
which include mentoring, professional development, and internal advocacy

14
groups were explored in this study through the lens of Asian American female
administrators at 4-year institutions.
The accounts from the twelve women who participated in this study
signify a great deal of challenges and issues relative to gender and racial
discrimination, glass ceiling, campus politics, and stereotype threats. One
participant indicated in her response about the glass ceiling in this way:
It’s a highly male setting. Glass ceiling is a hot phenomenon. It’s
not going anywhere. You read about it everywhere, there is like 7
females in Fortune 500, 30 people of color in Fortune 500 CEOs.
People say it’s a meritocracy and equal playing field, I can give
you 5 statistics to show you that it is not. It’s clear that it’s there,
it’s clear that we have a responsibility to crack it, and to be a role
model to teach the students to crack and break that ceiling. It
would take time.

In terms of discrimination and stereotyping, one senior-level administrator shared
her challenges as a minority female:
They always ask this question at interviews, “Can you make a tough
decision”? It is so irritating because I wouldn’t be here if I weren’t able to
make tough decisions. The perception barrier is there. How do you do
deal with that? We get minimized every day. We need to be incredibly
self-assured with some thick skin.

The issue of gender and racial stereotyping was also prevalent in the career
mobility/ascension for these women. One participant shared her experience:
When I was applying for this position, I was immediately told by
my male supervisor and colleagues, “You’re not quite ready for
that”. People didn’t see the package from me.

Many affirmed the negative perception of Asian Americans being
considered as great middle managers and great team members but not

15
great leaders. In response to this perception and in terms of career
mobility / ascension, one participant questioned:
But what are the skill sets that you could develop cracking through
the layers? You hear all the data and statistics saying that Asian
Americans are not interviewing well. So what’s going on? You
got this great resume and you can’t talk about it?

The aforementioned research questions were answered through the
personal experiences of twelve Asian American female administrators. The
findings from in-depth interviews could help develop institutional strategies and
solutions to narrow the gender gap and to improve career mobility / ascension for
the minority women.
The purpose of this research study was to offer greater visibility for Asian-
American women in higher education administration and raise a more acute
consciousness about gender and racial diversity in the higher education setting.
To help with the understanding of this unique group, I provide the following
history on the model minority myth and the role of women in the workforce
during the last few decades.
Asian-Americans and Model Minority Myth

We are minorities but we are not. Asian Americans are not White.
You know, A is expected from us, Asian Americans. You know,
when someone else (non-Asian) does something half-baked,
everyone’s like, “Oh wow!”, and they get all these awards and I’m
like, they are getting something for it?

16
As Angela noted in her account, Asian Americans are constantly viewed
as the “model minorities” and this view is manifested in the higher education
administration for the twelve women interviewed in this study. As numerous
researchers have reflected, Asians are the most well educated group of students in
the United States and are also the fastest growing minority population in higher
education. The superior performance of today’s Asian American students from
kindergarten through graduate school is so well known that it hardly needs
recounting (Lee & Rong, 1988). In the 10-year period between 1991 and 2001,
Asian enrollment in higher education increased by 328,000 students, a 53.7%
expansion, in the United States (ACE, 2006).
Asians in America have been perceived as model minorities, especially in
the academic landscape by the American public. Asian students are often
stereotyped as “whiz kids” who are strong in academics with their easily
recognizable academic outcomes such as high test scores and strong GPAs. The
model minority myth in American society is hard to shake. Asian Americans as
“model minorities” have fought racism, discrimination, and prejudice without
resorting to violence and conflict (Kitano, 1981). The stereotypes have persisted
for a number of reasons. Asian American immigrants were isolated and
segregated from the mainstream so that equal status contacts were rare (Kitano,
1981). Their adaptive styles stressed accommodation and a low posture so that
their needs and their hurts went unnoticed. The tenacity of the model minority
myth is probably due to the very useful political functions it serves: preserving the

17
American dream, discrediting the demands of other minorities, and justifying the
social agenda of conservatives (Takaki, 1991). Some of the harmful effects of
exaggerating the achievement of Asians include: down-playing the
underemployment and underpayment of Asians in U.S.; obscuring tremendous
diversity among Asians; denying services to needy Asians; pressuring Asians to
fit the “model minority” mold; fueling anti-Asian sentiment and actions; and
serving as a tool for politicians and conservative citizens to attack affirmative
action programs and to shame non-Asians who suffer from poverty and lack of
education (Takaki, 1991).
From Merton (1957), it is assumed that striving for middle-class status is
pervasive for all members of society. It follows, then, that Asian Americans also
strive for middle-class status. The difference is that Asians compete for that
status with Whites under subtle conditions of racism. Endo (1980) described the
outcome of this conditioning for many Asian students as follows:
Cultural patterns of obedience and acquiescence, backed by racism
that generated fear and denied the worth of Asian cultures and
communities… attributed to the development of weak, unassertive
individuals. (p. 372)

These outcomes are particularly harsh for Asian Americans because
Caucasians are more likely to already possess the “criteria of social class status”
(Cohen, 1955, p. 79). Cohen (1955) defined these criteria as “lineage of the social
class status of the family’s forbears, the length of time the family has been
established in the community, wealth of possession, ethnic origin, style of living,

18
public service” (p. 79). Generally, however, Asians do embrace middle-class
values, do adopt the legitimate means that are conducive for social mobility, and
do strive for status within the system. Despite their efforts, Asians are not
completely accepted into the middle class in the sense that they do not command
the same level of respect, deference, and power as their White counterparts
(Suzuki, 1980). It follows, as Cohen suggested, that Asians are faced with status
problems and inclined to find a niche of their own forming a subculture deviating
from the norms – in this case, selecting the non-academic path that will have new
measure and identity.
The national statistics also indicate that Asian students were the only
minority group with more than half of each cohort earning a bachelor’s degree,
62.7% in 1994 and 62.3% in 2000. Conversely, Asian students had the lowest
percentage of students leaving college without a degree in 1994 and 2000, 14.1%
and 14.9%, respectively. These Asian students are seeking mobility through
education and are completing their education in record numbers (Nagasawa &
Espinosa, 1992). Asians generally seek and obtain admission into top-level
universities and often major in science, engineering, and the health sciences (Hsia,
1988). These majors are chosen because they offer high economic returns and
because Asian students tend to score better on quantitative skills test than on
language skills test (Hsia, 1988; Suzuki, 1980). Moreover, Asians have the
lowest college dropout rate among all racial-ethnic groups including Caucasians
(Ong, 1989; Peng, 1985). Researchers have asserted that the academic success of

19
Asians is viewed as a logical outcome of traditional Asian values that stress hard
work, discipline, and respect for authority (Hsu, 1971; Kitano, 1976; Suzuki,
1980).
Women in the Workforce
While the presence and status of women in the work force have increased
dramatically since the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, there are still
concerns about the relative absence of women in higher management ranks, which
some have described as the “glass ceiling.” Women of all races and classes
confront systematic disadvantages as workers (Glenn, 1991). In 1995, the Federal
Glass Ceiling Commission concluded that “today’s American labor force is
gender and race segregated – white men fill most top management positions in
corporations”. The issue has taken on particular significance as women and
minorities have increased their occupational status. The term glass ceiling is
generally used to refer to instances where women and minorities have progressed
within a firm but, despite their ambitions and qualifications, find it difficult to
make the movement into key higher level management positions, or management
positions at all. The social disadvantage of these glass ceilings is the inability of
the most qualified employees to move into the most important positions due to
irrelevant criteria such as race or gender. The selection of a less qualified
employee negatively impacts both the employer and ultimately the economy as a
whole. The successful elimination of glass ceilings requires not just an effective
enforcement strategy but the involvement of employers, employees and others in

20
identifying and reducing attitudinal and other forms of organizational barriers
encountered by minorities and women in advancing to higher level management
positions in different workplace settings
(http://www.eeoc.gov/stats/reports/womenofcolor/index.html#Section_1.1.3).
Glenn (1991) theorized that a disproportionately large number of minority
women work in more routine back-room jobs and in those being “deskilled” by
automation or phased out by technological advances. At the same time, minority
women are underrepresented in jobs which allow greater discretion, require client
contact, or involve face-to-face interaction with management. Furthermore, even
within a given job, minority women do not necessarily work in the same settings
as Caucasian women are more likely to be employed in government or non-profit
agencies that provide services to the African American community. Minority
women remain underrepresented in corporate America (Higginbotham, 1987).
Asian American women workers also tend to be overrepresented in the
government sector (Wong & Hirschman, 1983). Thus, Glenn (1991) concluded
that although minority women appear to have achieved professional integration,
they remain segregated within particular specialties and settings.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (2006) reported that Asian
women increased in employment from 1.3% in 1990 to 2.1% in 2001, a change of
51.5%. The rate of change in the number of Asian women employed is 96%. The
top ranked industry for the employment of Asian women is computer and
electronic product manufacturing which is also the highest rated industry for

21
Asians overall. However, the retail industries, clothing & clothing accessories
stores and health & personal care stores, are higher ranked for Asian women than
for all Asians. Asian women represent 2.1% of all EEO-1 employment. Asian
women exceed their total representation as professionals, technicians, and
clericals. The number of female Asian officials and managers reported on EEO-1
reports more than doubled from 1990 to 2000 with a rate of change for Asian
women of 135%. The top three industries for the employment of Asian women as
managers are (1) motion picture and sound recording industries, (2) nursing &
residential care facilities and (3) clothing & clothing accessories stores.
Based on a comparison with their employment as professionals,
technicians and sales workers, Asian women have the highest probabilities of
becoming managers, in full service restaurants and the lowest probability in
pharmaceutical and medicine manufacturing. Asian women are most likely to file
charges against firms in the manufacturing of apparel and other textile products.
Auto repair services and parking is ranked second for Asian women. Similar to
African American women and Hispanic women, automotive dealers and service
stations is among those industries with the highest per capita charge rates for
Asian women.
The story for Asian American women is more complex and troubling
(Kim & Lewis, 1994). In their study, Kim and Lewis (1994) found that the
relative standing of Asian American women in mean grades and supervisory
status fell between 1978 and 1992, despite the fact that Asians had had

22
significantly more education than Caucasians in all three years and that the
education gap did not shrink at all over the period. The study also confirmed that
in 1992 Caucasian women were significantly more likely to wield supervisory
authority than comparably educated and experienced Asian American women.
Again, occupational differences between Asians and Caucasians explained none
of that difference in supervisory authority, although finer distinctions among
occupations might reveal some effect.
Overall, this study showed that Asian American women fell in status
relative to Caucasian women between 1978 and 1992. Asian Americans and
Caucasians did not differ significantly in grades or supervisory authority in 1978,
but by 1992 Caucasian women had a clear, statistically significant advantage on
both measures. That advantage was apparent among both the most and least
educated women (although not those in between), offering little insight into why
the situation is worsening for Asian American women. This is especially
surprising when the trend has been toward greater equality, not only for Asian
American men but all minority and female groups. Kim and Lewis (1994)
postulated that the most likely explanation is that Caucasian women are the group
that has gained most from affirmative action in recent years (Lewis, 1988). Asian
American women have gained on Caucasian men, but not as rapidly as Caucasian
women have, leading Asian women to fall behind relative to Caucasian women
(Kim & Lewis, 1994).

23
While previous studies have examined the issues of equity and mobility
for Asian American women, I intended to represent the factors of socialization
process in the workplace from these women’s perspective. In addition, the lack of
definitive data made it difficult to determine if particular career patterns existed,
and if they impeded women’s chances for successful career mobility and
preparation for senior level administrative pipeline opportunities. Before I began
the investigation, I defined the term, Asian American, as it relates to the women
in this study. It was critical to understand first what the denomination included
before understanding the group.
Definitions
An Asian American is generally defined as a person of Asian ancestry who
was born in or is an immigrant to the United States (Wikipedia, 2007). The term
“Asian American” signifies neither a race nor an ethnic group — it is an artificial
one, originating as an imposed entity by non-Asians and later adopted in the
1960s by Asian American activists who used the label as the basis of their
political causes (Tamura, 2001). Since the Immigration Act of 1965, the Asian
American population has become more diverse ethnically, and with immigration
legislation giving preference to those with more schooling, Asian Americans have
been more fragmented socio-economically (Tamura, 2001). In the context of the
civil rights movement in the 1960s, Asians in this country realized that, in spite of
variations in religion, language, customs, countries of origin, and settlement
history, the dominant society would always give them a common designation.

24
These activists sought an alternative to the term Oriental, arguing that the term
was derogatory, colonialist and had the effect of distancing Asians from the other
Americans. According to Wong (1987), their physical appearance joined Asians
in a common fate in the past and will always join them in a common struggle as
they make a place for themselves in the United States.
Asian American is strongly associated with ethnic Chinese and Japanese
people, since they were the first large groups of immigrants from Asia (U.S.
Census Bureau, 2003). According to the U.S. Census (2003), however, as
immigration diversified from across Asia, the definition of Asian American has
also changed. In the United States, Asian frequently refers only to East Asia and
Southeast Asia. The Middle East, Siberia, and Central Asian are not typically
included in definitions of Asian American. Some ambiguity stems from
variations in the use of the work American. Immigration and citizenship status,
acculturation, and language ability are some variables that are used to define
American for various purposes and may vary in formal and every usage.
American refers to people either born, raised, or currently living in the United
States (Wikipedia, 2007). By the 1990 census, Asian or Pacific Islander (API)
was included as an explicit category, although respondents had to select one
particular ancestry. The 2000 census created a separate racial category for
Americans of Pacific Islander ancestry. People with ancestry from Middle
Eastern, Siberian, and former Soviet states remain categorized in the white racial
category rather than Asian (Wikipedia, 2007).

25
The Asian American population is heavily urbanized, with nearly three-
quarters of Asian Americans living in metropolitan areas with population greater
than 2.5 million. The 2003 census reported that Asian Americans were
concentrated in the largest U.S. cities, with 40% of all Asian Americans living in
the metropolitan areas around Los Angeles, San Francisco, and New York City.
Half of all Asian Americans were reported to live in Hawaii or the West coast,
mostly in California (U.S. Census, 2003).
Studies on issues of ethnicity and ethnic identity of Asian Americans over
several generations have been limited mainly to Japanese Americans, since they
have the distinction of having their second generation born between 1910 and
1930, and as a result, generational studies can be made with Japanese more than
with other Asian American groups (Tamura, 2001).
Perhaps in answer to the “common designation” of the Asian population
by the dominant society and to appropriately address the diversity within the
Asian population, I use the term “Asian American” for the population in this
study. I include East Asians and Pacific Islanders in the designated Asian
American population that comprises of Chinese, Japanese, Taiwanese, Korean,
Indian, and Filipino descent.
For the purpose of this study, I excluded the population as the following:
Asian American females in senior-level administrative positions in the areas of
student affairs, academic affairs and administration at 4-year universities and
colleges. Senior-level administrative positions were identified as the chancellor,

26
vice chancellor, president, vice president, provost, associate vice president, and
dean. Due to the small number of sample identified, the exclusion was extended
to the associate dean level. Different ethnic groups were studied and the
minimum length of experience in their capacity was approximately 3 years.
Limitations
The scope of this investigation was limited by the small number of
sample. Therefore the findings may not be generalized. In addition, the accuracy
of the responses of the participants relied on their interest in answering the
questions. This also extended to the individual interviews, which relied on the
participants’ degree of self-awareness and willingness to disclose personal
information.
As most of these women in the study may easily be identifiable because
they are often the “only ones” at the institution as Asian American females, there
was apprehension from these women about the anonymity and confidentiality and
the uneasiness to reveal information about themselves in fear of being identified
by their colleagues or supervisors and the possible consequences. As such, I have
tracked the data in terms of the specifics of identifiers but will withhold the
information in order to mitigate the apprehension of anonymity and
confidentiality.
In addition, inductive research may be vulnerable to subjective bias of the
researcher. Interpretation of data at all levels of the findings is subject to the same
set of expectations, values, beliefs, and judgments. In addition, researchers may

27
risk misinterpretation by being too immersed or failing to recognize the
implications of the study. These may jeopardize the results and their actual
representations (Issac & Michael, 1997). Therefore, care and attention were given
to provide objectivity before inferring conclusions especially from interview data.
To reiterate, in qualitative research, interviewers are never neutral actors,
but participants in an interviewing relationship, and how they listen to stories is
shaped by their own identity, values, and social interaction (Rubin & Rubin,
1995). I was mindful of possible assumptions I might begin to form and project
throughout the data collection and analysis process that would cloud my ability to
engage with the interviewees. For example, below is a personal memo written
after one particularly uninteresting interview:
What is her problem? Does she think she is all that because she
got her doctorate and that she is now finally someone in the
department? Who doe she think she is? She is not at all what I
expected from her emails… She is really into “titles”. And why
does she not believe in mentoring? She doesn’t care. How
arrogant and indifferent she is about Asian women and her role as
a mentor.

The next day, I vented my feelings of disappointment and emotions in the
context of my own identity as an Asian woman with a peer graduate student who
had a similar experience working with this particular administrator at the college.
The ability to check assumptions, to be reflective of all aspects of the research
process, and to represent accurately as possible the information shared, unclouded
by personal bias or even the general mood of the day, is a cornerstone of
qualitative inquiry (Lee, 2003).

28
I present a review of relevant literature in five areas: 1) race and culture,
2) gender, 3) social capital, 4) politics, and 5) organization. I placed particular
emphasis on social network analysis and social capital and focus on specific
concepts that will inform the conceptual framework from which I approached this
study. The literature on the engendered leadership style was not reviewed in this
text as the concept emerged from the individual experiences of the participants.
However, the notion calls for attention for future research.
Following chapter two, I describe the methods and procedures of data
collection for the study in chapter three. I uncover the individual experiences of
the twelve women in chapter four. After the presentation of the data in chapter
four, I conclude with an analysis of the significant findings and a discussion of
future implications regarding Asian American female administrators. I also
present recommendations for strategies to attract, recruit, and prepare Asian
American females for leadership positions in American higher education
administration along with suggestions for further areas of study. I now begin with
the review of literature.

29
Chapter Two
Review of Literature
Whereas men are unsexed by failure, women seem to be unsexed
by success.
- Horner, 1971
Overview
A growing research interest in the area of women in academic
administration and the problem of the low number of women in administrative
roles, particularly the under-representation of minority women, continues to be
reported in studies of educational administration (Randall, Daugherty, & Globetti,
1995; Sandler, Silverberg, & Hall, 1996; Touchton & Davis, 1991). This under-
representation of women can be seen among the professional associations, college
and university boards and committees as well as major educational governing
agencies at all levels (Pearson, Shavlik, & Touchton, 1989; Sandler, 1993).
Further, this under-representation of women at various levels in higher education
is magnified when minority women are counted resulting in numbers that are
shockingly low (Howard-Hamilton & Williams, 1996).
Women’s under representation in higher education leadership has been a
focus of study since Title IX brought the issue of gender to the forefront of higher
education in 1972 (Opp & Gosetti, 2000). During the nearly three decades
following the enactment of this ground-breaking legislation, the number of male
administrators in higher education increased by 10%, while the number of women
administrators increased by 147% (National Education Association, 1998).

30
Although the gap between the number of male and female administrators in
higher education has narrowed considerably, a 19.4% percentage point gap
remained between women and men administrators in 1995 (Roey, Rak,
Fernandez, & Barbett, 1998). Women administrators from all racial/ethnic groups
have experienced growth in their numbers (Opp & Gosetti, 2000). For example,
the number of Hispanic women administrators in public institutions increased
over 100% between 1983 and 1991 (Rai & Critzer, 2000). However, while the
number of African American, American Indian, Asian American, and Hispanic
women administrators more than doubled from 1981 and 1991, their proportional
representation only increased from 4% to 6% (Ottinger & Sikula, 1993). The
existing disparities generate significant questions about the status of women
administrators in higher education.
Have women, as they have achieved gatekeeper roles as college chief
executive officers (CEOs), succeeded in removing barriers to the administrative
ranks for women of all races and ethnicities? Most importantly, how then do
minority women advance through the administrative career ladder and permeate
the “glass ceiling” of higher education administration of American universities
and colleges? The environment where the women work and the type of support
systems for them, if any, should be assessed. Also, what led to the success of
these women in the upper level leadership positions and how can they assist
others?

31
The concepts represented in the questions above guide the development of
this study. In this chapter, I explore the issues surrounding the lack of
participation of women in administrative roles in higher education, particularly
the under-representation of women of color. I also examine the issues associated
with the socialization process of Asian American women administrators in the
higher education setting as well as the corporate setting in the United States. The
notion of glass ceiling for minority women, gender gap in administration,
evolution of Asian women in the United States, and the theoretical framework of
social and cultural capital are examined.
The understanding of women’s status in higher education administration
comes from several sources such as national databases, information on select
populations of women administrators, and national and single institution surveys.
The data available from all of these sources indicate that the gap between the
number of male and female administrators in higher education is narrowing.
Published data from the 1995 Fall Staff Survey conducted by the National Center
for Education Statistics (NCES) showed that women held nearly 44% of full-time
higher education executive, administrative, and managerial positions. Women’s
proportional representation within this administrative category was up over 3
percentage points from 1991, and almost 18 percentage points from their 1976
proportional representation of 26% (Roey et al, 1998). The change in the
proportional representation of specific racial/ethnic group is not available,

32
however, because prior to the 1993 Fall Staff Survey, race/ethnicity information
on administrators was not gathered by the NCES.
The literature on the status of women in higher education administration
frequently references the American Council on Education’s Office of Women in
Higher Education (OWHE) reports on women presidents as a barometer for
gauging equity among administrators in postsecondary institutions. Begun in
1975, the OWHE has compiled data on the number of women chief executive
officers, as well as information about their career paths, educational and
professional backgrounds, perceptions on women’s and minorities’ issues, and
personal demographics. A 1993 report from OWHE (Touchton, Shavlik, &
Davis) indicated that between 1975 and 1984, the number of women CEOs at
accredited colleges and universities nearly doubled, jumping from 148 to 286. In
1995, the OWHE (Touchton & Ingram) reported that women CEOs led 453
postsecondary institutions (16%). The racial/ethnic composition of these women
comprised of 7 American Indians (2%), 2 Asian Americans (less than 1%), 39
African Americans (9%), 24 Hispanics (5%), and 381 Caucasians (84%). A
closer look at these women presidents is provided in a 1995 survey of American
college presidents conducted for ACE by Ross and Green (1998). Their findings
showed that 25% of black presidents at Historically Black Colleges and
Universities (HBCU) were women. The study also showed that nearly all
Hispanic women presidents led public 2-year colleges, of which half were
Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs).

33
Other sources provided information about the status of women
administrators through studies of specific administrative positions or in specific
institutional contexts. Doyle Walton (1998), for instance, found that of 1,711
responding Chief Academic Offiers (CAOs) at regionally-accredited colleges and
universities in 1991, 16% were women, only slightly more than the number of
women presidents reported in 1992 by the OWHE. Similar data are available on
Chief Student Affairs Officers (CSAOs) through the College and University
Personnel Association’s annual Administrative Compensation Survey. The 1992-
93 survey results showed that 28% of the sampled CSAOs were women, a
proportional representation that historically has been greater than that of other
senior-level administrative positions such as president or CAO (Creal & Beyer,
1993). A survey of women CSAOs in 1992 showed that 88.8% were White, 5.6%
were Black, 2.5% were Hispanic, and 1.9% were Asian American (Randall,
Daugherty, & Globetti, 1995). These representations were similar to those of
Caucasian women presidents, less than African American women presidents, and
greater than Hispanic and Asian American women presidents reported by the
OWHE in 1992.
The data presented from the national databases indicate a slight increase in
Asian American women’s representation in academic administration in the last
few decades. However, with the fast-changing demographics of the student
population in American colleges and universities, institutions need to recruit and
hire more women, specifically minority women to reflect the changes.

34
I review the literature on 1) race and culture, 2) gender, 3) social capital,
4) politics, and 5) organization, followed by a conclusion.
Race and Culture
Educational and Economic Achievement of Asian Americans
The drive for Asian Americans for education is not a recent phenomenon.
Throughout the world, minorities have distinguished themselves for intellectual
and educational achievement (Lee & Rong, 1988). One version is that
“successful minorities place a premium on ambition, persistence, and deferred
gratification, and exhibit a strong desire for intergenerational mobility”
(Hirschman & Wong, 1986, p. 3). Family, unity, respect for authority, a tradition
of hard work, and personal discipline are also stressed. Some regard these as
universal middle-class values; others see them as different from the values of
American youths and point to declines in Asian American achievement as
integration takes place (Lee & Rong, 1988).
Migration and cultural explanations are usefully linked in the “middleman
hypothesis” advanced by Blalock (1967) and developed by Bonacich (1973).
Bonacich argued that successful immigrant groups begin as “sojourners,” people
who are ambivalent about the new country and maintain an attachment to the
homeland so strong that they try to accumulate money through thrift and hard
work so that they can return. Because they are not fully committed to the broader
society, they develop strongly knit, cooperating communities. They tend to
concentrate in certain areas, live in self-segregated communities, maintain

35
distinctive traits, and resist assimilation, especially through out-marriage (Lee &
Rong, 1988). This distancing from the new society may result from
discrimination by the majority or from a feeling of superiority on the part of the
minority.
Hirschman and Wong (1986, p. 1) concluded that “Changes in the
occupational structure of the Asian American population and a somewhat positive
rate of occupational returns to education appear to be plausible explanations for
Asian American educational gains. Our interpretation is consistent with the
middleman minority thesis.” Borrowing a concept from biology, Lee and Rong
(1988) hold that the most successful migrants fit themselves into niches in the
host country. These niches may be under-populated areas or they may be
underdeveloped segments of the economy or society. Niches open and close so
that migrants with a particular set of characteristics may find many opportunities
at one time but few at another. In a dynamic society, niches are continually
created, often by migrants who combine cultures and, with “their two sets of
eyes,” perceive opportunities that the native population does not see. Also, when
a new niche opens, a seemingly unsuccessful minority may find success through
the utilization of previously underused knowledge or abilities.
The middleman theory fits well within the niche concept; indeed, migrant
merchants, bankers, usurers, and craftsmen-entrepreneurs have played important
roles in the development of economy and capitalism. However, just as important

36
as economic middlemen are the intellectuals who combine elements of their old
and new cultures into innovations or inventions (Lee & Rong, 1988).
Never before, has there been a group of migrants so overwhelmingly
middle class before arrival or so highly educated as Asian Americans. Indeed,
recent migrants from Asia were among the best educated in the country of origin
and are among the best educated here. Furthermore, many of them show the
undeniable benefits of coupling rigorous elementary and secondary training in the
country of origin with advanced training here. Large numbers of the Asian
immigrants and their children have made their way into middleman occupations,
but their major niche, in terms of consequences if not in numbers, has been as
professionals, particularly in areas that involve the sciences or mathematics. That
too is reflected in the schools in the superior performance of Asian American
children in quantitative areas (Lee & Rong, 1988).
The question of the superior intelligence or concentration and hard work
leading to the many successes of Asian Americans remains to be answered.
Takaki (1998) answers the question in his theory on the over-education of Asian
Americans.
The overeducation view has been highly influential and has essentially
become the conventional wisdom in most of the studies of the socioeconomic
attainment of Asian Americans. For example, according to Takaki (1998), Asian
American men must have more education and work longer hours than do
Caucasian men in order to obtain a comparable amount of annual earnings:

37
Actually, in terms of personal incomes, Asian Americans have not
reached equality… While Japanese men earned a comparable
income, they did so only by acquiring more education (17.7 years
compared to 16.8 years for Caucasian men twenty-five to forty-
four years old) and by working more hours (2160 hours compared
to 2120 hours for Caucasian men in the same age category). In
reality, then, Japanese men were still behind Caucasian men.
Income inequalities for other [Asian American] men were more
evident.
(Takaki, 1998, p. 475)

The overeduation view may be generally seen as being part of a politically
liberal critique of American society in arguing that it continues to be
fundamentally racist in nature, argued by Sakamoto and Yap (2004). A recent
statement of this perspective is provided by Bonilla-Silva (1996) who argues in
the American Sociological Review that racism has been so thoroughly ingrained
into American institutions and culture for so long that negative societal attitudes
towards racial minorities cannot be easily dismantled. In sum, Bonilla-Silva’s
(1996) contention seems to be that American institutions have evolved for so long
with racist relations that racism must still be a dominant feature of American
labor markets because “racialization develops a life of its own.”
The over-education view is the conventional wisdom in the study of the
socioeconomic attainments of Asian Americans. According to this perspective,
Asian Americans face racial discrimination in the labor market because they
receive lower returns than Caucasians on their human capital investments. To the
extent that the incomes of Asian Americans are on average similar to those of
whites, this lack of bivariate association is said to derive from the compensatory

38
higher education attainment of Asian Americans (i.e., their “overeducation”)
which serves to mask the systematic racial discrimination that they continue to
endure in the labor market. The overeducation view is thus consistent with the
general theoretical perspective promoted by the model minority myth which
assumes that racism plays a critical role in determining socioeconomic
attainments.
Wu and Eoyang (2004) present a pessimistic picture of how Asian
Americans have fared with respect to the glass ceiling and focus on representation
at the highest career levels in the federal government. The authors draw upon two
major reports from the Government Accountability Office that show “pervasive
and pernicious existence of glass ceilings for Asian Pacific Americans throughout
the federal government.” They recommend the development of agency-specific
plans and actions, and closer congressional and Office of Personnel Management
oversight. One of the key points is the need for accurate and timely work force
information to monitor progress and facilitate accountability. In ties with the
educational and economic attainments of Asian Americans, I will next review the
literature on Asian Americans in the labor market.
Asian Americans in the Labor Market
In the last 150 years of America’s history, Asian Americans have been
transformed from “uneducable heathens” to the “model minorities” (Hsia, 1988).
Asian Americans were portrayed as an uncomplaining minority, people who
overcame difficult racial and socioeconomic barriers by winning wealth and

39
respect through their own hard work, with no help from anyone else (Chu, 1980).
While America heralded the accomplishments and successes of Asian-Americans
in business and the academy, Tataki (1998) noted the contrastingly glaring
absence of Asian Americans from higher levels of educational administration, and
in the upper strata of corporate hierarchy. He observed “though they are highly
educated, Asian Americans are generally not present in positions of executive
leadership and decision making.” The model minority stereotype penalizes Asian
Americans by assuming they do not need academic or professional guidance and
support (Hune, 1997). As such, Asian Americans believe this stereotyped view
allows society to neglect their needs with a clear conscience (Nakanishi, 1983).
In addition, many Asian American families are still strongly influenced by the
patriarchal Asian family tradition. In these families, the women are expected to
assume a passive, subservient role (Chu, 1980). Hune (1997) reports that most
Asian Americans reject the “model minority” theory and explains that racial and
gender discrimination are primarily responsible for the under-representation of
qualified Asian American women in higher education administration.
According to the statistical portrait of the Nation’s Asian and Pacific
Islanders of the UCLA Asian American Studies Center (2006), there are 14
million Asians who said they were Asian or Asian Americans. Of these numbers,
49% of Asians, age 25 or older, had a bachelor’s degree or higher level of
education. Asians were reported as having the highest proportion of college
graduates of any race or ethnic group in the country (UCLA Asian Americans

40
Studies Center, 2006). The percentage of Asians, age 25 or older, with an
advanced degree reached 20% as of 2004 (US Census Bureau, 2006).
According to Paul Ong, a journal senior editor of the Asian American
Studies Center at UCLA and a professor of Asian American studies and director
of UCLA’s Lewis Center for Regional Policy Studies (2006), a major challenge
facing Asian and Pacific Americans in the labor market is whether or not they can
translate their educational gains into managerial positions, particularly positions at
the very top of the public and private sector. The existing research, including the
research published by AAPI Nexus (2006), indicates that the glass ceiling is a
complex phenomenon with subtle nuances. Some Asian/Pacific Islanders are
affected, and others are not. The articles in this issue enrich the debate about the
nature and extent of the glass ceiling and offer concrete policies and
recommendations about what actions can be taken.
Pham et al (2005) argue that there is an absence of Asian American
leaders in the private, public and nonprofit sectors, and that this
underrepresentation is not due to a lack of skill or interest. Instead, Asian
Americans are invisible because they lack role models and mentors and because
they are not perceived as “leadership material”. The authors bring a unique
perspective to the journal through their work at Leadership Education for Asian
Americans, the primary Asian American leadership training organization in the
United States.

41
Further, Sakamoto and Yap (2004) find that native-born Asian Americans
are at least as likely as Caucasians to be managers in the private sector. Due to
the influence of the model minority myth, the sociological literature on the
socioeconomic attainments of Asian Americans seeks to emphasize the view that
this racial category faces discrimination in the labor market (Sakamoto & Yap,
2004). Perhaps the most famous reference on this topic is by Hirschman & Wong
(1984) which has become a citation classic. It was published in American Journal
of Sociology during the time period in which the model minority image was
reaching its peak popularity.
In regard to Asian Americans, the major conclusion of this study is what
has come to be known as the overeducation view which is that “Asian Americans
approach socioeconomic parity with Caucasians because of their overachievement
in educational attainment” (Hirschman & Wong, 1984, p. 584). Hirschman and
Wong (1984) contend that the average earnings and occupational attainments of
Asian Americans do not differ very much from those of Caucasians. However,
because Asian Americans tend to have higher educational attainments that do
whites, the labor market is said to be actually discriminating against Asian
Americans in as much as they must make a higher investment in human capital in
order to obtain the same overall socioeconomic rewards as do Caucasians.
As stated by Hirschman & Wong (1984, p. 602), “The apparent equality
between Asians and Caucasians is largely a function of educational
overachievement by Asians. If Asians experienced the same process of

42
stratification as Caucasians, their educational credentials would shift their
(Asians’) occupational and earnings levels substantially above those of the
majority population.”
Assimilation vs. Acculturation
My father came here when he was 14 in the 1950s and my mother
came when she was 10 in 1950. So this is home for them.
They’ve experienced so much in the 1960s, segregation, civil
rights, and assimilation as opposed to acculturation — which is
why I don’t know Filipino, the language. I understand it but it was
never spoken in my home… yeah… for many reasons, because of
the time, the way we immigrated.
Filipino Tagalo was always suppressed.
- Elora

As illuminated by Elora in her account, early Asian immigrants were
assimilated into the American culture as part of their Americanization process.
Assimilation is “a process of boundary reduction that can occur when members of
two or more societies or of small cultural groups meet” (Yinger, 1981, p. 249).
Gordon (1964) provided one of the most representative expositions of the
assimilationist view. According to Gordon, immigrants often possess cultural
traits and socioeconomic status that distinguish them from members of the host
society. Gordon (1964) theorized that there are three possible outcomes of
assimilation. The first is Anglo conformity, which is when the minority or
immigrant is taught that the norms, values, and institutions of the majority group
are superior and that they should adopt them in order to be accepted. The second
outcome can be the melting pot — a term that almost all Americans have heard —
that is when different racial/ethnic groups come together and out of this

43
interaction comes a new culture that incorporates elements from all groups into
one. The third possible outcome is the cultural pluralism, which others have
called the “salad bowl.” This is when the different racial/ethnic groups keep their
unique cultural norms, traditions, and behaviors, while still sharing common
national values, goals, and institutions. In the end, there are many internal and
external factors that can affect ethnic identity among various immigrant groups.
These identities can also overlap, change over time, and even be one of many
simultaneous identities in effect at the same time.
Hwang et al (1997) argue that more intimate relations, however, are
expected to occur when immigrants gradually overcome cultural and structural
barriers that block their full membership in the host society. Depending on the
initial cultural and status differences between the two groups, the process of
assimilation can take a few years to several generations. It begins with
acculturation (e.g., learning and adopting the cultural patterns of the majority
group), proceeds through structural assimilation (e.g., achieving socioeconomic
status comparable with those held by members of the majority group), and is
completed when the ethnicity of immigrants is no longer a salient characteristic to
themselves and to members of the host society. Hwang et al (1997) hypothesize
that intermarriage is expected to follow naturally. Assimilation if assumed to be
conductive to intermarriage through the working of two mechanisms. It “works
to increase the propensity toward out-marriage by weakening ethnic attachment
and by increasing contact with potential mates from other groups” (Lieberson &

44
Waters, 1988, p. 211). The authors further hypothesize that more acculturated
and structurally assimilated Asians would be more likely to intermarry than their
less acculturated and structurally assimilated counterparts.
Asian Americans may be highly assimilated in cultural and socioeconomic
terms (Hirschman & Wong, 1981; 1984), but the extent to which such successes
actually enhance their acceptability as marital partners for White Americans
remains an empirical question (Hwang et al, 1997). In addition, the expectation
that more culturally and structurally assimilated Asian Americans marry White
Americans more frequently than their less assimilated peers, in turn, rests on an
ethnocentric assumption that such marriages are considered desirable by Asian
Americans. The validity of such assumption is, of course, not known. The
findings from their study support the claim that high acculturation leads to more
intermarriage. Asian Americans who speak fluent English and who have lived
longer in the U.S. were found to have a higher tendency to marry persons from
different racial and ethnic groups. However, the claim that structural assimilation
has a similar positive effect on intermarriage was not confirmed.
The most notable studies on assimilation were done by sociologists
affiliated with the University of Chicago in the 1920s. Robert E. Park, the leading
light in the sociology department at Chicago, hypothesized that all immigrants
passed through a race relations cycle consisting of four stages of interaction with
the host society: contact, competition, accommodation, and assimilation. Only

45
two groups did not fit this paradigm—African Americans and Asian Americans.
Park and his colleagues thus were intrigued by the “Negro problem” and the
“Oriental problem”.
During both the first and second historigraphical periods, 1870s and
1920s, regardless of what topic was under investigation, the Asian presence in the
United States was almost invariably framed as a “problem” (Chan, 1996).
Because Asian Americans allegedly failed to assimilate, they were considered
deficient or deviant (Chan, 1996). It was not until the early 1970s that young
Asian American activists on college and university campuses rebelled against
such negative portrayals of their forebears and themselves. According to Chan
(1996), they rejected the assimilationist paradigm and proposed several
alternatives. First was the classical Marxism that enabled them to see Asian
Americans as workers exploited by a capitalist system. Second was the internal
colonialism model, which allowed them to think of Asian ethnic communities as
internal colonies. A third perspective depicted Asian Americans as brothers and
sisters of people in Asian nations who had suffered under Western imperialism.
According to this alternative view, racial minorities in the United States were a
“Third World within,” who members shared a common history of oppression with
people living in the “Third World without”.
The assimilation model continued to hold sway even during a time of
profound and pervasive social upheaval because it resonates so deeply with the
American sense of nationhood. As Gleason (1980) pointed out, America’s

46
national identity has been based not so much on such primordial sentiments as a
shared ancestry, language, or religion as on a set of political values and practices.
It is a peoplehood constructed primarily upon an ideological foundation. Since
ideology can be learned and is mutable, native-born Americans assume that
immigrants should be able—indeed, are morally obligated—to shed the political
beliefs and cultural baggage they bring with them and to adopt the values and
behavior befitting Americans (Gleason, 1980). The facile assumption that all
immigrants can and should transform themselves overlooks the fact that the
minorities have encountered enormous hurdles—legal, political, social and
economic—whenever they have tried to enter mainstream society.
According to Portes (1984), minority members with higher socioeconomic
levels are exposed to greater levels of discrimination in competitive job markets.
They are expected to exhibit greater ethnic consciousness than their counterparts
with lower socioeconomic status who are largely insulated from the harsh reality
often encountered in the workplace. I will revisit Portes with regard to social
capital later in this section. I now turn to the notion of hyphenated, triangulated
race for Asian Americans.
I remember one time a man brings a performing monkey to my
village, Polly said. The man divides the audience in two and gives
each side one end of a rope to hold. Then the money walks
carefully back and forth between the two sides. At each end, he
stops a little bit, but he cannot stay, and so he walks again until he
is so tired, he falls.
- Ruthanne Lum McCunn, Thousand Pieces of Gold

47
Hyphenated, triangulated Race
As noted in the aforementioned account, although one’s identity may seem
to be a very personal and individual decision, there can be many historical,
socioeconomic, and sociological factors that can directly or indirectly influence
this decision. Just as there is a wide range of experiences and circumstances
within the Asian American population, so too can there be many different,
overlapping, and simultaneous forms of ethnic identity among Asian Americans.
Scholars from many different academic disciplines have generally categorized
ethnic identity formation along two main theoretical frameworks: primordial and
situational. The primordial perspective argues that people have an innate sense of
ethnic identity—it is something that people are born with, is instinctive and
natural, and is difficult if not impossible to change (Han, & Hsu, 2004; Alba &
Nee, 2003; Gordon, 1964). The authors affirm that this is illustrated by the
natural instinct to favor one’s kin of co-ethnics over non-kin and non-ethnics.
The persistence of ethnocentrism and even outright conflict between different
racial/ethnic groups attest to the historical and continuing validity of the
primordial basis of ethnic identity. On the other hand, the situational perspective
states that ethnic identities are socially defined phenomena. That is, the meaning
and boundaries of ethnic identity are constantly being renegotiated, revised, and
redefined, depending on specific situations and set of circumstances that each
individual or ethnic group encounters (Herring, Verna, & Horton, 2003).

48
Asian American ethnicity is determined by a tension between many
cultures; as such, Asian Americans are an especially hyphenated community
(Feng, 1996). Marable (1995) defines African American ethnicity in hyphenated
cultural terms: “our ethnicity is derived from the cultural synthesis of our African
heritage and our experience in American society. Thus the ethnic subject is a
divided subject. Asian Americans are further divided, for the term Asian
encompasses several distinct cultures—Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Filipino,
Vietnamese, Indian, Laotian, to name a few.
In terms of hyphenated race, Nakayama (1994) writes, “Asian and Asian
American identities and social spaces are often conflated in ways that are not
parallel to Africans and African Americans or Europeans and European
Americans” (p. 162). Here he points to the phenomenon identified by Mia Tuan
(1998) as being “forever foreigner,” in which Asian Americans of any generation
are constructed and perceived by White Americans as Asians—foreigners, non-
Americans, or others. This relegation to perpetually foreign status is pervasive in
mainstream popular and consumer cultures, which means that first- and second-
generation immigrant students must respond to all of these conflicting and
multiple messages about American-ness in constructing their identities (Lee &
Vaught, 2003).
Apart from a few scholars who characterize Asian Americans as virtually
“white” in terms of their status in American society (Hacker, 1992; Ignative,
1997), most concur that Asian Americans occupy a distinctive “third” position in

49
the American racial hierarchy somewhere in between black and white (Kim &
Lee, 2001). Characterizations of this “third” position vary somewhat. Ancheta
(1998) discusses how Asian Americans have been subordinated differently than
have blacks—i.e., via the denial of citizenship. Kim (1999) argues that Asian
Americans have been “triangulated” vis-à-vis Caucasians and African Americans
through simultaneous processes of relative valorization and civic ostracism;
others worry that Asian Americans might serve as a “buffer zone” between
Caucasians and African Americans (Kim, 1997) or as a “racial bourgeoisie”
(Matsuda, 1993). What these scholars agree on is that the Asian American
experience has been at once distinct from the Caucasian and African American
experiences and importantly conditioned by them. Asian American politics must
be understood as deriving from the uniquely limited, ambivalent position(s) that
Asian Americans occupy in the American racial order. Ongoing demographic
changes both heighten the intellectual challenge (by making the subject matter a
moving target) and raise the political stakes of doing such scholarship. Where
does this ambivalence place Asian American women in terms of success?
The success of Asian Americans
As mentioned earlier in the first chapter, Asian Americans have been
stereotyped as model minorities. Compared to African Americans and Hispanics,
Asian Americans have achieved tremendous success (Miller, 1992). They are
“overrepresented” in the ranks of science, comprising 7% of all doctoral scientists
working in the United States in 1989 (even though they make up only 2.9% of the

50
total population), according to the National Science Foundation. Moreover,
according to the National Science Foundation, Asian Americans are not reaching
the upper echelons of science and technology in numbers proportional to their
presence as scientists: They lag behind Caucasians, African-Americans, and
Hispanics in tenure status and academic rank in the United States (Miller, 1992).
In 1989 it was reported only 43% of Asian-American scientists and engineers
with doctorates had tenure, compared with 56% of Caucasians, and only 35% of
those doctorates were full professors, compared with 42% of Caucasians. And
Asian Americans have been noticeably absent, at least until very recently, from
leadership positions as deans, institute heads, and advisory board members
(Miller, 1992). The absence in leadership position for Asian Americans is linked
with cultural shyness as explored next.
Cultural Shyness and Invisibility
When Science asked me to write this article on Asian Americans in U.S.
science, my initial response was autonomic. My palms grew damp with
sweat and my heart beat faster. The cognitive response followed, and
childhood memories flashed by my mind’s eye. I saw the concerned faces
of my parents, telling me, “Don’t show off, don’t brag, don’t do anything
to draw attention to yourself. Instead, worked hard, do your job.” So I
told the editor, “I’m sorry, I don’t have time for this. I’ll give you some
names of other people to try.” It took me the weekend to figure out what I
was doing—obeying childhood message to make myself as invisible as
possible. And when I realized what had happened, I agreed to write this
essay.
- Hoy, 1993, p. 1117

51
Ron Hoy, an American-born second generation Chinese scientist
recollected in his article on “cultural shyness for Asian Americans”. Hoy (1993)
shares that many of Asian American s exhibit what he calls a learned or cultural
shyness that is not understood by others. This, coupled with the perception of
many white Americans that all Asians are foreigners—no matter whether they
were born in the United States or not—can keep Asian Americans from reaching
their career goals (p. 1117). Adding to this is the model minority stereotype that
denies or marginalizes genuine problems, such as an aversion to the spotlight, and
a perception that all Asians in the U.S. are foreign, not American. Stereotypes of
the well-behaved “model minority” create problems for the way that other
minorities relate to Asians, and deny the enormous cultural and ethnic diversity
subsumed under “Asian American” (Hoy, 1993).
Cultural shyness can prevent Asian Americans from being accepted and
rising to the top according to Hoy (1993). Some first generation white Americans
report childhood memories of coming home from school to be met with their
parents query: “Did you ask any good questions in class today?” But good Asian
kids don’t question authority. And although not every Asian American may feel
this shyness, it is something that has been encouraged by the culture. Hoy argues
that this cultural difference can have consequences later. Working to become an
excellent but “invisible” scientist may earn a person a Ph.D. and even an entry-

52
level faculty or industry position. But further advancement often depends not
only on scientific expertise, but on social skills, such as the ability to network
among the people who make the hiring decisions.
Thus cultural shyness may contribute to the “glass ceilings” that hover
between many Asian American scientists and career advancement (Hoy, 1993).
The cultural injunctions that permeate some Asian societies—those values that
discourage assertiveness, outspokenness, and competitiveness in groups—work
against Asian Americans, more for Asian American women, especially those in
administrative positions. Thus, an Asian job candidate may be viewed, at best, by
an Anglo-European department chair as being shy or indifferent, or at worst, as
having nothing to say or being unable to act decisively (Hoy, 1993).
Hoy (1993) foresees that change will come about when, on the one side,
Asian Americans learn to learn to exercise certain skills in presenting themselves
in public life. On the other side, corporate and academic leaders must recognize
that creative viewpoints can emerge from cultural diversity. The larger problem
facing all minorities in higher education is the same: to live up to the potential and
achieve in careers, avoiding the pitfalls laid by cultural differences and prejudice.
The notion of cultural shyness introduces the next concept, emotional intelligence
and personal control.
Emotional Intelligence and Personal Control
The relationship between the sense of personal control and psychological
well-being is well established, but this association may be specific to Western

53
cultures (Sastry & Ross, 1998). Because a sense of personal autonomy reflects
Western values, it may have relatively little effect on the psychological well-being
of non-Western ethnic groups (Hofstede, 1980; Hogan & Emler, 1978; Triandis,
1988). Sastry and Ross (1998) state that Asian ethnic identity is associated with
comparatively low level of perceived control. Because of an emphasis on
subordination to family and traditional sources of influence, Asians may feel less
freedom, less autonomy, and generally less control over outcomes in their own
lives.
The sense of personal control is a learned, generalized expectation that
events and circumstances in one’s life are contingent on personal choices and
actions (Rotter, 1966; Seeman, 1959, 1983). Individuals with high perceived
control believe that they can master, control, and effectively alter the
environment, and can determine outcomes in their lives (Mirowsky & Ross,
1989). Perceived powerlessness (the opposite) is a learned, generalized
expectation that outcomes of situations are determined by forces external to
oneself, such as powerful others, luck fate, or chance (Sastry & Ross, 1998).
Asian culture is more collectivist than Western cultures (Al-Zahrani &
Kaplowitz, 1993; Bond, 1983, 1988; Hsu, 1981; Liang & Bogat, 1994; Markus &
Kitayama, 1991). Sastry and Ross (1998) argue that an Asian collectivist
orientation may reduce the sense of personal control. Western cultures encourage
individuals to pursue personal goals and to devote a great deal of attention to the
development of the individual, while Asian cultures value loyalty to the extended

54
family and encourage individuals to subordinate personal wishes to the overall
goals of the family and the traditional community (Hui, 1988; Hui & Triandis,
1986; Triandis, 1989).
Triandis (1988) believes that collectivist cultures encourage individuals to
adhere to rigidly ascribed social roles, and that individuals internalize these norms
and find adherence rewarding. Thus it is possible that this loss of freedom may
not be particularly distressing for the more collectivist Asians. Failure to achieve
personal goals may be less important because individuals are encouraged to
subordinate their own needs to those of the group (Sastry & Ross, 1998). Belief
in the efficacy of external rather than personal forces makes active attempts to
solve problems seem pointless. The result is less motivation and less persistence
in coping, and thus less success in solving problems and adapting. According to
Mirowsky and Ross (1984), people with little perceived control over their lives
have a reactive, passive orientation, whereas those with high perceived control
have a proactive outlook. However, Asian Americans have higher average levels
of education, employment, and household income than other Americans, despite
their low levels of perceived control according to Sastry and Ross (1998). If
individual efforts seem useless, why would someone study or work hard, and
ultimately succeed? Sastry and Ross conclude that the individual motivation that
drives white Americans is not the governing force among Asians. Their drive to
succeed may be shaped by a desire to do well for the family. Failure to do well in

55
school, to obtain a good job, and so on, may bring more shame to one’s family if
one is Asian than if one is a white American of European descent. Thus,
collectivist motivations could govern status attainment (Sastry & Ross, 1998).
Ethgender Identity
The concept of “ethgender” was originally formulated to analyze the
social space created by the intersection of gender and ethnicity (Jeffries &
Ranford, 1980; Ransford & Miller, 1983). Gender and ethnicity were viewed as
developing independently and as having separate and additive consequences for
behavior and location in the stratification order. Geschwender (1992) argues that
this conceptualization is suggestive, but it needs to be enhanced.
Gender is a social construct (Chodorow, 1978; Gough, 1971; Lorber &
Farrell, 1991; Ryan, 1979; 1982). Biological factors may influence gender
constructions, but they never strictly determine them (Geschwender, 1992).
Sociohistorical conditions set parameters while collective historical experiences
influence directions. Gender is constructed at more than one level. Numerous
factors shape gender expectations at the societal level, but gender is also
constructed within racial/ethnic communities in a form shaped by cultural values
and historical experiences (Geschwender, 1992). Ethnicity is also a social
construct (Geschwender, 1987; Geschwender, Carroll-Seguin, & Brill, 1989;
1990), and racial/ethnic groups are socially constructed in a manner embodying
unique historical experiences.

56
Ethgender is not a simple adding of ethnicity to gender. A person is not a
Puerto Rican and a woman; she is a Puerto Rican woman (Crespo, 1991). Her
ethnicity was not constructed separately from her gender, rather her ethgender
was constructed all of a single piece (Geschwender, 1992). Also argued is that
ethgender is not a fixed entity but is reshaped and restructured by each generation.
Another facet undergirding the ethgender identity is the notion of family values.
Family Values
In ties with ethgender identity is the family values. The family ideal
contains notions about the appropriate values, norms, and beliefs that guide the
way family members relate to one another (Pyke, 2000). The cultural values of
“other” families, such as racial-ethnic families, are largely excluded. For
example, prevailing family images emphasize sensitivity, open and honest
communication, flexibility, and forgiveness (Greeley, 1987). Such traits are less
important in many cultures that stress duty, responsibility, obedience, and a
commitment to the family collective that supersedes self-interests (Chung, 1992;
Freeman, 1989). Family affection, intimacy, and sentimentality have grown in
importance in the United States over time (Coontz, 1992), as evident in new
ideals of fatherhood that stress emotional involvement (Coltrane, 1996). These
mainstream family values are evident in the therapeutic ethic, guiding the ways
that those who seek professional advice are counseled and creating particular
therapeutic barriers in treating immigrant Asian Americans (Bellah et al, 1985;
Cancian, 1987; Tsui & Schultz, 1985).

57
Due to the relatively short history of massive Asian immigration, Asian
American family research has been fragmented and limited (Pyke, 2000). Most of
the research has been descriptive rather than explanatory, focusing on Chinese
Americans and Japanese Americans, and has given little attention to between-
group differences. The philosophical values of Chinese Confucianism provide a
firm set of rules about how family members are supposed to behave toward one
another. Priority is placed on family interests over individual desires and needs in
order to maintain stability and harmony (Pyke, 2000). Status distinctions guide
the way in which members are to interact with one another. Younger members
are expected to display respect, deference, and obedience to elders (including to
older siblings, especially brothers), and wives are expected to show the same to
their husbands and parents-in-law. Emotional expressiveness, including displays
of affection, is discouraged, while self-control is emphasized (Hurh, 1998; Uba,
1994). Family ties and roles are central from birth until death, with a strong
emphasis on family devotion. Further, education is considered the primary means
for social mobility. This undergirds the great importance that many Asian parents
place on their children’s education (Min, 1998; Zhou & Bankston, 1998).
Although more research is needed that closely examines Asian ethnic
differences in family practices, the existing literature reveals that the role
prescriptions, family obligations, hierarchal relations, lack of emotional
expressiveness, and collectivist values associated with the traditional family
systems of Asian Americans contrast sharply with the emphasis on individualism,

58
self-sufficiency, egalitarianism, expressiveness, and self-development in
mainstream American culture (Bellah et al, 1985; Cancian, 1987; Chung, 1992;
Hurh, 1998; Kim & Choi, 1994; Min, 1998; Pyke & Bengston, 1996; Tran, 1998;
Uba, 1994). I now review the literature on the notion of gender as it relates to
Asian American women in leadership positions in higher education.
Gender
The Evolution of Asian American Women
The first Asian woman to arrive in America was Afong Moy, a Chinese
woman who came to New York City in 1834. Three decades later the number of
Chinese women in American had reached only 1,784, mainly distributed
throughout California, Nevada and Idaho (Ling, 1993). From working as
prostitutes in mining areas in the 1800s, to CEOs in business industry in 2000s,
Asian American women have come a long way.
Outside of higher education, corporate America has always been a tough
terrain for professionals of color to navigate (Hyun, 2005). Various studies
confirm the low percentages of minorities in the executive suites of U.S.
companies. Hyun affirms that in 1995, the Federal Glass Ceiling Commission
stated that of the top 1,000 industrial firms and 500 largest businesses in the
United States, only 3% of senior managers were professionals of color. By
contrast, a 2003 U.S. Department of Labor report indicated that women and
minorities make up two-thirds of new labor force entrants annually. Further, a
2003 Catalyst study focusing on Asian American women in the workforce

59
revealed that although Asian American women represent an important and
growing source of talent, they are not well represented in senior management
ranks. (Catalyst is a nonprofit advisory organization seeking to advance women
in business). In fact, they make up less than 0.5% of corporate officers at the 429
Fortune 500 companies that provided these data: Out of 10,092 Fortune 500
corporate officers in 2002, only 30 (0.29%) were Asian American women (Hyun,
2005). According to the Catalyst study (2003), Asian women have difficulty
moving into senior management positions because Asian cultural values, whether
learned or reinforced by family, work against their ability to successfully navigate
the corporate landscape (Hyun, 2005).
A 1997 study of Caucasian, African-American, and Asian American
engineers by Joyce Tang using the U.S. National Science Foundation’s survey
revealed that both Asian Americans and African Americans were significantly
disadvantaged in terms of career mobility. Even in Silicon Valley, where Asian
Americans comprise 30% of technology professionals, a 1993 study by the Pacific
Studies Center found that Caucasians held 80% of managerial positions, in
comparison to 12.5% for Asian Americans. These findings challenge the model-
minority myth — that Asian Americans are doing “just fine” and need no career
assistance — in professions where one might expect Asian Americans to be well
represented (Hyun, 2005). Their virtual absence in the influential leadership roles
demonstrates that Asians face challenges to mobility much like other ethnic and
racial minority groups.

60
To reiterate, because of the dearth of research on Asian American women
in higher education leadership positions, I had to turn to business and other
sources for data.
According to the Corporate Board Report Card by the Committee of 100’s
(2004), a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization formed to improve China-United
States relations and to provide a perspective for issues concerning Asian
Americans, the percentage of Asian Pacific Americans holding seats on U.S.
corporate boards is a mere 1%. Given the educational achievements of Asian
Americans, there exists a clear disconnect. According to the 2002 data from the
U.S. Census Bureau, 44% of Asian Americans over age 25 have graduated from
college, the highest percentage for any racial group, compared with the 27%
average for the U.S. population. And according to the feedback from recruiters
and human resources directors, there is significant representation of entry-level
Asian talent in corporations. There is also a need for more updated statistics on
Asians and their career mobility (Hyun, 2005). According to Thatchenkery
(2000), a Korn Ferry International survey revealed that between 1971 and 1997,
there were 8,403 studies on women and career development, 101 studies on
African Americans and career advancement, and 4 studies on Asian Americans
and career advancement.
In 1980, Asian Americans recorded more years of schooling than any
other Americans. The number of Asian American women (in all Asian American
ethnic groups except Vietnamese) exceeded the number of Caucasian women who

61
completed four years of college (Hsia, 1988). In 1994, Asian American women
posted a college graduation rate of 67%, the highest among all groups, including
whites (Montez, 1998). The number of Asian American women earning
doctorates doubled between 1984 and 1994 (American Council on Education,
1996). Yet, in 1993, though touted as the bastion of multicultural learning and
diversity training, higher education in the U.S. could “boast” a population of only
999 Asian American female administrators, a mere 7% of the total (137,432)
population (American Council on Education, 1996). With Asian American
enrollment in 4-year institutions currently up to 5.3% of the total undergraduate
population (American Council on Education, 1996), the disparity in the
proportion of Asian American students to Asian American women administrators
is troubling (Montez, 1998).
In considering why there are so few Asian American women in higher
education administration, it is important to examine the research on the subject
and the educational status of Asian American women today (Montez, 1998).
Policy makers and future administrators must look to the experience and report of
Asian American and other minority women to understand what it takes to “break
into” administration and succeed within it. Examining these women and their
educational experiences may provide the insight that policymakers require to
improve the circumstance for those who aspire to be in administrative positions.

62
Earlier studies comprised reports of Asian American women in traditional
and non-traditional professions (Yamauchi, 1981) or of Asian American men and
women in educational administration (Washington Association for Asian/Pacific
American Education, 1980). These studies failed, however, to focus upon issues
specific to Asian American women in higher education administration. In 1980,
the Washington Association for Asian American Education conducted workshops
for Asian American educational administrators in Washington. Key findings of
the workshops were: a) Asian American women in administration had more
obstacles to overcome and experienced more pressure in their administrative
experience; b) being an Asian American educational administrator created family
pressures that led to family break-ups; and c) the stereotyped image that men
(Asian American and non-Asian American) held of Asian American women
administrators unnecessarily burdened these women in their exercise of their
administrative responsibilities. (Washington Association for Asian/Pacific
American Education, 1980).
A 1981 study by Joanne Yamauchi examined the communication patterns
of Asian American women in traditionally male-dominated professional,
prestigious, and administrative positions. The study sought to identify the
leadership behavior of Asian American women in the context of communication,
socio-cultural, and psychological variables. Yamauchi (1981) concluded that
those Asian American women who successfully worked in nontraditional

63
occupations (such as educational administration) were more highly educated and
older than their counterparts in traditional occupations, and displayed skills
“outside” the typical Asian American female orientation.
In terms of visibility of Asian American women in educational research,
Lily Chu (1980) attributed the lack of representation of Asian American women
to the socio-cultural barriers commonly shared by women members of ethnic
minorities (racial and sexual discrimination, lack of role models, lack of access to
the “good ol’ boy” system). She further described as unique barriers faced by
Asian American women the commonly believed myth of Asian Americans’
success in this country and the additional bondage of their cultural tradition in
which women assume a low status in the family and society, asking nothing and
expecting little. These barriers in combination, she asserted, have prevented
Asian American women from equal participation in the professional occupations
(Chu, 1980).
Politically speaking, like other women of color, Asian American women
as a group have neither been included in the predominantly white middle-class
feminist movement, nor have they begun collective to identify with it (Chia, 1983;
Dill, 1983; Loo & Ong, 1982; Yamada, 1981). Although some Asian American
women have participated in social movements within their communities or in the
larger society, building ties with white feminists and other women of color is a
recent phenomenon for Asian American women (Chow, 1987). Chow adds since
Asian American women are a relatively small group in the United States, their

64
invisibility and contribution to the feminist movement in the larger society may
seem insignificant. Furthermore, ethnic diversity among Asian American women
serves as a barrier to organizing and makes it difficult for these women to identify
themselves collectively as a group.
In terms of career in higher education administration, Asian American
women (like other women of color) have much to gain from the white feminist
movement; yet they have had a low level of participation in feminist organizations
(Chow, 1987). Since feminist consciousness is a result as well as a resource of
feminist involvement, Asian American women have remained politically invisible
and powerless. Asiatic and U.S. cultures alike tend to relegate women to
subordinate status and to work in a gendered division of labor (Chow, 1987).
Although Asiatic values emphasizing education, achievement, and diligence no
doubt have accounted for the high aspirations and achievements of some Asian
American woman, certain Asiatic values, especially when women from actively
participating in the feminist movement (Chow, 1982; 1985). Chow adds (1987)
that adherence to Asiatic values of obedience, familial interest, fatalism, and self-
control may foster submissiveness, passivity, pessimism, timidness, inhibition,
and adaptiveness, rather than rebelliousness or political activism. Acceptance of
the American values of independence, individualism, mastery of one’s
environment through change, and self-expression may generate self-interest,

65
aggressiveness, initiative, and expressive spontaneity that tend to encourage
political activism; but these are, to a large extent, incompatible with the
upbringing of Asian American women.
Further, according to Chu (1986), Asian American women increasingly
found that they were not part of the decision-making processes. She further stated
that not only were their contributions not recognized in mainstream society, but
they were also excluded from holding power in the movement that held equality
as an idea. There were several reasons for this. First, there was a feeling among
some Asian males, similar to the mood in the black civil rights movement, that
their “manhood” had been oppressed for decades and that this discrimination thus
gave them the right to dominate Asian women (Chu, 1986). Second, in
attempting to show strength while confronting institutionalized racism, the
movement was strongly identified with a ghetto image that was largely “macho”
and male. Third, a large part of the civil rights movement emphasized finding
oneself and discovering one’s ethnic identity within the minority culture, an
identity that had been historically denied to the minority people by the dominant
culture. But, for Asian women, much of Asian culture offered only secondary
status.
Inevitably, Asian American women found themselves mainly in
supportive roles: they served coffee; their speeches were not heard unless a man
restated them. Moreover, strong, assertive women were labeled “dragon ladies,”
an interesting and contradictory term in a movement trying to erase stereotypes.

66
Hitherto, I examined the external barriers for Asian American women relative to
the workplace setting. I now explore the internal barriers for these women.
According to Chu (1986), Asian American women were not only fighting
the external barriers, but they also had their own internal struggles. Many Asian
women did not feel they had the social skills necessary to be the leaders. They
had problems feeling confident enough to assert themselves; they had not been
trained to deal with the ideological concepts being tossed around during the 60s.
Thus, small groups of Asian women were formed by activists in the early 1970s
to talk about these problems: the groups served an important function by
providing a safe atmosphere to talk about Asian women as political organizers.
Chu (1986) concluded that it was difficult, however, to find a direction for these
groups, as there was no precedent. How much were they to incorporate of the
leftist political groups in American, the white feminist movement, or the
movement of women in Asia? Women in the Asian movement find that those
stereotypes are still hovering over their head because the new definition of the
Asian women has not yet evolved, women still find themselves in a limbo
(Rodan, 1971).
Howard-Hamilton and Williams (1996) observed that “colleges and
universities seemed to be granting people of color access to a higher education;
however, the degrees earned did not allow them opportunities to be part of the
teaching or administration teams.” In 1993, bachelor’s degrees were awarded to
Asian American women in the following numbers (by thousands):

67
Table 2.1: Breakdown of Degrees attained by Asian Americans
Field of Study Number of Degrees awarded
Biological / Life Sciences 2,513
Business 6,531
Education 812
Engineering 1,374
Health Professsions 1,940
Social Sciences 2,910

Of all minority women, education ranked last only in the Asian American
women’s group (less than 1%). If educational administration is subsumed in the
“education” category, then the number of Asian American women entering
advanced degree programs in educational administration is even more minute
(Montez, 1988). What prohibits young Asian American women from taking the
challenge of entering a field so sparsely populated with their own? Perhaps a fear
of the obstacles that have stood in the way of others before them? Perhaps
resignation that the “field” is closed.
Barriers exist to the minority woman who seeks a position as an education
administrator because she is a woman and because she is a minority (Montez,
1988). “She asks that [the barriers] be removed along with the mythology that
she is sometimes doubly blessed because she can be exploited as a ‘two-fer’— a
minority within a minority” (Williams, 1985). Following the review of literature
on Asian Americans in administration, labor market, and the issues of racial
discrimination, I will now explore issues relative to the socialization process of
minority women in higher education administration.

68
Research evidence about women’s career socialization in education has
changed as women’s lives and circumstances have changed (Riehl & Byrd, 1997).
For example, numerous studies from the 1970s (Edson, 1981; Estler, 1975;
Prolman, 1982; Schmuck, 1976) documented women’s low aspirations for careers
in school administration. However, studies published in the 1980s suggest that
women’s aspirations toward administration have grown stronger over time (e.g.,
Edson, 1988; Jovick, 1981; Shakeshaft, 1989). Research on gender differences in
the preparation and qualifications of school amdinsitrators has also demonstrated
changes over time (e.g., Estler, 1975; Gross & Trask, 1976; Ortiz & Marshall,
1988; Paddock, 1981; Picker, 1980; Stockard & Kempner, 1981).
I submit that socialization is a process that by definition is rooted in
contexts bounded by time, space, and culture. Thus it is not surprising that
research on women’s career socialization shows different results over time and
must be revisited periodically. I now explore the issues related to women in
management.
Women in Management
A growing research interest in the areas of women in management,
administration, and leadership has accompanied social changes of the past decade
(Adkison, 1981). The study of women in school administration initially
concentrated on the problem of explaining the disparity between the percentages
of women in teaching and in administration. To understand this problem,
researchers examined characteristics of women and their socialization that affect

69
career selection and ambition. Women’s underrepresentation in school
administration, specifically higher education, continues to generate research
interest. However, attempts to solve this problem and to explain the experiences
of the few women in administrative positions have led to an interest in the impact
of formal and informal organization on the behavior, effectiveness, and mobility
of men and women (Johnsrud, 1991). Further, minority women in educational
administration rarely are the focus of study (Adkison, 1981). Researchers have
attempted to develop profiles of African American women in administration
(Doughty, 1980; Payne & Jackson, 1978) and Chicanas in administration (Ortiz &
Venegas, 1978), and have reported on minority women as part of larger studies of
women in administration (Paddock, 1978, 1979).
A high level of social and political pressure caused universities to become
more inclusive of the various demographic groups present within the country.
One of the salient socio-educational policies that emerged during this era was a
form of what one might term affirmative action, which began as an effort to
ensure educational equity and diversity within the community. The tides have
shifted with major attempts put in motion to roll back the various measures that
were designed to provide educational equity or second chance opportunities for
African Americans, Native Americans, Hispanic Americans, or Asian Americans.
This trend is particularly troubling given that the aforementioned groups are
vastly under-represented in the higher education community (Lindsay, 1999).

70
In keeping with the overall theme of this issue, this manuscript focused on
the unique roles played by minority women — specifically Asian American
women — who are in senior-level administrative positions at 4-year universities
and colleges in the United States. What is exceedingly important regarding this
select group of women is their pivotal role in promoting, or perhaps maintaining,
a steady state for educational equity in American universities (Lindsay, 1999).
Demographic data delineate the reality of whether or not affirmative action or
other programs have made any real changes in access to admissions or in faculty
diversity in higher education (Nettles & Perna, 1997; Cohen, 1997). Regardless
of the indicator used, Caucasian males remain the favored group in all areas of
higher education.
Women’s rights and needs have been contested notions—ranging from
assertions that women face an already friendly and responsive social order to
claims that women are a major target for economic and social exploitation
(Stromquist, 1995). Higher education has been dominated by white males;
consequently, their definitions of learning and of scholarship prevail (Menges &
Exum, 1983).
Recent decades brought dramatic change to postsecondary education.
Institutions experienced unprecedented growth, particularly following World War
II, and student bodies moved toward greater gender, cultural, and racial
inclusiveness (Menges & Exum, 1983). Menges and Exum also highlight that

71
changes seen among students are not, however, mirrored in administration.
During those growth years, the proportion of women and minority administrators
relative to higher education did not increase significantly.
As previously stated in chapter one, very few women hold top-level
administrative positions in higher education in the United States (Andruskiw &
Howes, 1980). In 1979, fewer than 200 out of more than 2,500 accredited
institutions had women as chief executive officers. Wilson (1995) reported that
of 453 female top administrative executives at American college and universities,
only 72 were women of color. Further, Touchton (1995) reported that two were
Asian American in that population. In 2005, the numbers look similarly dismal
— 4 Asian Americans to be exact. American Council on Education (an
organization composed primarily of university presidents) states that diversity in
higher education is of extreme importance and needs to be recognized as part of
the academy’s mission:
Each of our more than 3,000 colleges and universities has its own
specific and distinct mission. This collective diversity among
institutions is one of the great strengths of America’s higher
education system. Preserving that diversity is essential if we hope
to serve the needs of our democratic society.
(American Council on Education, 1998)
In recent years a body of scholarship has emerged regarding how women
and men have advanced in administrative ranks in higher education and in
managerial ranks in the corporate sector (Sagaria, 1988). Research about higher
education administrators is also beginning to yield information about differing

72
institutional responses to men and women. Most theories support the notion that
career development is an evolutionary process rather than a static phase (Gregory,
2001). In similar vein, Riehl and Byrd (1997) affirm that career mobility is a
socially constructed process marked by individual agency within the context of
organizational / institutional constraints and opportunities. The impact of gender
on career mobility in educational administration has been a topic of interest for
many researchers. Three general classes of theoretical explanations have
emerged, which, both separately and together, are consistent with the model of
career development as constrained and contextualized individual action (Hansot
& Tyack, 1981).
First, women’s lower participation in educational administration is
construed as the result of differential sex-role and occupational socialization.
This framework highlights the importance of women’s self-perceptions and
actions and argues that women have not been socialized to aspire to
administrative positions or to prepare for them. Second, women’s career mobility
is seen as suppressed because school systems, like more other formal
organizations, are structure in ways that tend to exclude women from higher-level
jobs. Conditions such as recruitment and selection procedures that are managed
largely by men, or tokenism and the isolation of the few women, who get
promoted, prevent women from seeking and obtaining administrative positions,
even if they aspire to such roles (Kanter, 1977; Shakeshaft, 1989). Third, the root
cause of women’s lower participation in school leadership is located in male

73
dominance in society over all, manifested in covert and overt forms of sex
discrimination which limit women to subordinate positions in the public and
private economies, that is, in work both outside and inside the home (Sokoloff,
1980; Stockard & Johnson, 1981). Because of this hegemony, women may
perceive themselves to have few opportunities and therefore limit their
aspirations, creating a cycle that leads back to the effects of differential
socialization on career mobility (Shakeshaft, 1989).
In response to the differential sex-role and occupation socialization,
different policy recommendations have been derived from each of these general
explanations. When the basic problem is considered to be socialization,
advocates suggest strategies designed to change women’s aspirations, to
encourage them to prepare for administrative positions, and to certify their
preparedness through mechanisms such as assessment center (Shakeshaft, 1989).
For those who argue that structural conditions of school systems keep women out
of administration, crucial remedies include more objective hiring procedures,
affirmative action policies to reduce tokenism, and mechanisms for providing
support for isolated women administrators until their numbers increase (Adkison,
1981). Those who argue that male hegemony is the real problem suggest that
career mobility for women will not change unless and until women take serious
legal and political action to secure better opportunities for themselves
(Shakeshaft, 1989).

74
The Cult of Domesticity
The social construction of gender includes the development of norms
sanctioning the participation of women, including wives and mothers, in the
waged labor force. The impact of gender on career mobility for women can be
traced to the cult of domesticity, which has been a prominent feature of American
ideology since industrialization (Weiner, 1985). It has many aspects, but perhaps
the most prominent is the belief that a woman’s primary roles are those of wife
and mother. She should prepare herself for marriage after which she should make
a good home for her husband, care for him, provide him with emotional support,
and bear his children (Geschwender, 1992). Childbirth brings the added duties of
rearing and socializing children. Under the cult, women could work for wages if
pressed by economic necessity, but it has never been quite respectable for them to
do so. Even stronger disapproval was directed by married women, and especially
mothers, working for wages outside the home.
Goldin (1991), Matthaei (1981), and Rubin (1976) argue that ideological
adherence to the cult of domesticity was much stronger in the working class than
in the middle class, despite the fact that economic necessity forced more working-
class women to work. A working-class husband was stigmatized by his wife’s
presence in the work force because it was assumed that he was unable to support
her. Less stigma was attached to an educated, middle-class woman who entered
the work force since she was more likely to be married to a middle-class husband
with a higher income. Middle-class women were less likely to be kept in line by

75
status concerns but were more likely to be controlled by the strictures of the “cult
of true womanhood” (Welter, 1966). Middle-class women were judged — and
judged by themselves — according to the standards of true womanhood which
required piety, purity, submissiveness, and domesticity (Geschwender, 1992).
Morally uplifting actions were included among those visible indicators which
might reflect piety and purity. This frequently provided the rationale for
participation in social reform activities.
Geschwender (1992) explored the behavioral patterns of Japanese
American women in terms of domesticity and their role in the family unit.
Japanese Americans migrating to the mainland also appear to have shared the
dominant norm of domesticity but were forced by economic circumstances to
deviate from it (Glenn, 1986). Issei (first generation) men frequently opposed
their wives’ engaging in paid employment, sometimes on the grounds that their
services were needed at home and sometimes because the employment of wives
outside the home violated the principle that husbands had exclusive rights to their
wives’ labor (Glenn, 1986, p. 114). Some issei men demanded that their wives
pull their full weight and take a job but this was a reluctant action taken in
response to economic deprivation and was not the preferred alternative (Glenn,
1986). Nisei (second generation) women believed that women with small
children should refrain from external waged work but they knew that this was not

76
always economically feasible (Glenn, 1986). Japanese American married women
have high labor force participation rates than Anglos despite the fact that their
husbands have higher absolute incomes (Geschwender, 1991a).
Geschwender’s study of Chinese Americans in Hawaii and California and
Chinese Canadians in British Columbia finds similar normative developments.
Men of Chinese ancestry experienced a history of labor market exclusion, and
women of Chinese ancestry initially had relatively low labor force participation
rates which increased over time. Currently, women of Chinese ancestry work for
wages at a much higher rate than that of majority group counterparts, and their
earnings constitute a higher proportion of total family income. Geschwender’s
findings suggest that women of Chinese ancestry were not simply working to
overcome the relative deprivation caused by their husband’s relatively low
earnings.
Ethnicity is the product of a people’s historical experiences (Geschwender,
1987; Geschwender, Carroll-Seguin, & Brill, 1989, 1990). It is quite conceivable
that different groups sharing both the same nation of origin and the same nation of
destination may have differed in social composition, had different migration
experiences, and have been confronted by different opportunity structures. Thus,
as argued by the authors, it is not surprising that they have different gender
constructions.

77
Through his study, Geschwender concludes that gender is not constructed
in the same manner in all ethnic groups and that the ethgender differences have
economic consequences — both currently and in the future. Some ethnic groups
have used relatively high earnings on the part of married women to achieve an
economic status comparable to that of majority group families. Examples of such
groups include Japanese-Americans and Chinese-Americans in Hawaii, Japanese
Americans in California, and Filipino Americans in New York (Geschwender,
1991a, Geschwender & Carroll-Seguin, 1988).
American society and its economic system has evolved over time, and the
commitment to the cult of domesticity has been altered accordingly (Kessler-
Harris, 1982; Matthaei, 1982; Weiner, 1985). Oppenheimer (1982) suggested that
structural changes caused behavioral changes which lead to ideological changes.
Married women’s increased participation in waged labor has been accompanied
by a decline in the significance attached to the cult of domesticity and a reduction
in resistance to their presence in the labor force. Women have made limited gains
and patriarchy suffered limited losses in their work place (Geschwender, 1992).
The earnings of women relative to those of men steadily improved from 1890 to
1930, remained relatively stable between 1950 and 1980, and have been slowly
inching their way upward since 1981 (Bergman, 1986, Goldin, 1990). However,
the most optimistic assessment does not have women’s earnings as much more
than 70% of those of men. Women have also made inroads into occupational
segregation by sex, but a projection of present rates of change would not see

78
occupational integration in less than another 75 to 100 years (Goldin, 1990, Rix,
1990). Geschwender (2002) further concludes that women’s struggle for greater
equality took place in a context in which organized labor had been weakened and
was less able to fight to retain patriarchal privilege. Thus, many of the observed
changes were brought about by a combination of the relative strength of capital in
comparison to labor and of women as a result of patriarchy. The impact of ethnic
minority struggles to improve their position within the racial/ethnic stratification
order certainly calls for attention.
Changes that took place in American society affected all women including
Asian American women. The cult of domesticity waned in importance as more
and more married women and mothers were incorporated into the work force
(Lee, 2003). An extended period of deviance from previously held norms could
and did lead to normative change. The belief that “a woman’s place is in the
home,” came to be replaced by the belief that “married women should contribute
to the family’s well-being by any means necessary.”
Structural characteristics and cultural beliefs interact with the socio-
historical context to condition unique responses. Some ethnic groups followed
the traditional gender expectations and kept married women out of the waged
labor force. This, in turn, retarded normative rates of change and had negative
consequences on current standard of living, on parents’ ability to help children
acquire a formal education, and on subsequent mobility opportunities for their
children and grandchildren.

79
Attributional Patterns of Asian American Women: Feminine Modesty
Corresponding to the notion of the cult of domesticity (Weiner, 1986),
Crittenden (1991) affirms that an individual’s attributional styles are
differentiated by the types of events being explained. Regardless of the events
being explained, perceived causes of events or outcomes vary on at least two
dimensions (Weiner, 1986). According to Weiner, the locus dimension refers to
the degree to which a person believes the causes to be internal or external. A
second dimension is the stability of perceived causes—whether the person sees
the causes as stable or variable over time. The attributional norms vary across
cultures. In any cultural context, some traits are valued more than others. An
individual will tend to exhibit the attributional patterns that imply traits valued by
the audience. Individuals may conform to cultural norms consciously to gain
audience approval, or unconsciously because they have internalized these norms
through socialization, and may even know no other way of behaving.
The dimension of individualism versus collectivism reflects cultural
values concerning the relationship between the individual and the group
(Hofstede, 1980). Individualism has been linked by various analyses to the
internal and self-enhancing attributional patterns (Bond, Leung, & Wan, 1982;
Kashima & Triandis, 1986; Sampson, 1981). Crittenden (1991) theorized that
individualism was reflected in a relatively internal attributional style and a
collectivist orientation was reflected in a relatively external style. Similarly, a
culture that values individual achievement over modesty and responsibility to

80
others should encourage a self-enhancing pattern of attribution, and a culture that
values social harmony over individual initiative and achievement should nurture a
self-effacing pattern (Bond, Leung, & Wan, 1982).
Gould and Slone (1982) proposed a general self-presentational model for
explaining gender differences in attribution, suggesting that “society holds
stereotypically different expectations of how females and males present
themselves in achievement situations” (p. 478). To be judged positively, females
may be required to express appropriate “feminine modesty.” Thus women’s
attributional patterns reflect the motivation to enhance audience esteem by
presenting themselves in accord with traditional gender-role expectations
(Crittenden, 1991). Crittenden posited that a self-presentational explanation of
gender differences in attribution would require either that (1) different traits are
considered desirable for men and women or (2) men and women have different
perceptions of the desirability and/or gender relevance of traits that are associated
with particular attributional styles.
An individual’s attributional patterns are not inborn. They result from a
complex variety of environmental forces and internal processes (Crittenden,
1991). Crittenden’s study on Asian women found that Asian women exemplified
the ideals of Asian self-effacement and feminine modesty. The women in
Crittenden’s study conformed to gender-role stereotypes within the culture.
According to Freize et al (1978), women may attribute their successes to external
factors and their failures to internal factors, especially in achievement settings,

81
because they have low self-esteem and need to maintain consistent beliefs about
themselves. Thus they tend to internalize negative information about themselves
but discount or externalize positive information (Freize et al, 1978). These
attributions closely tie to marriage, work, and motherhood.
Marriage, Work, Motherhood
As “minorities within a minority” (Chan, 1996), what values and
behaviors lie at the center of Asian American women’s identity? Areas of
women’s and family and cultural history for Asian Americans were still relatively
undeveloped until the 1990s. Sociologists, anthropologists, and historians made
strides in exploring the values of Asian American women and they showed that
feminist assumptions developed in the middle-class Euro-American women’s
movement could not be applied uncritically to groups of Asian American women.
Asian values are much resonated with Confucian principles (Harper,
1997). They are 1) primacy of family and community over the rights of the
individual; 2) consensus above dissent; and 3) discipline above permissiveness.
The ideals of womanhood also derive from readings of the Confucian classics
(Teng, 1996). Harper further argues that Asian systems are defined as an
inversion or a corruption of a western form: soft authoritarianism, as opposed to
the hard kind; illiberal democracy, as opposed to the semi-democracy.
Confucianism endorses a very stratified patriarchal society in which the reverence
for authority is much emphasized to bring about a balanced social order (Shin,
1999). Another important aspect of Confucian ethics is the concept of the proper

82
relationship between men and women. Man is likened to the heavens, the source
of the formation of the cosmos, and woman to the earth, a submissive element in
the whole scheme (Shin, 1999). Teng (1996) adds that female is to nature as male
is to culture (p. 139). From childhood, women are encouraged to mold an
obedient and faithful personality as a silent servant and producer of male children.
Her life is said to be governed by the “Principle of three obediences”: to her father
as a child, to her husband as a wife, and to her first son as a widow (Yu &
Phillips, 1983).
For Asian American women, this Confucian ethics is questioned and
resisted (Shin, 1999). They develop what can be described as a “double
consciousness.” While they look at themselves through the lenses of Asian
patriarchal values, they have to confront, at the same time, the reality of living in
the United States as children of immigrants dealing with assimilation and
acculturation. As one senior administrator recounted in her statement regarding
the different roles of men and women according to the Confucian principles:
I might be the senior person but they will still go to the male in the
group. I am still seen as the submissive one even though I’m
sitting in a leadership position.
- Jennifer
“Doing” Gender Across Cultural Worlds
The study of gender in recent years has been largely guided by two
orienting approaches: (1) a social constructionist emphasis on the day-to-day
production or doing of gender (Coltrane, 1989; West & Zimmerman, 1987), and

83
(2) attention to the interlocking systems of race, class, and gender (Espiritu, 1997;
Hill Collins, 2000). Despite the prominence of these approaches, little empirical
work has been done that integrates the doing of gender with the study of race
(Pyke & Johnson, 2003). A contributing factor is the more expansive
incorporation of social constructionism in the study of gender than in race
scholarship where biological markers are still given importance despite
widespread acknowledgement that racial oppression is rooted in social
arrangements and not biology (Glenn, 1999). In addition, attempts to
theoretically integrate the doing of gender, race, and class around the concept of
“doing difference” (West & Fernstermaker, 1995) has a propensity to downplay
historical macro-structures of power and domination and to privilege gender over
race and class (Hill Collins et al, 1995).
The integration of gender and race within a social constructivist approach
directs attention to issues that have been overlooked (Pyke & Johnson, 2003).
Little research has examined how racially and ethnically subordinated women,
especially Asian American women, mediate cross-pressures in the production of
femininity as they move between mainstream and ethnic arenas, such as family,
work, and school, and whether distinct and even contradictory gender displays
and strategies are enacted across different arenas (Pyke & Johnson, 2003). Many,
if not most, individuals move in social worlds that do not require dramatic
inversions of their gender performances, thereby enabling them to maintain stable
and seemingly unified gender strategies. However, members of communities that

84
are racially and ethnically marginalized and who regularly traverse interactional
arenas with conflicting gender expectations might engage different gender
performances depending on the local context in which they are interacting.
Examining the ways that such individuals mediate conflicting expectations would
address several unanswered questions.
Do marginalized women shift their gender performances across
mainstream and subcultural settings in response to different gender norms? If so,
how do they experience and negotiate such transitions? These issues are
addressed through Asian American women in this study. Their experience in
Asian ethnic and mainstream cultural worlds will be explored including their
assumptions about gender dynamics in the Euro-centric mainstream and Asian
ethnic and social settings, they way they think about their gendered selves, and
their strategies in doing gender. Controlling images and ideologies shaping the
subjective experiences of these Asian American women will be explored through
the lens of these women.
Current theories emphasize gender as a socially constructed phenomenon
rather than an innate and stable attribute (Lorber, 1994; Lucal, 1999; West &
Zimmerman, 1987). Gender is regarded as something people do in social
interaction. Gender is manufactured out of the fabric of culture and social
structure and has little, if any, causal relationship to biology (Kessler &
McKenna, 1978; Lorber, 1994). Gender displays are “culturally established sets
of behaviors, appearances, mannerisms, and other cues that we have learned to

85
associate with members of a particular gender” (Lucal, 1999, p. 84). The gender
displays “cast particular pursuits as expressions of masculine and feminine
‘natures’” (West & Zimmerman, 1987, p. 126). The doing of gender involves its
display as a seemingly innate component of an individual (Pyke & Johnson,
2003).
The concept of femininities has served mostly as a placeholder in the
theory of masculinities where it remains undertheorized and unexamined
(Connell, 1987). Hill Collins (2000) discussed “controlling images” that
denigrate and objectify the minority women and justify their racial and gender
subordination. Controlling images are part of the process of “othering,” whereby
a dominant group defines into existence a subordinate group through the creating
of categories and ideas that mark the group as inferior (Schwalbe et al, 2000, p.
422). Controlling images reaffirm whiteness as normal and privilege white
women by casting them as superior (Pyke & Johnson, 2003).
The white society uses the image of the Black matriarch to objectify
African American women as overly aggressive, domineering, and unfeminine
(Pyke & Johnson, 2003). This imagery serves to blame African American women
for the emasculation of African American men, low marriage rates, and poverty
and to control their social behavior by undermining their assertiveness (Hill
Collins, 2000). While African American women are masculinized as aggressive
and overpowering, Asian women are rendered hyperfeminine: passive, weak,
quiet, excessively submissive, slavishly dutiful, sexually exotic, and available for

86
white men (Espiritu, 1997; Tajima, 1989). This “lotus blossom” imagery
obscures the internal variation of Asian American femininity and sexuality,
making it difficult, for example, for others to “see” Asian lesbians and bisexuals
(Lee, 1996). Controlling images of Asian women also make them especially
vulnerable to mistreatment from men who view them as easy targets. By casting
African American women as not feminine enough and Asian women as too
feminine, white forms of gender are racialized as normal and superior. Pyke and
Johnson (2003) conclude that in this way, white women are accorded racial
privilege.
The glorification of white femininity and controlling images of Asian
women can lead Asian American women to believe that freedom and equity can
be acquired only in the white-dominated world. Not only is white behavior
glorified as superior and more authentic, but the gender relations among whites
are constructed as more egalitarian (Pyke & Johnson, 2003). Racialized gender
expectations can exert a pressure to display stereotyped behavior in mainstream
interactions. Such expectations can subtly coerce behavioral displays that
confirm the stereotypes, suggesting a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy (Pyke &
Johnson, 2003). Furthermore, as submissiveness and passivity are denigrated
traits in the mainstream, and often judged to be indicators of incompetence,
compliance with such expectations can deny Asian American women personal
opportunities and success. The association of extreme passivity with Asian
women serves to emphasize their otherness. American (white) women and Asian

87
American women are constructed as diametric opposites according to Pyke and
Johnson (2003). Gender is inevitably an essential component of race. Variation
is ignored or recategorized so that an Asian American woman who does not
comply is no long perceived Asian. Consequently, struggles about gender
identity and women’s work/family trajectories become superimposed over
racial/ethnic identity. Those who do not conform to racialized expectations risk
challenges to their racial identity and charges that they are not really Asian, as
occurs with some of the respondents when they interact with their non-Asian
peers. The dynamics of internalized oppression and the reproduction of inequality
that revolve around the relational construction of hegemonic and subordinated
femininities will later be illuminated in the personal experiences of the women in
this study.
With regard to the racialized gender expectations, Pyke and Johnson’s
(2003) study on Asian American women illustrated the powerful interplay of
controlling images and hegemonic femininity in promoting internalized
oppression. The study affirmed that by constructing ethnic culture as impervious
to social change and as a site where resistance to gender oppression is impossible,
Asian American women accommodate and reinforce rather than resist the gender
hierarchal arrangements of such locales. This can contribute to a self-fulfilling
prophecy as Asian American women who hold gender egalitarian views feel
compelled to retreat from interactions in ethnic settings, thus (re)creating Asian
ethnic cultures as strongholds of patriarchy and reinforcing the maintenance of a

88
rigid gender hierarchy as a primary mechanism by which ethnicity and ethnic
identity are constructed. The authors found that mechanisms used to construct
ethnic identity in resistance to the pro-assimilation forces of the white-dominated
mainstream rest on narrow definitions of Asian women that emphasize gender
subordination. The findings underscore the crosscutting ways that gender and
racial oppression operates such that strategies and ideologies focused on the
resistance of one form of domination can produce another form. A social
constructionist approach that examines the simultaneous production of gender and
race within the matrix of oppression, and considers the relational construction of
hegemonic and subordinated femininities, holds much promise in uncovering the
micro-level structures and complicated features of oppression, including the
processes by which oppression infiltrates the meanings individuals give to their
experiences.
The dominant culture’s dissemination of controlling imagery that
derogates non-white forms of femininity (and masculinity) is part of a complex
ideological system of “psychosocial dominance” (Baker, 1983, p. 37) that
imposes elite definitions of subordinates internalize “commonsense” notions of
their inferiority to whites (Espiritu, 1997; Hill Collins, 2000). Once internalized,
controlling images provide the template by which subordinates make meaning of
their everyday lives (Pyke, 2000), develop a sense of self, form racial and gender
identities, and organize social relations (Osajima, 1993; Pyke & Dang in press).

89
For example, Chen (1998) found that Asian American women who joined
predominately white sororities often did so to distance themselves from images of
Asian femininity. In contrast, those who joined Asian sororities were often
surprised to find their ideas of Asian women as passive and childlike challenged
by the assertive, independent women they met. By internalizing the racial and
gendered myth making that circumscribes their social existence, subordinates do
not pose a threat to the dominant order (Pyke & Johnson, 2003). As Lorde (1984)
described, “the true focus of revolutionary change is never merely the oppressive
situations which we seek to escape, but that piece of the oppressor which is
planted deep within us” (p. 123).
As daughters of immigrants, Asian American women in this study are
more involved in both ethnic and mainstream cultures than are members of the
first generation. Disparities between ethnic and mainstream worlds can generate
substantial conflict for children of immigrants, including conflict around issues of
gender (Kibria, 1993; Zhou & Bankston, 1998). Pyke and Johnson (2003)
emphasize that despite cultural differences in the ideological justification of
patriarchy, gender inequality is the reality in both Asian and mainstream cultural
worlds.
The extent of gender inequality – differences between women and men in
access to rewards, resources, positions, rights, and privileges – varies greatly from
society to society, but in general men have greater access to the social perquisites
than women (Almquist, 1987). Theories of gender inequality (Blumberg, 1984;

90
Chafetz, 1984) focus on societal structures and processes that affect all types of
gender inequality among all men and women in society. Recent research on the
occupational attainments of women and men (Almquist forthcoming; Roos, 1985)
shows how gender inequality in jobs varies across societies as well. Almquist
(1987) states the racial and ethnic minorities compose important and relatively
distinct, smaller groups within the United States. Gender-related characteristics
of minority groups affect the level of gender inequality in occupational attainment
in diverse ways.
Almquist (1987) also contends that the specific level of gender inequality
within any group reflects both the amount of resources available and the way in
which these resources are distributed between men and women within the group.
Some groups have acquired markedly fewer resources than others. Within all
groups, men and women tend to share equally the goods and resources necessary
to ensure basic survival, but men tend to control surplus goods and resources and
use them to further enhance their advantaged position (Lenski, 1966). Almquist
found that gender inequality is greatest among the most affluent groups and
smallest among the most disadvantaged groups. Most affluent groups in
Almquist’s study are Whites and Asian Americans and the least being the
African-Americans, Native Americans, and Hispanics. Almquist concludes
minority and gender status intersect so that men monopolize surplus resources and
use these resources to secure a more advantaged labor market position including
higher education administration.

91
The narrowing of the gender gap may be due, in part, to the attention that
was drawn to the barriers women faced in attaining a position or advancing in
higher education administration (Opp & Gossetti, 1996). Much of the early
literature in this area suggested that the low representation of women in
administration was due to personal factors such as low self-confidence,
geographical limitations, and inadequate credentials (Mann & Smith, 1990).
Several publications, beginning in the 1980s, challenged those perspectives on
access and representation, providing an understanding of organizational and
cultural factors that created a “chilly campus climate” for women. Sandler and
Hall (1986), through the Association of American Colleges’ Project on the Status
of Education of Women, co-authored a series of papers on the chilly campus
climate for women.
Shavlik, Touchton, and Pearson (1988) addressed the need to correct
hiring inequities and provide supportive campus environment for women.
Shavlik and Touchton revisited the agenda in 1992, pointing out that the goals had
not changed, but that more progress was needed. They noted that 53% of all
students were women, yet only 12% of all CEOs of the institutions in which these
students studied were women. Defining campus climate as “those aspects of
institutional atmosphere and environment that foster or impeded women’s
personal, academic, and professional development” (p.49), they suggested that the
issues raised by Sandler and Hall in 1986 regarding behaviors, attitudes, policies,

92
and practices, had yet to be adequately addressed. As a result, women
administrators continue to be treated differently because of gender (Opp &
Gossetti, 1996).
In 1990s, there was a continuation of the literature on campus climate and
institutional context (Chliwniak, 1997; Svoboda & Crockett, 1996) and a focus on
issues of diversity. While gender continues to be a major focus on diversity
studies, attention is shifting to understanding gender in the context of specific
racial/ethnic groups (Gorena, 1996; Warner, 1995) and specific institutional
characteristics.
Some institutional environments historically have been more welcoming
of women administrators than others (Opp & Gossetti, 1996). The 2-year
institutions consistently have shown the largest proportional representation of
women CEOs over the past 25 years (Touchton & Ingram, 1995). These
institutions, along with women’s colleges and minority-serving institutions such
as historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs), share a commitment to
providing access and successful educational experiences to students who may
otherwise not be services (DiCroce, 1995; Harwarth, Maline, & DeBra, 1997;
Harvey & Williams, 1996). Institutions committed to inclusivity may tend to
create norms, policies, and practices that respect and support a climate affirming
of diversity not only for students, but for faculty and administrators as well (Opp
& Gossetti, 1996).

93
Opp and Gossetti (1996) stated that the literature on the status of women
administrators and on campus climate has been inconsistent in its reporting of
data on women of color and on integrating gender and race/ethnicity in the
discussion of equity. Ramey (1995), for example, lamented the lack of research
on Black women administrators noting that it may be due to the small number of
these women holding leadership positions in higher education administration. In
addition, attention to specific racial ethnic groups and specific institutional
characteristics has not found its way consistently into the analysis of national data
sets. The lack of comprehensive research or complete databases on women
administrators of color in higher education is disturbing, and limits the
understanding of the status of all women administrators in higher education.
The CEOs of institutions play a central role in shaping the norms, policies,
and practices that help create or ameliorate the chilly climate for women
administrators (Chliwniak, 1997). Chliwnick (1997) contends when women enter
these gatekeeper positions, they influence the structures and norms that create
barriers to the achievement of women in administration, opening doors to the
hiring of more women administrators. Hence, institutions with women CEOs
have experienced significant increases in their proportional representation of
women administrators (Gossetti & Opp, 2000). However, “a significant body of
literature tends to support the idea that problems related to the inclusion of
women in upper-level administrative work is more than simply a matter of hiring
additional women”(Tedrow & Rhoads, 1998, p. 5).

94
The positive effect that hiring a critical mass of women would have on the
development of a climate supportive of continued growth in the numbers of
women administrators, was addressed by Kanter (1977). According to Kanter,
once an organization achieved a critical mass of women at entry and mid-level
positions, the climate regarding the hiring and promotion of women to senior-
level positions would become more equitable. Research by Ely (1994), however,
refutes Kanter’s notion of a critical mass, noting that to change women’s token
status, a critical mass of women must exist at the senior administrative level.
These conflicting viewpoints may be addressed by examining the connections
between the presence of women in climate-changing, administrative roles and the
representation of women administrators in post-secondary institutions (Opp &
Gossetti, 1996). The conflict also may be addressed by examining the critical
mass of women faculty, a professional group not found in the organizational
worlds of management studied by Kanter (1977) and Ely (1994). If women in
senior leadership positions are successfully creating more welcoming campus
climates, it is likely to have more women administrators in institutions that are led
by women CEOs or where women faculty are found in the greatest numbers (Opp
& Gossetti, 1996). Consequently, the presence of these women will act as a
predictor of positive change in the proportional representation of women
administrators.

95
Minority women in higher education
Minority women in academe and higher education administration
experience various degrees of a chilly climate (Moore & Wagstaff, 1974) often
due to consistent and prevalent gender discrimination and sexual harassment
(Blum, 1991). Opportunities for promotion, tenure, salary equity, and networking
for minority women in higher education possess greater challenges in the work
environment and they may face “double discrimination” (Graves, 1990) or double
devaluation. Exclusion from mainstream decision-making and being used by the
institution as buffers with the minority community are often common factors of
how minority women feel dissatisfied with their work environment (Howard-
Hamilton & Williams, 1996). Sandler and Hall (1986) found that a chilly climate
may affect practices as they relate to hiring and promoting someone who is not
part of the dominant culture. Female faculty and administrators have lower
salaries than men who hold positions of equal rank, are more likely to hold lower
level positions, and are offered fewer promotions (Blum, 1991). Although more
women are aspiring to greater leadership positions within the university
administrative ranks, there still remains a glass ceiling (Glazer, Bensimon, &
Townsend, 1993; Sagaria, 1993; Touchton & Davis, 1991). Setting the findings
within the framework of Asian American women’s gatekeeping status in senior-
level positions and supportive campus climates may help determine where
institutions of higher education need to focus their efforts in the continued
promotion of equity in gender, race, and ethnicity.

96
Considerable socio-political changes external to the university community
necessitated changes within the walls of academe during the 1960s and 1970s
(Lindsay, 1999). Dramatic increases in the number of administrative and
professional staff members employed in higher education during the past twenty
years have resulted in increased attention to the composition of this burgeoning
group (Johnsrud, 1991). During this period of growth, equal opportunity and
affirmative action legislation prompted efforts to examine and improve the
numbers and status of women on administrative staff. Studies indicate women
administrators increased their representation by 3.5% from 1975 to 1979; they
were, however, hired less frequently, earned less, and held few different job titles
than men. Thus, although women experienced a modest improvement in access,
their increased access has not ensured equity (Opp & Gosetti, 2000).
As reiterated in chapter one, the dearth of research in the area of minority
women in leadership positions was a major deterrent to the progress of minority
women to uniquely contribute to the notions of leadership and power. “African
American, Hispanic, Asian, and Native American women are not only invisible in
the higher education profession but are also invisible in the related literature”
(Sagaria, 1988). Some critical studies have recently emerged, however, that shed
light not only on why there are so few minority women educational administrators
but that argue for more focused studies of each minority group as well (Montez,
1988). Singh et al (1995) criticize studies that have focused on women faculty
and administrators as having examined them as one group only and not having

97
examined differences based on race. Chliwniak (1997) notes the difficulty in
addressing issues of any minority women specifically given this catch-all
approach and the resultant lack of research or evidentiary data for reference.
Women, she reports, are generally underrepresented and this, therefore, explains
why minority and women from specific ethnic groups are very few in number.
More dismal statistics exist for minorities in higher education
administration (Howard-Hamilton & Williams, 1996). In 1987, minority men and
women combined held only 8% of all positions in higher education administration
(Touchton & Davis, 1991). This percentage reflects a critical decrease from 1985
in which the reported figure was 12% (Green, 1989). Howard-Hamilton and
Williams also found that minority women represented 10% of all female
administrators in 1987, whereas minority men represented 7% of all male
administrators. Moreover, minority women held only 2% of all administrative
dean positions in 1987. Minority women are most likely to be found in positions
such as directors of affirmative action/equal opportunity employment (they held
24% of all such positions in 1987), and next most likely to be found as directors
of financial aid and student counseling (they held 7% in each of these positions).
In the years between 1981 and 1991, there was little change in the relative
status of minority faculty or administrators, with the single exception of women,
with most of the change being among white women (Touchton & Davis, 1991).
The proportion of minority faculty increased slightly from 9% to 12% during
these years, against a greater increase in the overall minority population and

98
somewhat larger participation of minority students on campuses (Touchton &
Davis, 1991). Hamilton-Howard and Williams conclude that colleges and
universities seemed to be granting minorities access to a higher education,
however the degrees did not allow them opportunities to be part of the teaching or
administrative teams. I continue the review of literature with the concept of
social capital through the works of Stanton-Salazar, Dornbusch, Bourdieu,
Colman, Portes, Lin, and Granovetter.
Social Capital
Overview
I lay out a social capital framework for looking at minority women, Asian
American women in particular, and for understanding how Asian American
women, institutions, and communities are socially organized to reproduce social
inequality. I explore the concept of social capital, social reproduction theory, and
social networks in effort to better understand the unique population of Asian
American women that will continue to increase as a viable component of the U.S.
colleges and university system. The socialization process I identified
encompasses social networks, institutional support, and social-embeddedness —
all under the auspices of social capital.
From a social network perspective, the important of ties to institutional
agents is framed in terms of social capital (Stanton-Salazar & Dornbusch, 1995).
Social capital refers to social relationships from which an individual is potentially
able to derive institutional support, particularly support that includes the delivery

99
of knowledge-based resources. Supportive ties with institutional agents represent
a necessary condition for engagement and advancement in the educational system
and, ultimately, for success in the occupational structure (Stanton-Salazar, 1995).
Epidemiologists and community psychologists have shown that the seeking of
support is often extremely difficult. Researchers propose that the successful
development of supportive and profitable relationships with institutional agents is
closely related to students’ social consciousness, meaning those aspects of
personality shared with significant others and community members – aspects that
are rooted in and shaped by the experiences of community members within the
opportunity structure (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1977; Ogbu, 1991).
In the past two decades, network analytic researchers have provided
increasingly complex pictures of individual social networks to demonstrate that
these networks are “major providers of sociability, support, information, and a
sense of belonging” (Suitor, Wellman, & Morgan, 1997, p. 1). Examination of
network structural features has been a critical part of network analysis
(Granovetter, 1982; Burt, 1997). For example, network density looks at the
contact among members of an individual’s personal network while determining
the diversity of ties focuses on relationships beyond his or her immediate personal
cycle. Studying network features like density or diversity of ties underscores “the
embeddedness of social relationships within structural contexts that govern the
availability and ease of developing various kinds of social contacts” (Ibarra &
Smith-Lovin, 1997, p. 360). In the context of this study, the social capital

100
accessed through an individual’s social network within an academic
organizational culture and structure may significantly affect the career mobility of
junior administrators.
In Manufacturing hope and despair, Stanton-Salazar (1997) asserts that a
critical and network-analytic view of society sees individuals as deeply embedded
in social webs that, in turn, are interwoven within other webs, with these webs
further interwoven within ever larger webs or networks. At the nexus between
class, race, and gender stratification, people’s social relations and social
exchanges become manifest at the individual level as egocentric networks (i.e. the
micro level), at the community and institutional levels as cliques (i.e., the meso
level), and at the societal level as system networks (i.e., the macro level) (Rogers
& Kincaid, 1981; see also Brown, 1999). When applied to the study of social
inequality, this critical network approach gradually reveals what Wellman (1983)
calls the social distribution of possibilities, a term that refers to the unequal
distribution of opportunities for entering into different social and institutional
contexts and for forming relationships with agents who exert various degrees of
control over institutional resources, such as bureaucratic influence (advocacy),
career-related information, and opportunities for specialized training or
mentorship (Stanton-Salazar, 2001).
Plainly stated, working-class people and middle-class people are
embedded in quite different kinds of social networks. At the micro level, middle-
class people have what we may call cosmopolitan networks, a set of relationships

101
with a diverse constellation of people that translates into smooth access to the
mainstream marketplace (meso level), where privileges, institutional resources,
and opportunities for leisure, recreation, career mobility, and political
empowerment are abundant (Fischer, 1982; Patterson, 1998; Wellman, 1983).
The structural features of middle-class networks and cliques are analogous to
social freeways that Stanton-Salazar introduces that allow people to move about
the complex mainstream landscape quickly and efficiently. In many ways, they
function as pathways of privilege and power.
Stanton-Salazar further discerns that the very texture of an individual’s
daily existence is fundamentally shaped by structured and accumulated
opportunities for entering multiple institutional context s and forging relationships
with people who control resources and who generally participate in power. An
individual’s social class, racial assignment, and gender play a decisive role in
shaping these structured opportunities (2001). Access to institutional agents,
significant others, resources, and pathways across multiple institutional contexts
is a very messy business, as Stanton-Salazar stated, often requiring the
commanding, negotiating, and managing of many diverse and sometimes
conflicting social relationships and personalities. Again, an individual’s class,
race, ethnicity, and gender figure prominently.
The concept of social- embeddedness allows us to combine our focus on
structural constraints with an appreciation of the psychological orientations and
behavioral strategies people use to adapt to, negotiate with, and change certain

102
aspects of their social environments (Baca Zinn & Eitzen, 1999). The concept
also highlights how Asian American women and their social webs are subject to
the pull of various contradictory social, cultural, and ideological forces operating
to shape the structure, composition, and resourcefulness of these webs and shows
us how these students are active participants in this tug of war (Stanton-Salazar,
2001).
The concept of social network has been defined and described in many
different ways, for example, as a “social web” that connects people to each other
and that intertwines groups and communities into that integrated something we
call society (Stanton-Salazar, 2001). Social networks have also been conceived as
a “social support system,” that web of relations that keeps us economically afloat
as well as resilient and healthy, and that ultimately sustains our humanity. They
have been conceived as “social freeways,” permitting privileged people to move
about the complex mainstream landscape quickly and efficiently. They have been
theorized as “conduits” and “pipelines” through which resources, privileges, and
opportunities flow to certain groups and individuals.
The critical role of significant others in status attainment continues to be
interpreted mainly in functionalist terms. Boissevain (1974) attributes individual
networks as the “chains of persons with whom a given person is in actual contact,
and their interconnection” (p. 24). He identifies the relationships an individual
has direct contact with as the first order or primary network zone. Stanton-
Salazar & Spina’s (2000) review of research on minority youth and their mental

103
health suggests the ability to “manage conflictive cultural domains while
maintaining psychological well-being appear to strongly imply a network
orientation that strives for a crucial structural balance” (p. 244). Influenced by
Muriel Hammer’s model on personal well-being that suggests the need for both
supportive emotional ties and access to other diverse resources, Stanton-Salazar &
Spina (2000) recognize the utility of relationships that are close-knit and
interconnected as well as “non-intimate ties via participation in a variety of
distinctive group and social circles” (p. 245).
Social capital may be defined as social relationship from which an
individual is potentially able to derive various types of institutional resources and
support (Stanton-Salazar & Dornbusch, 1995). It is also defined as an investment
and use of embedded resources in social relations for expected returns (Lin,
2000). Through her research, Lin (2000) concludes that social groups (gender,
race) have different access to social capital because of their advantaged or
disadvantaged structural positions and associated social networks. Stanton-
Salazar (2001) confines the characterization of social capital to the degree and
quality of middle-class forms of social support inherent in a young persons’
interpersonal network. He also emphasizes those forms of support that represent
authentic counterstratification — including forms of support that foster coping
strategies characterized in terms of the problem-solving capacities, network
orientations, and instrumental behaviors that are directed toward successfully
dealing with stressful border and institutional barriers (Stanton-Salazar, 1997).

104
Stanton-Salazar conceptualizes these forms of support in terms of institutional
support, highlighting 6 specific forms: a) funds of knowledge, b) bridging, c)
advocacy, d) role modeling, e) emotional and moral support, and f) personalized
and soundly-based evaluative feedback advice and guidance.
In what follows I define social capital, explore functions and issues
embedded in the concept, and conclude with implications for practice and future
research.
Theory of Social Capital
In the past two decades, social capital in its various forms and contexts has
emerged as one of the most salient concepts in social sciences (Lin, 1999).
Furthering this trend, a good deal of scholarly interest and research focusing on
social integration processes within the school and community has been emerging.
Disseminated by a number of policy-oriented journals and general circulation
magazines, social capital has evolved into something of a cure-all for the maladies
affecting society at home and abroad (Portes, 1998). While much excitement has
been generated, divergent views, perspectives, and expectations have also raised
the serious question: is it a fad or does it have unwavering qualities that will
presage a new intellectual enterprise?
The very texture of an individual’s daily existence (and ultimately, his or
her life chances) is fundamentally shaped by structured and accumulated
opportunities for entering multiple institutional contexts and forging relationships
with people who control resources and who generally participate in power

105
(Stanton-Salazar, 2001). An individual’s social class, racial assignment, and
gender play a decisive role in shaping these structured opportunities.
Concomitantly, opportunities, or the systematic blockage of these, prompt
individual and group-based initiatives, further argues Stanton-Salazar (2001). For
low-status people, such initiatives often involve exchanging social support with
significant others in the extended family and community (Jarrett, 1995; Stack,
1974; Zavella, 1987). Smooth access to middle-class institutional agents,
however, is another issue. Stanton-Salazar (2001) emphasizes that in reality,
access to institutional agents, significant others, resources, and pathways across
multiple institutional contexts is a very messy business, often requiring the
commanding, negotiating, and managing of many diverse (and sometimes
conflictive) social relationships and personalities.
The premise behind the notion of social capital is rather simple and
straightforward: investment in social relations with expected returns (Lin, 1999).
This general definition is consistent with various renditions by all scholars who
have contributed to the discussion (Bourdieu, 1983/1986; Bourdieu, 1980; Burt,
1992; Coleman, 1988; Erickson, 1995; Lin, 1995; Portes, 1998; Putnam, 1993).
Social capital theory can be sources to the works of three main authors—James
Coleman, Robert Putnam and Pierre Bourdieu. Coleman’s (1988, 1990, & 1992)
interpretation of the concept is the most frequently cited in the educational

106
literature. For Coleman, social capital exists in the structure of relations between
individuals and is thus largely intangible. Individuals engage in interactions and
networking in order to produce profits.
Lin (1999) introduces four elements in social networking. First, it
facilitates the flow of information. Second, these social ties may exert influence
on the agents who play a critical role in decisions involving the actor. Third,
social tie resources, and their acknowledged relationships to the individual, may
be conceived by the organization or its agents as certifications of the individual’s
social credentials, some of which reflect the individual’s accessibility to
resources through social networks and relations—his/her social capital. Fourth,
social relations are expected to reinforce identity and recognition. Being assured
and recognized of one’s worthiness as an individual and a member of a social
group sharing similar interests and resources not only provides emotional support
but also public acknowledgement of one’s claim to certain resources. Lin (1999)
furthers that these reinforcements are essential for the maintenance of mental
health and the entitlement to resources. These four elements—information,
influence, social credentials and reinforcement—may explain why social capital
works in instrumental and expressive actions not accounted for by forms of
personal capital such as economic capital or human capital.
Putnam’s (1993, 1995) theory of social capital has functionalist roots also
but it is furthermore influenced by notions of pluralism and communitarianism.
His central thesis is that a well functioning regional economy together with a high

107
level of political integration are the result of that region’s capacity to successfully
amass social capital. According to Putnam, social capital here has three
components: a) moral obligations and norms, b) social values (particularly trust)
and c) social networks (especially the membership of voluntary associations).
These forms of social capital are central to the promotion of civil communities
and civil society in general. The productive activity of social capital is manifest
in its capacity to “facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit”
(Putnam, 1995, p. 2). While there are some counter trends, the general conclusion
is that social capital is being eroded. Accordingly, Putnam makes a direct link
between levels of civil engagement and a community’s capacity to tackle social
and economic problems such as unemployment, poverty, educational non-
participation, and crime. Taking Coleman’s and Putnam’s positions together, the
general accord is that social capital constitutes positive social control.
Bourdieu’s (1977a, b) main distinction is his belief that social capital
operates as a tool of cultural reproduction in explaining unequal educational
achievement. This theory has strong socio-cultural roots which locate the
educational experiences of individuals dialectically through their social and
material history. Unlike the structuralist approaches of Coleman and Putnam, this
theory challenges deficit thinking about underachievement and differentiates
resources from their distribution within the social structure. Bourdieu’s theory
proffers socio-cultural explanations for why under-represented groups remain
excluded from the educational process. It achieves this by expanding upon an

108
analysis of cultural barriers to participation and relating subsequent investigations
to actors’ own lived experiences. Such a constructivist approach is consistent
with my own teaching and research method. Bourdieu introduces three key
theoretical concepts on social capital: habitus, capitals, and fields.
First, the concept of habitus explains how objective structures and
subjective perceptions impact upon human action. It is a set of regulatory
schemes of thought and action, which are to some extent, a product of prior
experience. Habitus constitutes “a set of durable, transposable dispositions”
which regulates mental activity to the point where individuals are often
unconsciously aware of their influence (Bourdieu, 1977a, p. 72). In essence,
habitus is a way of explaining how social and cultural messages shape
individuals’ thoughts and actions.
The concept of capital is subdivided into economic, social, cultural, and
symbolic categories. Economic capital refers to income and other financial
resources and assets. Social capital exists as a set of lasting social relations,
networks, and contacts. This concept is further explored and critically analyzed
later chapter four and five. Cultural capital comes in three forms—objectified,
embodied, and institutionalized (O’Brien & Ó Fathaigh, 2005). Each form serves
as “instruments for the appropriation of symbolic wealth socially designated as
worthy of being south and possessed” (Bourdieu, 1977a in Rudd, 2003, p. 54).
The objectified form is manifest in such items as books, qualifications,
computers; the embodied form is connected to the educated character of

109
individuals, such as accent and learning dispositions; and the institutionalized
form represents the places of learning one may attend. Symbolic capital explains
the ways in which capitals are perceived in the social structure e.g. the status
value attached to certain books, values, and/or places of learning.
The concept of fields relates to a structure space of forces and struggles,
consisting of an ordered system and an identifiable network of relationships that
impact upon the habitus of individuals. Education is thus regarded as a field since
it sets its own rules that regulate behavior within. Bourdieu claims that as certain
individuals enter the field, they are more aware of the rules of the game and/or
have greater capacity to manipulate these rules through their established capital
appropriation. Those individuals with prior qualifications or strong occupational
and social status are among those who may be categorized in this manner.
Social capital is a complex phenomenon. Unlike its common
representation as a linear model where ‘more social capital equals more adult
learning’, Field (1999) reminds that social capital can also inhibit participation in
learning. References to social capital in the research literature are often couched
in positive terms and are the result of an intuitive understanding that emergent
findings are thought or felt to be true (O’Brien & Ó Fathaigh, 2005). Dika and
Singh’s (2002, p. 36-40) research review of social capital illustrates this point
well. They note that from the period 1996-2001 the vast majority of studies
consisted of research designs in the Coleman tradition. Indicators of social capital
were all shown to be positively related to conventional measures of educational

110
attainment. Significantly, only a few studies incorporated Bourdieu’s
interpretation of social capital (Lareau, 2000; Valenzuela & Dornbusch, 1994).
Lin (1999) argues that two perspectives can be identified relative to the
level at which return or profit is conceived—whether the profit is accrued for the
group or for the individuals. In one perspective, the focus is on the use of social
capital by individuals—how individuals access and use resources embedded in
social networks to gain returns in instructional actions or preserve gains in
expressive actions. Burt (1984; 1997), Lin (1999; 2000), De Graaf (1986; 1988),
and Portes (1996; 1998) are representative scholars for this concept.
Another perspective has its focus on social capital at the group level, with
discussions dwelling on (1) how certain groups develop and maintain more or less
social capital as a collective asset, and (2) how such a collective asset enhances
group members’ life chances. While acknowledging the essentiality of
individuals interacting and networking in developing payoffs of social capital, the
central interest of this perspective is to explore the elements and processes in the
production and maintenance of the collective asset. Bourdieu, Coleman, and
Putnam are exemplary in this concept. Whether social capital is seen from the
societal-group level or the relational level, all scholars remain committed to the
view that it is the interacting members who make the maintenance and
reproduction of this social asset possible.

111
One major controversy generated from individual versus group
perspectives is whether social capital is collective goods or individual goods
(Portes, 1998). Most scholars agree that it is both collective and individual goods;
that is, institutionalized social relations with embedded resources are expected to
be beneficial to both the collective and the individuals in the collective. Another
controversy is the assumed or expected requirement that there is closure or
density in social relations and social networks (Bourdieu, 1986; Coleman, 1990;
Putnam, 1993). Bourdieu, from his class perspective, sees social capital as the
investment of the members in the dominant class (as a group or network)
engaging in mutual recognition and acknowledgement so as to maintain and
reproduce group solidarity and preserve the group’s dominant position. A third
controversy that requires clarification is Coleman’s statement that social capital is
any “social-structured resource” that generates returns for an individual in a
specific action. He remarks that “social capital is defined by its function” and “it
is not a single entity, but a variety of different entities having two characteristics:
They all consist of some aspect of a social structure, and they facilitate certain
actions of individuals who are within the structure” (1990, p. 302). This
“functional” view may implicate a tautology: social capital is identified when and
if it works; the potential causal explanation of social capital can only be captured
by its effect, or whether it is an investment depends on the return for a specific
individual in a specific action. Thus, the cause factor is defined by the effect
factor.

112
These controversies and debates lead to the suggestion that social capital,
as a concept, is rooted in social networks and social relations, and must be
measured relative to its root (Lin, 1999). Therefore, social capital is defined as
resources embedded in a social structure which are accessed and/or mobilized in
purpose actions. Lin (1999) concludes by this definition, the notion of social
capital contains three ingredients: resources embedded in a social structure;
accessibility to such social resources by individuals; and use or mobilization of
such social resources by individuals in purposive actions. Thus conceived, social
capital contains three elements intersecting structure and action: the structural
(embeddedness), opportunity (accessibility) and action-oriented (use) aspects.
Functions of Social and Cultural Capital
Social and cultural capital, along with other forms of capital such as
economic, physical, technological, informational, and human operate in schools
and other settings to mediate the social reproduction in inequality (Bourdieu,
1977a, 1977b; Bourdieu & Passeron, 1977; Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992;
Coleman, 1988; Edwards & Foley, 1998; Fernández Kelly, 1995; Granovetter,
1982, 1985; Lamont & Lareau, 1988; Lareau, 1987, 2000; Portes, 1998, 2000;
Reay, 1999; Stanton-Salazar, 2001; Teachman et al, 1997; White & Glick, 2000;
Monkman et al, 2005). The various forms of capital tend to reflect and reproduce
stratification patterns in a class-based society such as the United States; as such

113
they are implicated in the processes that enable or prevent acquisition of
economic resources and determine one’s position in the socioeconomic structure
of society (Monkman et al, 2005).
Social and cultural capital are recognized and defined differently
depending on the context (Astone, Nathanson, Shoen, & Kim, 1999; Lareau,
2000; Portes, 1998). Social capital relates to the resources developed through
participation in social networks and the activation or magnification of those
resources for social benefit (Bourdieu, 1977a, 1977b, 1986; Portes & Landolt,
1996). Coleman (1988) explains that social capital inheres in the structure of
relations of authority, trust, and norms between and among persons; that it can be
accumulated and decreased; and that it is somewhat fungible — it can be
exchanged for other forms of capital on a limited basis.
Three basic functions of social capital are evident in the literature: (a) as a
source of social control; (b) as a source of family support; (c) as a source of
benefits through extrafamilial networks (Portes, 1998, p. 9). Most theorists agree
that social capital is composed of three distinct elements: form, norms of
obligation and reciprocity, and resources (McNeal, 1999). Form refers to the
nature of and structural aspects of social ties and relations, the breadth of the
network, the depth of intensity of the relations, and the existence of structural
holes. Shared norms and values can result in feelings of trust, obligation, and
actions of reciprocity. Resources include access to additional social networks,
relationships, information, language, money, physical goods, and the like.

114
Relationships within social networks can be characterized in two dimensions: the
strength of ties (strong or weak) and the shape or direction of the relationships
(horizontal or vertical). Weak or strong ties relate to the degree of intimacy
among individuals (Granovetter, 1973, 1982, 1985; Portes, 1998). Granovetter
(1973) suggested that weak ties can increase the likelihood or access to
institutional resources and opportunities. However, other researchers feel that
strong ties function as a better conduit for the sharing of cultural and economic
resources (see Portes’ [1998, pp. 12-13] discussion of this opposite perspective,
the strength of strong ties). Horizontal ties are those among social equals, and
vertical ties link people to others differently situated.
Monkman et al (2005) assert that gaining increased access (usually
through vertical ties) to differentiated, more highly valued cultural and social
capital is how social reproduction processes can be weakened. The authors
contend that social norms of obligation and reciprocity are what guides the
relations and interactions whereby resources are acquired and transferred and
capital is negotiated. Theses norms refer to the unspoken rules and ways of
behaving. Formal institutions — schools included — “are important builders (or
destroyers) of social capital” (Warner, 1999, p. 384). Furthermore, schools’ links
with their broader communities are often weak, and their efforts to develop social
capital are usually “designed to enhance their clients’ involvement within their
established system” (Warner, 1999, p. 384).

115
Social and cultural capital are affected by each other and by the resources
of economic, physical, technological or informational, and human capital
(Bourdieu & Coleman, 1991; Flora, 1998; Granovetter, 1985; Portes, 1998). To
explain how social capital is related to other forms of capital, Granovetter (1985)
introduced the concept of embeddedness, explaining that social relationships and
networks underlie the transfer, accumulation, or diminishment of other capitals.
Cultural capital is acquired through social networks when one invests his or her
social capital (Monkman et al, 2005). At the same time, investment of cultural
capital is needed to acquire social capital (Portes, 1998); that is, one must
demonstrate membership through appropriate use of cultural resources and
knowledge to gain entry.
However, the possession of cultural or social resources does not
automatically result in activation of social and cultural capital, or in the ability to
use that capital to gain benefits. Capital must be activated, and one must choose
to invest; the process is not a given (Lareau & Horvat, 1999). Lareau and
colleagues (Lamont & Lareau, 1988; Lareau & Horvat, 1999, p. 39) suggested
that a focus on “moments of social inclusion and social exclusion: is important in
examining how people activate cultural capital. I agree as a teacher that the
actions of the dominant parties—teachers and administrators in school settings—
are important for understanding how and where spaces are created for the
strengthening (or undermining) of cultural and social capital for students from
dominated segments of society.

116
The concepts of social and cultural capital explain how inequality is
reproduced in schools and high-status cultural practices and knowledge, and
access to these through elite social networks become the indications through
which success is recognized and rewarded (Teachman et al, 1997). However, it is
in the dynamics of negotiating social and cultural capital that processes of social
reproduction can potentially be upset and derailed. Monkman and her colleagues
(2005) assert that urban schooling and language minority students have been the
focus of an impressive amount of research, some of which is informed by
theoretical paradigms that recognize processes of social reproduction. At the
same time, others look at processes of social change or cultural production as
attempts to acknowledge agency and recognize possibilities for increased equity
(Levinson & Holland, 1996). A recent resurgence of interest in social and
cultural capital acknowledges the reproductive tendencies of schools but also
looks to processes of change and equity (Lamont & Lareau, 1988; Lareau &
Horvat, 1999; Olneck, 2000; Stanton-Salazar, 2001; Teachman, Paasch, &
Carver, 1997).
This study contributes to the small but growing literature on the
contextualized processes involving social and cultural capital for minority
women. Unlike this study, many of the studies on social and cultural capital
examine class dimensions within dominant segments of society. In addition,
many studies document who has what types of capital as represented by a limited
number of elite cultural practices (De Graaf, De Graaf, & Kraaykamp, 2000; P.

117
M. De Graaf, 1986; DiMaggio, 1982; DiMaggio & Mohr, 1985; McNeal, 1999;
Teachman et al, 1997; Wong, 1998); although these are relevant constructs in elite
strata of society, capital depends on setting (Lareau & Horvat, 1999), so it is
important to examine particular settings.
Social reproduction is a jagged and uneven process that is continually
negotiated by the social actors involved (Monkman et al, 2005; Lareau & Horvat,
1999). Because of this jagged, uneven process there remain possibilities for
upsetting the reproduction processes to some degree, making it possible for some
changing definitions of what counts (Olneck, 2000) as capital and for enabling
more inclusiveness (Monkman et al, 2005). The focus on social actors and the
ambiguities of their actions and understandings point to possibilities of how
agency can limit or transform social reproduction processes. Olneck (2000)
illustrates how multicultural education, for example, can (but may not) change
what counts as cultural capital due to (a) the close relationship of school-based
cultural capital and other types of capital (which are not necessarily influenced by
multicultural education), (b) the ways that dominant classes limit possibilities for
the redefinitions of cultural capital, and (c) the contradictory; ways in which
multiculturalism works at redistributing cultural capital. Scholars and
practitioners are guided by a desire to explore how these can potentially alter
patterns of inequity by broadening access and inclusiveness and changing what
counts instead of perpetuating the stratification that they know too well.
Monkman and her colleagues (2005) reaffirm the importance of school success

118
for social mobility (including access to opportunities to make an adequate living,
among other quality-of-life dynamics) and the significance of examining social
and cultural capital in school settings.
As affirmed by researchers previously, social capital may be defined as
social relationship from which an individual is potentially able to derive various
types of institutional resources and support and it is also defined as an investment
and use of embedded resources in social relations for expected returns. I now
examine how social capital affects the politics within the higher education
administration and how the politics affect minority women, particularly Asian
American women, in the leadership roles. I begin with the notion of glass ceiling.
Politics
Glass ceiling
Women and racial minorities are thought to face particular disadvantages
in managerial and professional settings (Lee, 2002). Persistent and even widening
gaps in earnings, slower rates of promotion, and truncated career ladders suggest
that a glass ceiling exists for women and racial minorities (Lee, 2002). The term
glass ceiling refers to “those artificial barriers based on attitudinal or
organizational bias that prevent qualified individuals from advancing upward in
their organization into management-level positions” (U.S. Department of Labor,
1991, p. 1). And it is 10 years since the American government’s specially
appointed Glass Ceiling Commission published its recommendations (Economist,
2005). In 1995, the Commission stated that the barrier was continuing “to deny

119
untold numbers of qualified people the opportunity to compete for and hold
executive level positions in the private sector.” The Commission (1995) reported
that women had 45.7% of America’s workforce and had less than 8% of its top
managers, although at big Fortune 500 companies the figure is slightly higher.
Female manager’s earnings now average 72% of their male colleagues according
to the report.
Similarly, Booz Allen Hamilton, a consulting firm that monitors departing
chief executives in America, found that 0.7% of them were women in 1998, and
0.7% of them were women in 2004. In other countries the picture is similar
according to Booz Allen Hamilton report (2004). The glass-ceiling phenomenon
is proving persistent. The top of the corporate ladder remains stubbornly male,
and the few women who reach it are paid significantly less than the men that they
join there (Economist, 2005). This is despite the fact that companies are trying
harder than ever to help women to climb higher. Diversity programs aimed at
promoting minorities as well as women are becoming more pronounced.
Formerly male clubs such as IBM, GE, and British Petroleum have appointed
senior executives to be in charge of diversity. The three firms were the unlikely
join sponsors of a recent conference on “Women in Leadership.” Such companies
no longer see the promotion of women solely as a moral issue of equal
opportunity and equal pay. They have been persuaded of the business case for
diversity. Catalyst, an American organization that aims to expand “opportunities

120
for women and business,” conducted a research study and found a strong
correlation between the number of women in top executive positions and financial
performance among Fortune 500 companies between 1996 and 2000.
Does a glass ceiling exist in higher education? The U.S. education system
is founded on the principle of meritocracy (Lee, 2002). Generations of Americans
have looked to colleges and universities to improve themselves. The role of
higher education has become more important in recent years as employers
demand a better-educated work force to remain competitive in a rapidly changing
global economy. Consequently, the college and university student populations are
expanding. The participation of women and racial minorities in higher education
has grown in recent years as various databases indicate. Higher education may
avoid more egregious effects of the glass ceiling because it is strongly premised
on the principle of meritocracy (Lee, 2002). However, previous studies show that
higher education has not entirely avoided the glass ceiling. A glass ceiling may
be operating to prevent qualified women and racial minorities from achieving
their potential as researchers, administrators, and faculty members in higher
education.
A glass ceiling hypothesis is drawn from theoretical perspectives that
traditionally have informed sociological analysis of prejudice and discrimination
in the labor market (Lee, 2002). These perspectives explain the negative effects
in the labor market, or the costs, or being female or a member of racial minority
or possessing some other characteristic. According to dual or split labor market

121
theories (Boswell, 1986; Cheng & Bonacich, 1984; Doeringer & Piore, 1971;
Feagin & Feagin, 1986), Caucasian women and minorities traditionally have been
segregated in the peripheral sector of the dual labor market. Competition for
preferred jobs meant the construction of institutional barriers that excluded
particular groups from the core sector and resulted in segregation of powerless
workers in a limited secondary labor market. Once such exclusionary barriers are
in place, their effects tend to endure and to expand even when social changes
render the barriers illegal.
A history of excluding Caucasian women and racial minorities from the
primary labor market makes their absence normative (Lee, 2002). As Caucasian
women and minorities begin to gain access to the primary labor market, for
example, securing jobs as professionals, managers, and faculty, they are perceived
and treated as outsiders who do not belong in occupational sectors that were the
exclusive domain of the privileged group. A glass ceiling describes barriers and
experiences that can be interpreted as an aspect or a legacy of the split labor
market. Lee (2002) asserts if there is a glass ceiling in higher education, Asian
Americans are likely to experience it because of their status and history as racial
minorities in segmented labor markets.
Gender and race are among numerous ascribed statuses that individuals
are born with, yet not all of one’s ascribed statuses become the basis for bias in
the labor market (Lee, 2002). In the case of racially differentiated labor markets,
it is necessary to turn to theories of racial stratification for explanations of race

122
and the glass ceiling. Racial inequality characterizes societies with histories of
racial exploitation and domination of one racial group over others (Lee, 2002).
Racist ideology premised on the superiority of one race over others has often
combined with political and economic competition to produce and rationalize a
system of racial stratification (Blauner, 1972; Boswell, 1986; Gordon, 1975;
Wilson, 1973). In the United States, indigenous and non-European groups were
historically subordinate to the dominant European-origin population, resulting in
the racialization of American institutions and culture (Omi & Winant, 1994).
Cultural values, norms, and beliefs, in turn, influence the socialization of most
individuals, leading to social distance between dominant and minority races. For
example, while the U.S. population is becoming more racially diverse, the main
racial groups continue to be significantly segregated from one another in many
ways, including housing, religion, and marriage (Lee, 2002). Thus, even if social
norms and conditions have changed such that laws now prohibit racial
discrimination, long-standing organizational practices and individual attitudes
(sometimes unrecognized and therefore unacknowledged) may continue to
operate as a glass ceiling against racial minorities, including Asian Americans
(Lee, 2002).
Lee (2002) concludes that the glass ceiling can therefore be viewed as an
indicator of unfinished gender and racial business in U.S. society. Although a
concept of a glass ceiling is not a theory of gender or racial discrimination, it is
related to theories of racial and gender stratification and labor market

123
differentiation that highlight the role of race and gender in the political, cultural,
and economic history of the United States. It describes a situation of racial or
gender inequality that has extensive and deep roots (Lee, 2002).
Some researchers have studied the glass ceiling in connection with Asian
Americans in non-academic contexts. Woo (1999) provides a comprehensive
discussion of how cultural stereotypes and institutional barriers have operated to
constrain occupational choices for Asian Americans. The glass ceiling has also
prevented equal promotion and rewards for Asian Americans in the labor market.
The Federal Glass Ceiling Commission (1995) reported evidence of glass ceiling
barriers against Asian Americans, based on analysis of census data and qualitative
data from focus groups. Tang (1993) compared Caucasian and Asian engineers
and found large disparities in earnings and promotion rates into managerial
positions. The experience of college-educated Asian Indians in the private sector
was the focus of Fernandez’s (1998) analysis. Her findings also support the glass
ceiling hypothesis: Asian Indians, both men and women, are disadvantaged in
their opportunities for promotion to management.
In a comparison of Asian and Caucasian household incomes that did not
set out to directly test the glass ceiling hypothesis, Lee and Edmonton (1994)
found evidence of a penalty associated with being Asian. Except for Japanese
Americans, all other Asian American households had lower incomes that
Caucasian households, with a series of explanatory variables held constant.

124
Other researchers have reported differentials in earnings and career achievement
between Caucasians and Asians despite comparable qualifications and human
capital (Barringer, Takeuchi, & Xenos, 1990; Hirschman & Wong, 1984; Nee &
Sanders, 1985).
A review of previous research therefore confirms the existence of
economic and employment disadvantages experience by Asian Americans in a
variety of settings, which can be interpreted as consistent with the glass ceiling
hypothesis. However, there are no previous analyses of the possibility of a glass
ceiling for Asian Americans in higher education. There are several reasons why
such an analysis is both timely and necessary. During the last two decades, Asian
Americans have been the fastest-growing racial minority in the United States, as
mentioned earlier in this study. Unlike other racial minorities, Asian Americans
have high levels of schooling, and their participation in higher education exceeds
their share of the national population (Lee, 2002). Whereas Asian Americans
make up less than 3% of the U.S. population, they earned more than 8% of the
doctorates conferred by the institutions of higher education in the United States in
1994-95 (National Center for Education Statistics, 1997a). Such aggregate
statistics have often been used to support the image of Asian Americans as model
minorities with few problems which was discussed earlier. The exceptionally
high investment in education by Asian Americans highlights the importance of
research into the consequences of such achievements.

125
The U. S. higher education system is changing in dramatic ways. Higher
education is among the most important means of upward social mobility in U.S.
society (Lee, 2002). As with other social institutions, however, the U.S. higher
education system may function in ways that prevent certain groups from attaining
full and equal participation. Until the advent of civil rights legislation beginning
in the 1950s, racial minorities and poor people had a much more difficult time
gaining access to higher education. Recognizing that institutional barriers exist to
prevent particular groups from equal access and opportunity has led to a growing
body of research literature on the glass ceiling. Given the lack of research on the
glass ceiling and on Asian Americans in academe, this study will provide new and
useful baseline findings. Superimposing the issues of glass ceiling is the identity
of these Asian American women.
Bargaining
Women maximize resources within patriarchal systems through various
strategies (Collier, 1974; di Leonardo, 1987; Wolf, 1972). Kandiyoti (1988)
suggested that women’s strategies reveal the blueprint of what she calls the
“patriarchal bargain,” that is, the ways in which women and men negotiate and
adapt to the set of rules that guide and constrain gender relations. The notion of
“bargaining with patriarchy” suggests that both men and women possess
resources with which they negotiate to maximize power and options within a

126
patriarchal structure (Kibria, 1990). The bargaining is asymmetric, for as long as
patriarchy is maintained, women’s power and options will be less than those of
men in the same group.
Kibria (1990) adds that the analysis of women’s strategies, with its
potential to reveal processes of negotiation between men and women, may also
shed light on the dynamics of change in gender relations. Social transformations,
such as those implied by modernization and migration, often entail important
shifts in the nature and scope of resources available to women and men
(Lamphere, 1987; Pessar, 1984). A period of intense renegotiation between
women and men may thus ensue, as new bargains based on new resources are
struck (Lamphere, 1987). Indeed, the fundamental rules of the previous system of
gender relations may come into question, as the social worlds of men and women
undergo change. However, when patriarchal structures remain in place despite
certain changes, limited transformations in the relations between women and men
may occur without deep shifts in men’s power and authority.
Kibria’s study of Vietnamese immigrant women on their power,
patriarchy, and gender conflicts provides much insight into how Asian American
women in this study have encountered and coped with the issues both in personal
and professional setting. Settlement in the United States has increased
opportunities for the growth of Asian American women’s power because their
economic contributions to the family economy have grown while those of men
have declined (Kibria, 1990). Women use their new resources to cope more

127
effectively with male authority in the family. However, male authority is not
openly challenged. Because there are important advantages for women in
maintaining the old “bargain” between men and women, the Vietnamese women
have tried to maintain the patriarchal family structure. The traditional Vietnamese
family was modeled on Confucian principles like many other Asian families
(Kibria, 1990). In the ideal model, households were extended, and the family was
structured around the patrilineage or the ties of the male descent line (Keyes,
1977; Marr, 1976). Women were married at a young age and then entered the
household of their husband’s father. The young bride had minimal status and
power in the household until she produced sons (Johnson, 1983; Kandiyoti, 1988;
Lampehre, 1974; Wolf, 1972).
The assimilation of the Asian American families into dominant American
economic and social structures may indicate a major shift from the traditional
Asian patriarchal family system that seemingly liberates women economically
and socially. However, gender relations must be understood as highly uneven and
shifting in quality, often resulting in gains for women in certain spheres and losses
in others, as illuminated later in this study through the lens of the Asian American
women who represent various generations of Asian immigrants.
As a minority female aspiring to enter the world of American higher
education administration, I began to study the socialization process of minorities
in the school setting. I explored how social network analysis might help me to
better articulate the various and simultaneous ways class, gender, race, and ethnic

128
forces affect the daily lives of minority women in leadership positions in higher
education, particularly in the development of relationships and social support
systems. As such, as mentioned earlier, I paid close attention to the vexing
problem of “internalized oppression,” or in terms conveyed by Bourdieu, how the
dominated always contribute to their own domination (Bourdieu, 1986).
Moreover, to reiterate, a dearth of research on Asian female administrators
in higher education setting furthered my interest in finding out what exactly is the
socialization process for this unique group. Borrowing from Stanton-Salazar’s
Manufacturing Hope and Despair, conceptualization of social capital in his
landmark study on Latino adolescents and their social development, it is evident
how healthy human development and school success depend on regular
opportunities for constructing supportive relationships with various significant
others and agents across key institutional arenas. Regardless of the community
under study, families, institutions, peers, neighbors, and community agents all
play a significant role in the development of social network for minority women
(Stanton-Salazar, 2001). One of the community agents is the organization, in the
case of the women in this study, it is the university.
Organization
University Structure and Culture
The University Structure/Culture component represents a structure that
ideologically underemphasizes social relationships as necessary for tenure and
promotion (due to the prevailing myth of meritocracy), yet formally requires their

129
presence and the development of networks in the review process (i.e., outside
review letters, collegiality) (Lee, 2003). The ideals and values embedded within
an academic culture are predominantly based on a male, Anglo-Protestant
worldview (Chesler & Crowfoot, 1997; Bonilla-Silva & Lewis, 1996; Lewis
1998; Margolis & Romero, 1998; Gainen & Boice, 1993).
Participation in academia requires an accurate deciphering of the “rules”
based on a dominant worldview with regard to behavior and practices within
university culture (Margolis & Romero, 1998; Bourdieu, 1986). These rules must
be negotiated in the context of the women administrators’ location and status
within the organizational structure; underrepresented administrators must contend
with these rules as well as other challenges attendant with outsider status (e.g.
learning a new discourse, maintaining cultural identities within a different cultural
environment, dealing with exclusion) (Lee, 2003).
If a successful career in academic requires social interaction, both to meet
specific tenure requirements and for general professional engagement, then the
transmission of values, discourse, and behavior can occur through relational ties.
Consequently, females and minority administrators who are not generally aware
of these dominant cultural cues must develop resourceful ties to educate them for
membership. The ability to develop and access instrumental social ties and
capitalize on these relationships would be important to positively cope with
potentially conflicting identities, values, and practices for marginalized
administrators.

130
Successful coping mechanisms might allow non-majority administrators to
problem-solve and seek support to become part of the institution. Conversely,
constantly dealing with stressful exclusionary borders may push underrepresented
administrators to cope in ways that do not allow them to effectively deal with
institutional barriers. This may result in avoidance or rejection of potentially
instrumental relationships or resources; the outcome of this coping strategy could
minimize their chances for promotion. In this study, I follow Stanton-Salazar’s
suggestion that effective coping behavior can be understood in terms of the
“problem-solving capacities, network orientations, and instrumental behaviors
that are directed toward dealing with stressful borders and institutional barriers”
(Stanton-Salazar, 1997, p. 26). A part of the successful coping processes is
related to an individual’s help-seeking orientation, which I discuss later in this
chapter. At this juncture, I will now elaborate on member identity and the rules of
the university within the context.
Rules of the Game
Lamont and Lareau (1988) contend cultural capital (e.g., dominant
attitudes, preferences, formal knowledge and behaviors) as having the “power to
shape other people’s lives through exclusion and symbolic imposition” noting its
ability to legitimize specific organizational norms and practices, thereby
“institutionalizing these claims [norms and practices] to regulate behavior and
access to resources” (p. 159). In other words, rules (informal and formal) serve to

131
“specify the schemas or procedures for both how people are to be arranged
hierarchically and how resources and privileges are to be distributed—primarily
by class, gender, and by race” (Stanton-Salazar, 2002).
Member Identity and Status
Borrowing from Lee’s concepts on the role of race and gender in academic
promotion, the ability to decipher hidden or tacit processes that govern the tenure
process and accruing social capital is directly tied to a faculty member’s identity
and status. Lee’s conceptual model assumes that tenure-track junior faculty,
regardless of race or gender, begin at the assistant professor level and are
reviewed for their work over the course of six or seven years (2003, p. 74). Lee
contends that it is clear that female and minority academics experience those
tenure years quite differently than do their white male counterparts.
Underrepresented faculty continues to occupy the margins of academic with
regard to tenure attainment (Nettles et al, 2000). They often struggle to negotiate
multiple identities as a woman and/or person of color and an academic; often
these dual identities create conflict and tension (Jacobs et al, 2002).
Proving their competence and defending their rightful place in the
academy, responding to political criticisms of being too “brown” or “not brown
enough,” and finding strategies to succeed n an inhospitable environment diverts
valuable energy—whether time expended or psychic stress—junior faculty
members need in the tenure process (Lee, 2003). This diverted energy may be a
reflection of their coping strategies as they attempt to deal with institutional

132
barriers. However, Lee contends that coping in this manner deflects effort away
from a more fruitful coping strategy—namely developing and accessing critical
social ties (2003, p. 75).
The hierarchical location of an administrator can instantly create
membership with those who have similar hierarchical status. Stanton-Salazar
(2002) argues that individuals with similar status and identity are able to develop
relationships and connections with “resource-ful others and to experience instant
solidarity by activating social structure” (p. 14). Whether this “insider-ship” is
reflected by academic position (e.g. senior faculty member accessing other
powerful senior faculty members) or by societal position (e.g., male creating
bonds with other males), the idea of co-membership, solidarity, and inclusion is
pivotal to understanding how an individual can tap into the social resources by
virtue of the community they belong to (Lee, 2003, p. 76).
Although status and location can create membership, they can also
exclude (Lee, 2003). High status signals (attitudes, preferences, formal
knowledge, credentials, etc.) indicate a dominant culture, and how well an
individual exhibits these signals can mean the difference between inclusion and
exclusion (Lamont & Lareau, 1988). For example, Lee (2003) argues that if a
female junior faculty member who has never played golf and does not share in the
understanding, enthusiasm, practice, or skills necessary to be a golfer, the

133
likelihood or her inclusion into weekly male-dominated golf games where
informal discussions regarding departmental politics occurs will most likely be
dismal.
Insider-ship and Membership
Research on membership is commonly expressed in social network
research as homophilious and heterophilious interactions (Lee, 2003).
Homophilious interaction involves actors who share demographic and other types
of characteristics. Homophily preference “implies common interests and
worldviews and best explains the formation of expressive ties based on
interpersonal attraction” (Ibarra, 1992, p. 423). Actors within a particular
community or work team, or who share political ideology or class or ethnic
backgrounds, are more likely to relate to one another based on an identified
commonality; this can make interaction among the actors more fluid and natural,
and promote trust and solidarity (Kanter, 1977). This could allow for the
activation of structural forums in which social capital is embedded and its
conversion into advantageous resources (Lee, 2003). But as others would argue,
it can also serve to exclude membership (Bourdieu, 1986; Lamont & Lareau,
1988; Stanton-Salazar, 1997, 2001, 2002).
Other researchers characterize homophilious networks as relations
between actors with similar resources (Lin, 2000; McPherson & Smith-Lovin,
1987). Examples of such resources could be reputation and power. It is more
common to witness Fortune 500 executives networking with one another than a

134
CEO networking with a floor manager (Lee, 2003). However, studies show that
people naturally gravitate towards others similar to themselves even in cases
where power and reputation are not balanced. For example, a manager may show
preference for a subordinate who is socially similar (Kanter, 1977). An
interesting distinction within homophilious relations is that between induced and
choice homophily (McPherson & Smith-Lovin, 1987). Induced homophily is
caused by the lack or availability of contacts while choice homophily is based on
preferences of like-individuals (Lee, 2003).
Mehra, Kilduff, and Braff (1998) found that the “lower the relative
proportion of group members in a social context, the higher the likelihood of
within-group identification and friendship” (p. 447). Thus, for members of
underrepresented groups, their marginalization into within-group friendship
networks may be based on exclusionary pressures (e.g., negative stereotypes from
majority members) as well as personal preferences for same-race friends (Mehra,
Kilduff, & Braff, 1998). Conversely, heterophilious networks contain diverse
contacts; here diversity does not necessarily refer to demographic variables
present in the actors engaged in a relationship but rather to the number of contacts
with dissimilar levels of resources (Ibarra, 1993; Ibarra & Smith-lovin, 1997; Lin,
2000). Naturally, trying to establish a diverse set of networks requires more effort
than creating and maintaining relationships within a single department or with
people with whom one already shares a common bond.

135
Lin (2000) proposes a primary motivation to engage in heterophilous
relations: people “prefer to associate with somewhat better social status” (p. 48).
This rationale is tied to the assumption that higher status individuals have more
resources, meaning that through such an interaction, the actor can gain access to
more beneficial resources (Lin, 1982 & 2000; Stoloff, Glanville & Bienenstock,
1999). Brass (1985) found in his study of men and women’s interaction patterns
that individuals who associated with the group of high-level men (high status)
who “dominated” the organization received more promotions and access to this
high-status group was based on perceptions of who was influential; women were
viewed as less influential and therefore received fewer promotions.
Revisiting University Culture and Membership
Underrepresented administrators just as the underrepresented faculty, as
argued by Lee (2003), who are by definition unable to find instant membership
within the academy, must learn how to develop relationships with resourceful
individuals (gatekeepers) who can provide information and/or advocacy. Their
ability to develop these relationships is dependent upon the faculty member
“successfully negotiating institutional conditions and structural properties
oriented towards exclusion from the storehouse [of resources] and blocked access
to forms of institutional support necessary for success within the institution”
(Stanton-Salazar, 2002, p. 14). The research and literature on the university
culture strongly suggests the specific structural challenges for underrepresented
administrators to access social capital. They range from conflicting ideologies,

136
disproportionately low numbers of women and minorities, lack of senior
gatekeepers that represent their community, and the dominant discourse that
pervades institutional practices and procedures (Lee, 2003).
A female and a minority administrator’s ability to deal with experiences
that creates a differential “location” and therefore a status within academic stems,
in part, from their help-seeking orientation. It is important to note, however, that
the individual action and orientation to seek social support is heavily influenced
by the university’s organizational culture and the identity of the administrator.
Help-seeking Orientation
The help-seeking orientation framework borrows from Stanton-Salazar’s
definition of network orientation, which represents perceptions, attitudes, and
beliefs that “inform or motivate the choices an individual makes — whether
consciously or unconsciously — in recruiting, manipulating, and maintaining
various social relationships” (2001, p. 26). Thus the network orientation of an
individual can either “expand or constrain his/her options” and reflects a
motivation that could either serve to help the person overcome certain barriers and
gain institutional resources to successfully achieve a particular goal (2001, p. 26).
Stanton-Salazar (1997; 2001) distinguishes help-seeking orientation as a
part of an individual’s overall network orientation. Stanton-Salazar offers a
useful conceptualization of the help-seeking orientation that highlights the
importance of the individual cognitive appraisals, based on not only the options
and resources available but also an assessment of “potential costs, risks, and

137
benefits entailed in the solicitation” (p. 123). Thus, an administrator’s motivation
to develop social relations helpful for career advancement will vary depending on
his or her subjective assessment of the associated risks as well as their personal
experiences as racialized, class-based, and gendered beings (e.g., membership as
insiders or outsiders).
When considering the constraints and barriers underrepresented
administrators or administrator hopefuls must overcome in the context of their
environment and their location within that environment, the role of the individual
agency also interface to affect their ultimate success or failure in achieving career
advancement. As members of a community that must negotiate their multiple
identities (e.g. male vs. female, white vs. brown, local vs. cosmopolitan, etc.),
female and minority administrators would be expected to routinely face the
challenges inherent in the development of what Stanton-Salazar (1997) refers to
as a bicultural network or orientation.
A bicultural network orientation or consciousness allows the individual to
cross into “multiple community and institutional settings where diversified social
capital can be generated and converted by way of instructional action” (p. 25).
Therefore, a positive help-seeking orientation among underrepresented
administrators would be expected to reflect this bicultural orientation, a cognitive
strategy necessary to develop relationships within key gatekeepers in an
environment that does not guarantee automatic insider-ship, as argued by Lee
(2003) on female minority faculty members seeking tenure. When coupled with

138
their personal values (e.g. beliefs developed by stigma, messages of devaluation,
etc.), a bicultural orientation might be one of only a few strategic options to
choose from (Lamont & Lareau, 1988; Stanton-Salazar, 1997; 2001). Next, I
discuss in more detail the potential explanations of motivations as expressed in
social network research that informs why the underrepresented administrators
may be motivated to seek support (or not).
Instrumental and Expressive Motivations
One’s motivation to develop relationships and social networks can be
described as being either instrumental or expressive (Lee, 2003). An instrumental
motivation seeks to “trigger actions and reactions from others leading to more
allocation of resources to ego” (Lin, 2000, p. 46). The effort to develop
instrumental networks is seen as a “means to achieve a goal; to produce a profit”
(p. 46) and to search for and obtain “resources not presently possessed” (p. 27).
Common examples of instrumentally motivated actions include job acquisitions,
promotions, career direction and guidance, assistance with challenging work
tasks, and contact with senior management (Lin, 2000; Ibarra, 1993).
Instrumental ties involve formal relationships as well as informal ones; a junior
administrator may seek formal ties with a senior administrator for guidance on
how to deal with personnel issues, as well as informal ties with his peer colleague
in the same division for tips on hiring and firing employees.

139
Expressively motivated relationships are those relationships based on
mutual emotional investments, such as personal friendships or mentor-protégé
relationships. Not surprisingly, expressive ties have higher levels of closeness
and trust than those that are exclusively instrumental (Ibarra, 1993). Lin (2000)
echoes this perspective on the function of expressive networks. He maintains that
expressive relationships serve to elicit acknowledgement of an ego’s sentiment,
situation, or feelings about a particular issue. In the expressive network,
individuals tied to their ego are expected to sympathize and empathize with ego
and to appreciate and reciprocate ego’s feelings, thereby recognizing, legitimizing
him or her (p. 46). For administrators, expressive networks may come in the form
of a “women leaders” support group, an Asian leadership network, and divisional
socials.
Because individuals more freely choose their friendships and social
support networks, expressive functions tend to be less closely bound to formal
structure and work roles (Ibarra, 1993). This is not to imply that all relationships
are motivated exclusively on an instrumental or expressive level. Many social
ties combine features and functions of both (Lee, 2003). Mentoring is a clear
example of both instrumental (career advice) and expressive (psychosocial
support) functions (Higgins & Kram, 2001).
Understandably, the difference between instrumental and expressive
motivated networks centers on the type of social capital gained or lost by the
presence or absence of these networks (Lee, 2003). For junior administrators,

140
particularly for females and minorities, structural constraints may preclude them
from one type of resource (derived from instrumental) versus another (derived
from expressive). For example, a Filipina administrator may spend most of her
time seeking out expressive network relationships with other Filipino
administrators outside her division for emotional support — but at the expense of
not developing critical instrumental relationships within her division necessary to
establish a strong linkage to promotion. Structurally, the division’s lack of other
minorities and her sense of not belonging may motivate her to seek out others
outside the division, even outside the campus. Her white peers may not have to
seek out the same types of networks for the same reasons. The extent to which
personal networks are based on instrumental and expressive reasons is explored in
this study. The motivation based on structural parameters ultimately impacts the
administrators’ help-seeking orientation, which then impacts the process of
gaining social support critical in career mobility.
Revisiting the Conceptual Model
The university structure, member identity/status, and help-seeking
orientation components are potentially promising tools to understand better the
way social capital is obtained by administrators, specifically Asian American
female administrators. These three components coalesce to affect the
development of social capital. The structure of universities and the culture of
academia provide the rationale for why networks and social capital are important
to career mobility or promotion process. This structure, which affects the location

141
of the administrator within the hierarchical organization and the identity and
status of an administrator, can influence the development of critical relationships
and access to the resources embedded in these relationships. The individual’s
help-seeking orientation directly impacts the attainment of social capital—one
seeks support or one does not.
The conceptual framework does not follow a linear progression. Aspects
of the university structure, the administrator’s identity, and the help-seeking
orientation intertwine. An Asian American female administrator’s help-seeking
orientation based on her assessment of options and risks can be affected by the
structure and culture of academia where there are very few Asian American
female senior administrator to turn to support. The status and position of an
African American administrator battling misperceptions as a “token hire” can
negatively affect his help-seeking orientation in asking for support to quell any
rumblings of incompetence (Gross & McMullen, 1983). The status identity of a
white male administrator validated by an organizational culture that has many
other white male administrators may find the development of social relations
within his department as a fluid and natural process, which in turn helps to
facilitate social support (Lee, 2003). This model assumes that these components
simultaneously interact and counteract with each other in the development of
social capital critical for career advancement. With that, I now follow the review
of literature with a conclusion.

142
Conclusion
Social capital is not something that can be simply translated from one
group (usually those with appropriate capital levels) to another (usually those
lacking in resources) (O’Brien & Ó Fathaigh, 2005). While an educational
qualification is being increasingly presented as a “universal paradigm for cultural
development” (Kade, 1998, p. 105), the danger remains that the so-called
‘uneducated’ will also be labeled as ‘culturally deficient’. The possession of
successful competencies (O’Brien & Ó Fathaigh, 2005) reflects a wider social and
cultural struggle for social mobility. From a Bourdieuian perspective, an
educational qualification is in itself a form of cultural capital that is used
(consciously or otherwise) as a means of a vertical stratification. Thus
researchers and practitioners should heed to how they identify and apply
appropriate social capital outcomes from research. There is still a general
assumption, for example, that the lower-class parents should simply act more like
white middle-class parents for the benefit of their children. Education should be
more than the acquisition of qualifications and social mobility. Instead, education
should be viewed as a significant vehicle for cultural development aimed at
developing legitimate democratic representation and critical perspectives on the
status quo. Any developments towards a more inclusive education system will
thus require significant changes in cultural values and attitudes. Education needs
to be acknowledged as a field of social processes that produces loss of power,
status, and self esteem. A rejection of corrective strategies to ‘problems’ and a

143
willingness to engage with new theoretical tools that help explain existing
relationships and tensions herein is imminent. Such insights remain central to any
ambition for effective social inclusion.
Cultural and social resources are differentially and arbitrarily valued —
arbitrarily in that there is no underlying rationale for why a certain accent, a
certain vocabulary, a way of acting, or a particular type of reading material should
have higher social value than others. As argued by Monkman and her colleagues
(2005), value is determined by those who hold power in a society or social
context. This value does not necessarily have any effect, however, in and of
itself. The resources must be converted to capital, and then activated, to gain the
benefit. The value in the resource must be recognized by others — by those who
are situated in a social position where value is determined, by an agent in a
position of power. Higher education leaders, as potential agents, determine the
value just as the dominant segments of society determine the value of, or what
counts in, the resources and actions of others. Higher education leaders need to
become aware of the deeper cultural and social dynamics in institutions and these
relate to society’s inequalities. Second, recognition is needed of how the leaders’
own practices and choices perpetuate or challenge the norms that relegate non-
mainstream populations to a lesser social position. Third, higher education
leaders should actively, consciously, and critically develop philosophies that will
guide practices that are more likely to upset the status quo and begin to see their
roles as including social processes such as increasing aspiring administrators’

144
access to and development of social and cultural capital and actively defining
what counts. By helping these aspiring administrators build social networks and
acquire access to social and cultural capital as well as to revalue existing
resources, educational leaders make it possible for these hopeful leaders to benefit
from their successes in institutions and in society. Administrators should mirror
this awareness, challenge, and new paradigm of thinking.
The academy is shaped by many social forces (Ladson-Billings, 1997).
With that, access, process, and outcomes are distinct aspects of higher education
that need to be examined separately (Jacobs, 1996). Jacobs adds the trends in
these areas often do not coincide with one another, and consequently separate
explanations of these facets of higher education are needed. More minority
women are defining and redefining their roles within it. For example, women
remain a minority of administration and are disadvantaged in terms of rank and
institutional prestige. Yet as students in the United States, women represent a
majority of students at nearly all levels of higher education and are not distinctly
disadvantaged in terms of institutional position. Clearly, treating women’s
standing among the administration and in the student body as one phenomenon
will not do, since the extent of women’s progress differs between these two
statuses. New ways of thinking about teaching and research have provided spaces
for women scholars to challenge old assumptions about what it means to be in the
academy. Higher education administration needs to overhaul its old assumptions
and ways of thinking and should start the long overdue “reconstitution” process.

145
Leadership is not only the province of administrators and policy-makers, but it
also lies in the hands of students who by their own actions can determine to a
great extent what is learned, by whom, where and why (Moore, 1987).
In addition, research is a political and ideological act, no matter what the
topic is (Shakeshaft, 1998). Gender research is no different. Without some
renewed activism on the part of a great number of people, it is likely to see the
gains made in scholarship and advocacy to disappear. While faculty experiences
and impeccable credentials provided a basis for the initial ascriptive credibility of
their colleagues, the current climate suggests that women executives will need to
continue to demonstrate exceptional abilities in order to garner and maintain
leadership roles (Lindsay, 1999). If they maintain their esteemed executive
appointments, they are in positions to articulate the benefits of educational equity
to state and national policy-makers, corporate executives, and to elected local and
federal legislators. Hence, their promotion of educational equity can help pivotal
leaders and the general public move beyond myopic views often associated with
the current debates on this issue as examined by Franklin (1993), Gates (1996),
Benjamin (1997), Tierney (1997), and others.
The empowerment of minority women requires a long-term,
multidimensional strategy aimed at increasing access to independent positions of
power and leadership in the political process (Inuzuka, 1991). Without strong,

146
independent voices, women of color risk having their issues co-opted and
misrepresented, and their presence used to validate an already formulated agenda,
as argued by Inuzuka (1991).
The principle challenge facing research on gender in education is to go
beyond documenting specific gender effects to developing a more theoretically
motivated account of the status of women in the educational system (Jacobs,
1996). This perspective would have to account for the relative status of women in
each aspect of the educational system s well as for variation across time and
space. The challenge is to situate gender inequality economically, historically,
culturally, and politically. The substantial research in various fields on women in
education should set the stage for the next generation of researchers to tackle
some of the fundamental issues regarding gender and the educational system. In
particular, the relationship between gender inequality in education and that in the
rest of society is a fundamental question for future theory and research.
There still remains much in the way of further access for women to the
higher levels of education, other work and professions; enough to occupy many
scholars and educators for the remainder of the century (Moore, 1987).
Expectations are high that women will consolidate the gains they have made in
access to higher education and will be able to carry them forward into new
dispositions of home and workplace activities. It is in this latter arena that forces
and actors other than higher education alone must become, indeed, are already
involved. Women’s traditional role as a child-bearer and a nurturer, regardless of

147
race or ethnicity, as a wife and a family mainstay must be blended with the newer
thrusts toward work and more extensive career commitment (Moore, 1987).
Women’s role in the future is important. Further, minority women’s role
is important; it deserves attention in the highest circles, and it must be matched
with actions and policies now which respect the past but also build toward a
future where women will have a more equal shared in all that transpires. Those in
the margin have the potential to transform the center—to broaden it, strengthen it,
and enrich it. By bringing themselves through the door and supporting others in
doing so as well, they can define themselves in and claim unambiguous
empowerment, creating discourses that address the realities, affirm their
intellectual contributions, and seriously examine their worlds. In the next chapter,
I elaborate upon the design of the study, the methodology employed to obtain
data, and the challenges during the process.

148
Chapter Three
Methodology
“It is not necessary to know everything in order to understand something.”
- Geertz (1973)
An impressionist painting sets out to capture a worldly scene in a special
instant or moment of time (Van Maanen, 1988). The work is figurative, although
it conveys a highly personalized perspective. What a painter sees, given an
apparent position in time and space, is what the viewer sees (Van Maanen, 1988).
The individuals in this qualitative study became the subjects of my
impressionistic painting and I captured their experiences working as leaders of the
American higher education system. The goal was to evoke an open, participatory
sense in the reader and to startle the audience through the use of words,
metaphors, phrasings, imagery, and most critically, the expansive recall of
fieldwork experience with the participants (Van Maanen, 1988). Reflective
themes developed from the interviews and observations throughout the research
and crack opened the culture and my way of knowing it so that both can be
examined thoroughly.
In the first two chapters, I established the initial form and structure of the
study, and also reviewed pertinent literature on issues related to socialization
process for Asian American women in higher education administration and
business industry. In this chapter, I present the methodology employed in the
study. For the purpose of this study only qualitative methods were used. I used a

149
layered approach that I refer to as “narrative ethnography.” This approach, as the
term suggests, combines the tools of ethnography with the specific focus on
narrative and the narrative process (Colyar, 2003). The first section of this
chapter defines the separate methods of ethnography and narrative inquiry,
examines how these methods have previously been used, and suggests why the
combination of these research approaches is particularly effective for this study.
The section details the research design of the study, including site and participant
selection process. I also discuss the practical issues of data collection and
interpretation.
Before I begin, as mentioned in chapter one, the following research
questions were posed for this study in order to understand Asian American
women as leaders in American higher education:
• What do Asian American women in higher education administration
experience in terms of their socialization process?
• What role did mentoring play in these women’s socialization process?
• What are the challenges and issues that were unique for these women
as Asian American women?
• What effect do the cultural values have on these women in leadership
roles?

150
Through the personal, socio-cultural experiences intertwined with their careers, I
answered these questions. I also asked the question of the “chilly campus
climate” for these women and if it has thawed for women of color in
administration.
Ethnography
For the cultural anthropologists, ethnography has served as the foundation
of the discipline of cultural anthropology (Wolcott, 1999). Ethnography is ideal
for studying small, isolated tribal cultures to discover particular and specific
knowledge and customs. Place has always been important in ethnography,
particularly in the sense of venturing someplace else, as it virtually guaranteed the
opportunity to study a kind of difference (Colyar, 2003). In 1951, Radcliffe-
Brown defined ethnography as “descriptive accounts of non-literate people,” and
for the first half of the twentieth century, ethnographic inquiry was focused on the
“primitive,” “savage,” or simply “other.” In recent years, however, ethnographers
have turned their attention away from distant lands and have begun to study all
kinds of peoples and topics. Instead of place, ethnographic researchers have
turned to problems and theoretical links; instead of “other,” researchers have
turned to the question of “culture” (Wolcott, 1999, p. 25).
Ethnography is both an art and a science according to ethnographers
(Guthrie, 1985; Fetterman, 1998). As Wolcott (1999) and others point out,
ethnography is also both process and product; it is a way of seeing, a method of
inquiry, and a way of gathering data, but it is also a term used to describe a final

151
report (Riessman, 1993). Ethnography is “a description of the way of life or a
group of people” and aims to “uncover beliefs, values, perspectives, and
motivations over time” from within the group itself (Woods, 1986, p. 4). Culture,
Wolcott adds, is revealed in ethnography “through discerning patterns of socially
shared behavior” (1999, p. 67) and from within the processes of change as well as
continuity (Heath, 1981).
These patterns can lead to an understanding of members’ conceptual
frameworks and ways to “organize materials on the basis of boundaries
understood by those being observed” instead of “a predetermined system of
categories established before the participant-observation” (Heath, 1981, p. 34).
Essentially, ethnography is a layered approach: immersion in a culture or group
can encourage the ethnographer to develop more refined questions or techniques.
While the researcher must remain at a distance in order to view the events, she
must also get close enough to provide an insider’s perspective.
Objectivity, however, is a problematic term and should not be considered
the “goal” of ethnographic research (Heath, 1981). For Duranti (1997),
objectivity negatively suggests a positivistic form of writing that excludes the
researcher’s emotional, sociohistorical, and political stances. This is not only
impossible to achieve in Postmodern thinking, but also a questionable goal; it
would “produce a very poor record of the ethnographers’ experiences” (p. 85).
Duranti suggests instead a balance between ethnographic “distance” and
“nearness” (p. 86) and that a successful ethnography is “a style in which the

152
researcher establishes a dialogue between different viewpoints and voices,
including those of the people studied, of the ethnographer, and of [her]
disciplinary and theoretical preferences” (p. 87).
It is also important to note that ethnography is an approach which requires
establishing relationships with individuals (Colyar, 2003). The depth and
familiarity required of ethnographers can only be accomplished when the
researcher works closely with only a few key informants, and often with only one
(Wolcott, 1999). The product of ethnography is always constructed around the
researcher, and ethnographers gain knowledge about themselves as well as the
culture being studied. Hence the goal is not to record and copy the studied
object—such an activity would merely reproduce the thing being studied—but to
highlight some of its properties, focus on certain elements, and transform data into
further questions or meanings. In other words, language is considered a
fundamental tool in ethnographic studies, a way to better understand “events”
rather than stories themselves.
Critiquing Ethnography
As Gubrium and Holstein (1999) point out, however, the process of
ethnography is problematic in the context of postmodern thinking. “The other” is
not so much aligned with the research self as it is interpreted through the
researcher. Observed actions and events, tapes of interviews and detailed field
notes are not in-and-of-themselves “findings,” Richardson observes (1990, p.
116). Rather, they are fashioned into a text via a series of complex decisions and

153
revisions. Reality is not “represented,” Richardson continues, but assembled; the
researcher creates a particular view of reality through methodological strategies
and language structures, some of which are masked by traditional or scientific
frames (1990). Reviewing the body of ethnographic research inevitably leads to
the foregrounding of the researcher, not necessarily the highlighting of particular
communities, issues and events (Colyar, 2003).
The unity of ethnographic findings is also problematic. The reported
narratives and observations are “appropriated to the story’s own plot to make its
points” (Gubrium & Holstein, 1999, p. 565). In the end, traditional ethnography
produces a “grand narrative,” a carefully sculpted and often limiting report of
peoples and cultures, details interpreted through and into a larger social order and
presented in a scientific frame (Richardson, 1990). Ethnography and
ethnographers are ultimately “about” coherence and categorization, not producing
individual stories but articulating individual actions as part of social and cultural
organizations (Colyar, 2003).
This study proceeded with data gathered individually rather than
uniformly across participants. As discussed, most of my interviews with the
participants were not scripted. In his book, Ethnography: Step by step, David
Fetterman (1998) states that an ethnographer enters the field with an open mind,
pencils, paper, and some specific data collection techniques. The ethnographer
enters the field alone.

154
This narrative ethnography began with the researcher’s subjectivity. As a
1.5 generation Korean American female, having grown in an immigrant family
with a set of traditional parents, I was mindful of my own “perceptions” and
“experiences” that can influence my subjectivity towards the participants. At
each step in this process, I was cautious of my role as listener, reader, and with
this study, storyteller. There was some degree of power differentiation and a
hierarchy of voices and values, despite the constructivist approach that adhered
the pages.
Research Design
Voice, Perspective, Reflexivity
Although scholars have employed a variety of theoretical approaches,
research on social capital has been limited methodologically (Lee, 2003). Most
research on social capital utilizes a quantitative methodology using survey data to
construct sociograms and matrices, and emphasizing the measurement,
correlations, and causal relationships between individuals (Scott, 2000). In their
comprehensive review of social capital in educational research, Dika & Singh
(2002) found only a few researchers (i.e., Lareau, 1989; Lareau & Horvat, 1999;
Stanton-Salazar, 1997 & 2001) employing new conceptualizations designed to
incorporate in-depth qualitative methodologies resulting in a richer understanding
of social capital, particularly highlighting the differential access to social
resources by diverse populations. Dika & Singh (2002) argue that the
conventional use of large-scale panel studies for the conceptualization of social

155
capital is too “narrow and restricted by the variables in the data sets” (p. 46).
Furthermore, they contend that the statistical analysis of quantitatively focused
studies is limiting; unreliable indicators of social capital provide inadequate or no
information about “relationship dynamics or the quality of resources accessed” (p.
45). Therefore, surveys or questionnaire responses do not always provide the
details and nuances of individual lives.
I chose to utilize a qualitative methodology because I was searching for
information on social relationships extending beyond their general features of
density, range, and frequency. Network research relies on questionnaires and
surveys to obtain information on the number and identity of individuals in a
network, and the nature of their interaction with each other (Lee, 2003). I
explored, in more depth, these administrators’ point of view and the areas
important to them. Underrepresented members of the academy experience
administrative life as racial and gendered beings; this adds another layer of
meaning during their career.
For this study, employing a qualitative interview format allowed me to
obtain information on these women’s socialization process. In order for the
distinctive administrative voices to emerge, in the context of their identity and
academic culture, one might start with “the particular, the detail, the scrap of
ordinary or banal existence, and then work to unpack the density of relations and

156
of intersecting social domains that inform it” (Frow & Morris, 2000). Therefore,
using the interview method allowed me to “understand experiences and
reconstruct events in which [I] did not participate” (Rubin et al., 1995, p. 1).
By utilizing a semi-structured qualitative interview methodology, I
obtained topical information such as the composition of networks, but had the
flexibility to examine the significance of certain situations and experiences in the
administrator’s life and to reconstruct and understand the interviewee’s
experiences and interpretations (p. 35). To reiterate, semi-structured interviews
provide parameters that specifically address the topic at hand but also offer
opportunities to explore areas the subject deems important – areas the researcher
had not considered before the interview – enabling the discovery of new and
unexpected sources of information. Equally important in this qualitative inquiry,
however, is the acknowledgement that the responses from these women are, at the
core, the study of individual lives within an academic culture. Rosaldo (1989)
describes an ethnographer’s role in understanding culture of any kind as being
continent upon understanding the respondent’s “life in their own terms” and the
ways “people make sense of their lives” (p. 26). For the administrators in this
study, their reflection upon and retelling of their experiences is about how the
nuances of their academic live “make sense in their own context and on their own
terms” (p. 26). The flexibility inherent in a qualitative study provides the space
for description and meaning, as expressed in their own words.

157
The qualitative analyst owns and is reflective about her or his own voice
and perspective; a credible voice conveys authenticity and trustworthiness;
complete objectivity being impossible and pure subjectivity undermining
credibility, the researcher’s focus becomes balance — understanding and
depicting the world authentically in all its complexity while being self-analytical,
politically aware, and reflexive in consciousness (Patton, 2002).
I used a constructivist (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Schwandt, 1994) approach
to inquiry and grounded theory methodology (Strauss & Corbin, 1998) to guide
design and analysis decisions. By using a constructivist approach I recognize that
meaning arises from the experiences of participants as they are shared during the
interaction between participants and the researcher; therefore the relationship
between participants and researcher is valued, rather than avoided (Charmaz,
2000). I selected the grounded theory methodology for two reasons: first, because
the goal of the research is to ground theory in the data and therefore “offer insight,
enhance understanding, and provide a meaning guide to action” (Strauss &
Corbin, 1998, p. 12); and second, because grounded theory acknowledges that the
“combining [of] methods may be done for supplementary, complementary,
informational, developmental, and other reasons” (p. 28). Grounded theory
operates from a correspondence perspective in that it aims to generate
explanatory propositions that correspond to real-world phenomena (Patton, 2002).
Strauss and Corbin (1998) state that grounded theory begins with basic
description, moves to conceptual ordering (organizing data into discrete

158
categories according to their properties and dimensions and then using description
to elucidate those categories, p. 19), and then theorizing (“conceiving or intuiting
ideas—concepts—then also formulating them into a logical, systematic, and
explanatory scheme,” p. 21). The analyst becomes implanted in the data. The
resulting analysis grows out of that groundedness according to Strauss and Corbin
(1998). Once patterns, themes, and / or categories have been established through
inductive analysis, the final, confirmatory stage of qualitative analysis may be
deductive in testing and affirming the authenticity and appropriateness of the
inductive content analysis, including carefully examining deviate cases or data
that do not fit the categories developed (Patton, 2002). Generating theoretical
propositions or formal hypotheses after inductively identifying categories is
considered deductive analysis by grounded theorists. Grounded theorizing, then,
involves both inductive and deductive processes: “At the heart of theorizing lies
the interplay of making inductions (deriving concepts, their properties, and
dimensions from data) and deductions (hypothesizing about the relationships
between concepts)” (Strauss & Corbin, 1998, p. 22).
Selection Process
I conducted a rigorous search for the participants with the following
criteria: Asian American females in senior-level administrative positions
employed at four-year universities and colleges in the United States.
Senior-level administrative positions comprised of chancellor, vice chancellor,
president, provost, vice president, associate vice president, dean, and associate

159
dean in the areas of academic affairs, student affairs, and administration. Using
various databases locally and nationally, I was able to locate and identify 18
individuals who fit the criteria. Out of 18 identified, 12 agreed to participate in
the study and were interviewed.
In terms of ethnicity, table 3.1 provides the racial breakdown:
Table 3.1: Ethnicity
Race Number
Chinese American 3
Japanese American 2
Korean American 1
Filipino American 2
Chinese Japanese American 1
Chinese Danish 1
Indian American 1
Asian American 1

Of the twelve women in the sample,

• 3 were at a private Research I institution.
• 3 were at a public Research I institution.
• 3 were at a private liberal arts institution.
• 3 were at a public state institution.
In terms of ethnic generations of the women, table 3.3 provides the classification:
Table 3.2: Generational Status
Generation Number
First Generation 0
1.5 Generation 3
Second Generation 4
Third Generation 2
Third and fourth generation 1
Fourth Generation 1
Unidentified 2

160
In terms of the definition of each category of generation,

• The first generation is identified as those who immigrated to the
United States as an adult;
• 1.5 generation is identified as those who immigrated to the United
States as a child.
• The second generation is identified as those who immigrated with
their parents to the United States at a young age;
• The third generation is identified as those whose grandparents
immigrated to the United States;
• The fourth generation is identified as those who great-grandparents
immigrated to the United States.

Table 3.3 provides the breakdown of age for this group:
Table 3.3: Age
Age Number
Early Thirties 2
Late Thirties 5
Forties 1
Fifties 2
Sixties 2

A majority of these women were in their late thirties and were among the
youngest administrators in their institutions. To add, the majority of these women
were not married. Here is the breakdown of their marital status:
Table 3.4: Marital Status
Marital Status Number
Married 3
Unmarried 9
With Children 3

Another interesting discovery was where these women worked. Most of them
were in the west coast. Table 3.6 provides the locations of the participants:

161
Table 3.5: Geographic Location
State Number
Arizona 1
California 4
Louisiana 1
Massachusetts 1
Ohio 2
Texas 2
Washington 1

Notably, most of the participants worked in the division of Student Affairs. Out
of twelve participants interviewed, one was in the division of Academic Affairs
and the remaining participants were in Student Affairs.
Table 3.6: Divisions
Division Number
Student Affairs 11
Academic Affairs 1
Administration 0

Gatekeepers
The initial gatekeeper for this study was the committee chair for this study
— a Korean American male born to immigrant parents. As mentioned earlier in
the manuscript, he has made every effort to help the researcher navigate through
the process of identifying and connecting with these women of significant
influence in the field of higher education in the United States.
Another instrumental gatekeeper was the first participant the researcher
interviewed in this study. She not only became a participant but an inspiration.
Her enthusiasm and genuine sincerity toward my well being as a person and a
professional enhanced the richness of this study. As explored later in the

162
findings, our meeting took place at an unexpected venue and consequently led me
to so many great women who are current leaders as well as future leaders of the
American higher education.
Methods
As argued by Patti Lather (1986), I attempted to involve the participants in
a democratized process of inquiry characterized by negotiation, reciprocity, and
empowerment—research as praxis (Lather, 1986, p. 257). As a researcher and a
non-participant observer, I maintained value-free, neutral environment for my
study and tried to maintain certain distance from my participants in order to keep
this neutrality.
The guiding research question focused on how these women viewed
themselves in their leadership roles in higher education setting. In particular, the
respondents were asked to discuss the challenges they faced as women of color
within their institutions, their perception of gender issues within their
organization, how they socialized both in and out of their work setting, and the
issues of institutional support for their career mobility.
I used purposeful sampling and within the parameters of purposeful
sampling, criterion sampling was used in order to have the appropriate individuals
participating in the study. I established criteria which reflect the objectives of the
study and selected the individuals that meet the criteria. This method of sampling
was used for quality assurance.

163
Interviews were the primary method used to gather the qualitative data.
The interviews were semi-structured with open-ended questions. Interviews were
conducted by the researcher with a protocol of general questions to be covered by
the participants; also provided was the opportunity for the participants to
formulate their own questions during the interview for a holistic understanding of
the culture of the unit under study. The strengths of this method of interview are
(1) the comparability of responses with respondents answering the same
questions, (2) completeness of data for each person on the topics addressed in the
interview, (3) reduced interviewer effects and bias, and (4) organization and
analysis of the data collected. In-depth individual interviews of 30 minutes to 2
hours within the period of two months were conducted. The interviews were
conducted in person or via phone depending on the availability of the participants.
As Patton (2002) confirms, the purpose of interviewing is to allow the
interviewer to enter into the other person’s perspective. Qualitative interviewing
begins with the assumption that the perspective of others is meaningful,
knowable, and able to be made explicit (Patton, 2002). Any interviewer faces the
challenge of making it possible for the person being interviewed to bring the
interviewer into his or her world. The quality of the information obtained during
an interview is largely dependent on the interviewer.
I used thick description (Geertz, 1973; Denzin, 2001) to take the reader
into the setting being described. Further, I, as the researcher, got out of the way
of the data to let the data tell their own story (Patton, 2002). I made every effort

164
to stay value-free and neutral. The participants took the lead on the interviews. I
used concepts to help make sense of and present the data, but not to the point of
straining or forcing the analysis.
Ethnosemanticist Kenneth Pike (1954) coined the terms emic and etic to
distinguish classification systems reported by anthropologists based on (1) the
language and categories used by the people in the culture studied, an emic
approach, in contrast to (2) categories created by anthropologists based on their
analysis of important cultural distinctions, an etic approach. Methodologically,
the challenge is to do justice to both perspectives during and after fieldwork and
to be clear with one’s self and one’s audience how this tension between the two
perspectives is managed.
Emphasized by Van Maanen, in his Tales of the Field (1988), an
ethnography must present accounts and explanation by the members of the culture
of the events in their lives—particularly, if not exclusively, the routine events (p.
49). Employing Van Maanen’s theory, I incorporated the accounts from the
interviews to truthfully portray the picture of the culture of this unique group and
used a useful investigative tool of participant observation that triangulated the
data to make them stronger and more valid. Reassuring the validity of the
research, all the data and findings collected will be confirmed for accuracy by all
participants through the process—reiterating the importance of trustworthiness of
data.

165
The areas covered in the interview included self-identification, cultural
orientation, mentorship, leadership and management skills, social networks,
support vehicles for career mobility, barriers, and politics at work . Although
knowledge and research be considered, I was open to other issues and framed the
interview so that appropriate probes and follow-ups could be done in an easy
manner.
Data Collection
The administrators were contacted via phone, and/or email beginning
February 2007 seeking voluntary participation, followed by a personal email,
telephone, or face-to-face meeting. After the administrators were chosen as
participants and consent forms signed, identities of the administrators were kept
confidential by assigning a numerical pseudonym used in recording and reporting
the data.
I collected data for this study by conducting one semi-structured
individual interview with a follow up interview over the course of five months
(March – August, 2007). The interviews followed ethnographic guidelines
outlined in Rubin & Rubin’s (1995) Qualitative Interviewing from interview
protocol development to analysis and interpretation of the interview data. In
some cases, I had more than two meetings with the participants. Semi-structured
qualitative interviews allow for “themes to be covered, as well as suggested
questions… yet at the same time there is an openness to changes of sequence and
forms of questions in order to follow the answers given and the stories told”

166
(Kvale, 1996, p, 124). Although I followed the template of questions in the
interview protocol, I often probed with follow-up questions and asked for
clarification and examples when appropriate. Rubin & Rubin (1995) believes the
role of follow-up questions is to obtain the “depth that is the hallmark of
qualitative interviewing by pursuing themes that are discovered, elaborating the
context of answers, and exploring the implications of what has been said” (p.
151). As such, I was able to obtain rich examples illustrative of thick description
(Geertz, 1973).
The interviews took place at various venues on and off the participants’
university campus — in their offices, coffee shops, and in the lobby of a hotel
where one participant was attending a wedding. I asked each participant a set of
29 questions based on specific categories of socialization: mentoring, social
network, help-seeking, career and emotional support, and politics. Data collection
involved interviews being tape recorded and transcribed verbatim. The transcripts
were returned to the participants and short follow-up interviews were conducted
to clarify, correct, and confirm the content of the transcription. The data were
read repeatedly to build an interpretive understanding of key themes (Geertz,
1973). Additional sub-themes evoked a more inductive process in which the data
drove the construction of conceptual categories. Participants were encouraged to
be active in collaborating in the research process sharing their insight, first-hand
experience, and self-reflection.

167
Establishing Trustworthiness
The interview protocol was submitted to the three-member dissertation
committee for review during the proposal meeting. In discussions with the
committee, refinements were made. In addition, the protocol was pre-tested with
one Asian female administrator at a local community college to gauge whether the
questions were appropriately designed to elicit the information desired.
The notion of trustworthiness refers to the internal and external validity of
the qualitative research process (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Several methods were
used to establish the trustworthiness of the research. First, within the confines of
the dissertation, this study had time constraints. However, in order to uphold the
validity of data, I allowed all participants to correct misinformation. This process
was achieved through member checks (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) at the end of the
interview session. I shared with the participants the emerging categories during
the interview process. Moreover, a case report for each participant that included
quotes illustrating how their interview fit into some of the emerging themes was
shared with all participants. Participants were asked if the study findings
accurately reflected their experiences and if they found any incorrect information.
As these intensive semi-structured interviews focused on life stories which
centered more on the experiences of an individual and what she felt as she passed
through different stages of life, the trustworthiness of data could not be
established with traditional triangulation techniques (Lee, 2003). That is, I could
not observe these administrators going through their daily activities and

168
interactions during their work hours, as I intended to incorporate in this study.
Given the highly confidential and sensitive nature of the topic, particularly around
the issues of politics in the administration or situations related to race or gender,
the possibility of potential distress to the interviewees negated my ability to
confirm an individual’s verbal accounts.
In fact, most of the participants agreed to participate in the study only with
the assurance that they would have complete anonymity; I had to assure them that
I would not approach anyone named in their interview for triangulation purposes.
Much of this was based on fears that their revelations might get them in “trouble”,
as well as fear of recrimination from their counterparts. As elaborated in the next
chapter, one administrator refused after many phone calls and emails because she
felt her career was “at risk” if she was identified. In addition, because the
interview protocol was structured for more than once, during the second
interview, I was able to confirm information, perceptions, and thoughts from the
first interview. By restating and summarizing various aspects of their accounts at
the beginning, during, and conclusion of the interviews, I attempted to ensure
accuracy in my understanding and documentation of their recollection and
experiences.
Studies that depend on reflection of a past experience or incident are
viewed with concern due to issues of memory error or lack of interest in the topic
which may result in less accuracy in the sharing of data (Garmezy, 1974;
Menneer, 1978). Since it is impossible to determine complete accuracy of the

169
interview data, my study relied on textual validity of what I, as the researcher,
reported having heard. A characteristic of textual validity involves matters on
which, in principle, intersubjective agreement could be easily achieved, given
appropriate data (Maxwell, 2002). For example, using the tape recording of the
interviews could determine if the informant made a particular statement.
Also, because the interviewees for the study were members of a particular
culture (e.g., higher education administration), a study such as this, is credible
because the “experts” tell the story. In Composing a Life, Mary Catherine
Bateson’s (1990) biographical study of five women emphasizes not focusing on
the verification of narratives beyond “issues of internal consistency and checking
them against [her] knowledge of the individuals” but paying more attention to the
storytelling “shaped by each person’s choice and selective memory” (p.33). As
such, my role as the researcher in providing interpretation of the data was not to
go “far from the evidence and show the reasoning and evidence that lead from the
interviews to the conclusion” (Rubin & Rubin, 1995, p. 31).
Another method used for triangulation was to maintain a researcher’s
journal that both chronicled research decisions and noted times when the
researcher felt that my interpretations could be based on my own experiences,
thus possibly not reflective of the participant’s voice. Because I, as the
researcher, was an Asian American female, this process was important to note.
Researcher positioning as an Asian American female required me to reflect and
evaluate my own interpretations of the participants’ stories.

170
A subjective approach to the study of the socialization process of Asian-
American females in higher education leadership positions is absent in the current
body of literature. I submit that the overall socialization process, in terms of both
success and failure, may be best understood from those who have undergone the
experiences. What these women have gone through to get to where they are
needs to be documented and studied in order to ensure the democracy and
diversity the higher education setting. Accordingly, this study examined the
experiences of each woman, not merely through the demographic data and
statistics, but by exploring the individual process of socialization and the factors
that lead to career mobility and success.
Challenges
The biggest challenge in conducting this study was anonymity and
confidentiality. As most of these women in the study are easily identifiable
because they are often the “only ones” at the institution as Asian American
females, there was significant level of apprehension from these women about the
anonymity and confidentiality. They expressed the uneasiness to reveal
information about themselves in fear of being identified by their colleagues or
supervisors and the possible consequences. As indicated in the following
response from a potential participant, a great deal of concern is expressed
regarding the confidentiality and anonymity:
Dear Rhea:
I read your introduction and methodology chapters. I also had a
conversation with Professor A yesterday. Because of the very small

171
sample involved, I am very reluctant to participate in your dissertation
study. As I mentioned to Professor A, if you can come up with a broader,
more anonymous survey instrument, I may be able to participate. The
case study methodology will be very difficult to ensure confidentiality. I
wish you the best.

As noted, my first “rejection” came after a month and a half of waiting
after a number of emails and messages. Despite the caveat about this person
being not accessible, I was disappointed and discouraged. Because she was the
only female of Korean descent at this institution as a senior-level administrator, I
persisted.
Dear Dr. Disinterested:

Hope all is well with you. I successfully defended my proposal yesterday.
My committee and I discussed the methodology and decided to have the
participants’ identities completely protected. Having said that, as per my
chair’s suggestion, I would like to sincerely ask you again if you would be
interested in participating in my study. If not, then may I possibly meet
with you to pilot test the interview questions?

I made a final attempt to recruit this person for a pilot-testing but she
never responded to the request. This would-be participant is a senior-level
administrator at a private research university and is very well-known in her ethnic
community. Two other participants declined the interview due to time constraints
and scheduling conflicts. As confidentiality was a concern for the participants, I
used pseudonyms to ensure their anonymity. Also, names of the institutions have
been withheld for the same reason.

172
First Step
My first interview was about to take place after 3 months of arduous
search—in Las Vegas, 298 miles from where I was. The alarm is going off and
the clock reads quarter to three on Sunday morning in May. As my husband and I
head to Las Vegas, the city of Los Angeles is still asleep at 3:30 in the morning.
After a serene drive through the dessert of California for three and a half hours,
we finally arrive in the city that never sleeps—Las Vegas. “I can’t believe I’m
here to do an interview for my dissertation…,” I murmur as I enter a very
southern, festive-looking hotel just outside the strip. I can hear the slot machines
singing jovially and the bustling of tourists checking in for their ticket to fortune.
I made the call to my first interviewee letting her know I arrived. She greeted me
over the phone and described herself:
Rhea? Great, you made it. I will be down in five minutes. I’m wearing
glasses with black frames, a jean jacket, and a Banana Republic
T-shirt. I will be coming down the elevator next to the check-in area.
See you in five.
This is how I met my first and most inspiring interviewee for this study.
She was attending her sister-in-law’s wedding in Las Vegas and agreed to do the
interview during the small window she had before flying back home.
After waiting with anticipation and slight anxiety, I was greeted by a very
youthful-looking, petite woman in her 30s. She hugged me warmly and asked me
if I wanted some coffee. “I can’t believe you drove here at this hour. Are you
sure you don’t want anything? My treat. Wow, this is really great, Rhea. I’m so

173
glad we were able to connect. Let’s go where we can talk more privately.” As
we walked around to find a cozier place to talk, she shared her enthusiasm openly
and expressively. Our interview took place in an area quite distant from the main
lobby of the hotel. As she dragged a very heavy-looking chair from another table
to sit next to me, I took out my tape recorder to check to see it was working
properly. I wanted to capture this “first step” of my journey.
The two hours with her became one of the most important steps I took for
this study. As each question was answered with much deliberation, there was an
unexpected sense of “connectedness” between me, the researcher, and my
interviewee and the support network has already formed. She not only provided
an insightful interview but became a “gatekeeper”, a sounding board, and a
mentor. Her genuine interest in the study as well as her unfathomable support
inspired me to pursue this study. Her frequent emails of friendly greeting and
encouragement reaffirmed the importance of “support network”.
The interview with my newly found mentor ended with tears gathering
around the corners of her eyes and thanking me with a warm hug, “This has been
so therapeutic for me, Rhea. I’m so glad someone’s writing about us. Finally,
our stories are going to be told… Please, let me know if you need anything else.
I’m so thrilled for you Rhea…” Her genuine interest and willingness to open up
not only gave me hope but reassurance of the significance of this study for higher
education administration in this country. She not only shared her life as a college
administrator but showed me what it meant to be part of a “network.”

174
In what follows are the stories of these women who took on a journey to a
world of higher education administration in the United States. Their journey as
Asian American females is captured in the context of unique challenges and
issues, networks, ethgender and cultural identity and lessons learned in their work
setting. Within the topic of unique challenges and issues, I include politics, issues
racism, sexism, and ageism, glass ceiling, “the only one”, breaking the stereotype
myths, value conflict, and the notion of saving face, management/leadership
styles, coping strategies / help-seeking mechanisms, and emotional intelligence.
I also explore networks these women engage in as part of their
socialization process—mentoring, professional organizations, and community and
family. The last section of this chapter explores these women in their ethnic,
gender, and cultural identity, their reasons for entering the profession,
motivations, attributions of their success, and lessons learned. My journey as a
researcher begins here as I explore the unique challenges and issues for these
women.

175
Chapter Four: The Journey
As mentioned previously in chapter one and three, in order to understand
these Asian American women leaders in American higher education, I first
needed to learn what these women experienced in their work setting as part of
their socialization process. Before I begin exploring these women and their
personal experiences as administrators in higher education setting, I introduce the
twelve women with a brief description.
The Women
Elora is a 1.5 generation Filipino-American in her late 30s and holds a
senior-level administrator position at a southern university. She has been an
administrator at a pacific northwest university and just recently relocated to the
South. She is married to a non-Asian male. Elora was a song girl and a student
organization activist as an undergraduate. She hopes to become a vice president
of student affairs one day. She considers herself “caring”, “courageous”, and
“hopeful”.
Felicity is a 1.5 Korean-American in her late 30s who holds a senior-level
administrator position at a southern university. She has been an administrator at a
pacific northwest university for a number of years until she was offered a
promotion at a southern liberal arts college. She credits her family’s perseverance
and resilience for motivating her to work hard and achieve the highest. She
considers herself as “assertive”, “macrothinker”, and “detaildoer”.

176
Lucy is a second generation Chinese American who holds a senior-level
administrator at a southwestern university. She has served in administrative
positions at various states throughout the United States and this is here third
senior-level administrator position. She considers herself as “tenacious”,
“resilient”, and “creative”.
Jennifer is a third generation Japanese American, a “sansei” who holds the
highest ranked position in student affairs among Asian American females. She is
a first generation college student who was tracked to enter the vocational
education. She holds a Ph.D. and has two grown sons. She considers herself
“facilitative”, “empowering”, and “compassionate”.
Julia only identified herself as an “Asian American”. She holds a senior-
level administrator position at an east coast university. Julia has served in various
senior-level administrative positions throughout the country in her 27-year career.
She has also worked as a consultant for for-profit corporation. She considers
herself as “energetic”, “innovative”, and “empowering”.
Celine is a fourth generation Chinese and a third generation Japanese who
grew up in the pacific northwest area. She is currently an administrator in a
student affairs division at a private research institution. As an only child to a
single mother, she credits her mother has her biggest support and lives with a dog.
She considers herself as “flexible”, “patient”, and “creative”.

177
Stacie is a second generation Indian-American in her early 30s who is a
mid-level administrator in student affairs at a research institution in the pacific
northwest region. She considers herself a “college brat” having grown up on
campus and aspires to become a leader of higher education one day. She calls
herself the “rule breaker” and is known as the “race girl”.
Angela is a 1.5 generation Filipino American who came to the United
States when she was 10. She is an administrator in a student affairs division at a
public university. She attended private institutions all her life, was involved in a
white sorority as an undergraduate, and was active politically and socially. She
considers herself as “funny”, “hard working”, and “fair”.
Pam is a third generation Chinese American who holds the highest ranked
position in academic affairs as an Asian American female. She is also the only
woman in this study who is in academic affairs division. She has educational
background in life sciences and she is from a family of academicians. Pam is
married to a non-Asian and has been in the field over 30 years. She works at a
public university. She considers herself as “visionary”, “practical”, and “willing
to take risks”.
Rachel is half Danish, half Chinese. She serves as an administrator at a
large public university. She is a single mother of a 7-year old and has an adopted
sister who is American Indian. Rachel considers her mother as her role model
and calls her career choice as a serendipitous one. She considers herself as
“intentional”, “compassionate”, and “decisive”.

178
Jane is a third Chinese American who is a senior-level administrator at a
southern university. She served in various administrative roles in various
institutions throughout the country. She has recently been promoted to a senior-
level position at a mid-size university in the east coast. Jane attributes much of
her success to God and considers herself as “intuitive”, “creative”, and “focused”.
Michelle is a second Japanese American who is a mid-level administrator
in student affairs at a university in the Midwest. Her parents own a Japanese
restaurant and she has just begun her Ph.D. Program at the institution where she
works. She hopes to become a senior-level administrator in student affairs at her
institution. She considers herself as “structured”, “friendly”, and “energetic”.
Their Tales
With that, I now begin my journey on exploring the socialization process
of these female leaders in American higher education administration. I look at
four areas: 1) unique challenges, 2) leadership styles, 3) networks, 4) ethgender
and cultural identity, and 5) the reason.
The lack of representation of Asian American females in senior-level
leadership positions and the dearth of research on this underrepresented group
have called attention to the purpose for this study. As previously attested in
chapter two, women’s lower participation in educational administration is
construed as the result of differential sex-role and occupational socialization.
This framework highlights the importance of women’s self-perceptions and
actions and argues that women have not been socialized to aspire to

179
administrative positions or to prepare for them. Second, women’s career mobility
is seen as suppressed because school systems, like more other formal
organizations, are structure in ways that tend to exclude women from higher-level
jobs. Conditions such as recruitment and selection procedures that are managed
largely by men, or tokenism and the isolation of the few women, who get
promoted, prevent women from seeking and obtaining administrative positions,
even if they aspire to such roles (Kanter, 1977; Shakeshaft, 1989). Thirdly, the
root cause of women’s lower participation in school leadership is located in male
dominance in society over all, manifested in covert and overt forms of sex
discrimination which limit women to subordinate positions in the public and
private economies, that is, in work both outside and inside the home (Sokoloff,
1980; Stockard & Johnson, 1981). Because of this hegemony, women may
perceive themselves to have few opportunities and therefore limit their
aspirations, creating a cycle that leads back to the effects of differential
socialization on career mobility (Shakeshaft, 1989).
In addition to the theorized notions of barriers for women’s career
mobility, Chu (1980) described the unique barriers faced by Asian American
women as the commonly believed myth of Asian Americans’ success in this
country and the additional bondage of their cultural tradition in which women
assume low status in the family and society, asking nothing and expecting little.
These barriers in combination have prevented Asian American women from equal
participation in the professional occupations. In addition to external barriers,

180
Asian American women were fighting internal barriers and struggles (Chu, 1986).
Many Asian American women did not feel they had the social skills necessary to
be leaders. They had problems feeling confident enough to assert themselves. In
addition, the conflict between their cultural values as Asian women and the values
instilled in them as Americans is pervasive throughout the different racial and
ethnic layers within the group.
Moreover, minority women in academe and higher education
administration experience various degrees of a chilly climate (Moore & Wagstaff,
1974) often due to consistent and prevalent gender discrimination and sexual
harassment (Blum, 1991). Opportunities for promotion, tenure, salary equity, and
networking for minority women in higher education possess greater challenges in
the work environment and they may face “double discrimination” (Graves, 1990)
or double devaluation. Exclusion from mainstream decision-making and being
used by the institution as buffers with the minority community are often common
factors of how minority women feel dissatisfied with their work environment
(Howard-Hamilton & Williams, 1996).
Chu (1980) attributed the lack of representation of Asian American
women in educational research to the socio-cultural barriers commonly shared by
women members of ethnic minorities (racial and sexual discrimination, lack of
role models, lack of access to the “good ol’ boy” system). These barriers in
combination, she asserted, have prevented Asian American women from equal
participation in the professional occupations (Chu, 1980). At the core of the

181
issues and challenges rests the politics at the institutions where these women have
attained their leadership positions. As one expressed in the following and many
others following, politics is a highly significant component in their work
environment that affects and uses these women’s energy and time throughout
their daily professional lives.
Unique Challenges and Issues
Politics
Academia is a funny beast, right? It’s just this little funky world.
A lot of power players who really don’t have a lot of power.
People with really really big egos and petty… office space, tenure
decisions… Faculty fight with tooth and nails. Academia is a
fascinating thing, one day, someone’s got to make a movie out of
it. It’s a soap opera, isn’t it?
- Stacie

Stacie, one of the more vocal participants, shared her perspectives about
academia and the notion of politics. As my first interviewee or my gatekeeper
forewarned me, the notion of politics was a pervasive theme in this study. As
Rosaldo (1993) argued against the exclusivity in American higher education,
institutions of higher learning appeared to tell those previously excluded, “Come
in, sit down, shut up. You’re welcome here as long as you conform to our
norms.” This was the Green Card phase of short-term provisional admission in
the name of increasing institutional inclusion and change (p. x).
To understand the university politics through the eyes of these Asian
American female administrators, I asked them to describe the politics and the

182
rules of the game on their respective campuses. The notion of politics was subtle
and covert according to some. It varied in magnitude, and the number of people
impacted. When asked to define politics, one responded:
It’s the different ways of managing human organizations —
different ways of working for different people. Relationships are
tricky. You need to manage politics without losing your core
values or sense of values.

Institutions of higher learning manifest politics through their people and
history. These women encountered various ramifications of politics first as
women and second as Asian Americans. One inference of politics was the “rules
of the game” at the institutions.
Scan the environment first before you make change or speak.
Understand who your VP’s or President’s allies and enemies are —
partners or people who they keep their distance from. You need
good relationships with your VP. You need to observe. It is
important to know the organizational structure of the university
and where your VP’s and President’s expertise is. Adapt and flow
with where they are coming from. Understand that someone is
always on the ladder looking down and vice versa. There are
different levels of the ladder and views are different. Seek where
they are from their view.
- Elora

Suffering from a collapsed rib due to high stress, weight and sleep loss,
and anxiety attacks, Elora experienced the politics of her campus the “hard way”.
She was seen as deviant and rebellious, a know-it-all and inexperienced, and non-
supportive of the VP. After her mentor, a senior-level administrator of student
affairs division left, she was left without a buffer and a shield that had protected

183
her from heavy decision-making, financial decision, personnel issues, and
“managing up” skills. As she recollected in excruciatingly detailed manner:
I had the illusion that this team would work smoothly together
since my style and the Dean’s style were similar. I thought to
myself, “if they like her and all the great things I did as a result of
her leadership, then what could go wrong?” I thought many times
over and over that this ill feeling that I had would pass, but the
more I learned and stayed, the more I was upset and disappointed
in student affairs’ processes that I began to question, inquire, and
wonder… Essentially, I stepped on some landmines ungracefully
in a highly politicized environment. After another year and a half,
I finally decided to leave the University.

To review what was discussed earlier, participation in academia requires
an accurate deciphering of the “rules “ or “hidden curriculum” based on a
dominant worldview with regard to behavior and practices within university
culture and the tenure process (Margolis & Romero, 1998; Bourdieu, 1986).
These rules must be negotiated in the context of the women administrators’
location and status within the organizational structure; underrepresented
administrators must contend with these rules as well as other challenges attendant
with outsider status (e.g. learning a new discourse, maintaining cultural identities
within a different cultural environment, dealing with exclusion) (Lee, 2003).
Felicity, a senior-level administrator at a southern institution, exclaimed
despondently:
The public system is more political. It’s like swimming among
sharks. Our institution is less politically charged than the public
system. There is politics everywhere, more toxic at places. Here,
it’s about relationships, dwindling resources, staff and space. In
California, there are more sharkish types of people. Iron sharpens
iron. EP is in the middle. Politics prevent Asian American women

184
from going into administration. Everyday is about politics at every
level. Developing relationships — never choosing your battles,
never burning bridges. It’s about preference.

The subject implicated various issues and challenges that will be explored later in
this chapter. Lucy, a senior-level administrator at a religion-affiliated institution
in the northwest, could not even begin to talk about the politics of the campus and
the rules of the game once asked:
Oh my god, Rhea… That could be a whole semester course. It’s
dysfunctional and toxic. It is the draining part of the job. You
have to master the politics to survive and succeed. It’s both people
and history. You can never separate people from history. And I
know I’m not the only person who feels this way.
The rules of the game are “Don’t question, just obey with your
head low. Do whatever you’re told.” It’s everywhere, my world is
not just student affairs, it’s academic affairs and administration. I
report to a Caucasian male VP. Things would be different if he
were female of color.

It was evident in her response that she was already going through some
challenges that dealt with the politics of the administration of her department.
When asked about the rules of the game, the issue of “saving face” came up quite
frequently, as stated in the following response:
Never ever publicly put somebody in a position to “lose face”.
Working with staff and colleagues—I give feedback in private.
Conflicts are managed privately versus publicly. We, at the
cabinet level, always are united once the decision is made.

This administrator, Joanna, has just been offered a position as a senior-
level administrator of student affairs at an east-coast university and began her new
post in July of 2007. The issues surrounding politics elicited relationships,
depleting resources, and personal preferences and agendas. As one participant

185
noted, “It’s all personal and about who are friends with whom. Funds are
political. Most attention is given to those who complain the loudest; I don’t think
that’s right. People who are accomplishing the most should be the ones getting
heard.” Again the general view of the politics was the fact that higher education
highly political:
Higher education is the most political place on earth. I worked in a
corporate setting before. But those places can’t even compare to
higher education when it comes to politics. No one ever told me
that before. I think there is a whole stratification. All these people
have doctorates, PhDs, EdDs, … There is the whole mentality
about hierarchy—staff, faculty, tenure, etc. Those play into how
you conduct your business.

This respondent has been working at the same institution for over 15 years and
when asked if it was difficult to get into politics as an Asian American woman,
she replied:
It’s not easy, but in order to survive and be successful, you have to
know how to play the game. I’m not a social schmoozer person. I
don’t like going to cocktail parties and small talk but I have to.
You have to be visible, to show that your interests are broad, and
you know what’s going on. If you don’t do that, it’s a detriment to
you personally.

In terms of the rules of the game, it came down to power dynamics and who had
the control of the institution. As one disclosed willingly:
Power dynamics. That’s it. It’s how you navigate relationships.
You need to stay true to the core. Even without power at the table,
you can see the power dynamics. I’ll never go outside to talk
about my supervisor. I will keep what happens between me and
my supervisor inside. I will say to him, “I can’t talk shit about you
out there, I can talk shit with you now, and it’s done.” It’s the
passive aggressive behavior. I say to myself, “Do I say this to the

186
President or do I not say to the President?” The politics around the
supervisor is an issue for me.

This respondent has a Caucasian male for her supervisor and as evident in her
account, she is facing some challenges.
Not one respondent had any positive comments on the politics or the rules
of the game. One respondent shivered as she remarked about the politics, “It’s
lethal. Every single job I had, it was lethal. It will kill you in a moment.” One
notable comment I received from most of the respondents was the fact that each
had to “cover themselves” by cc’ing her supervisor on everything they do.
As one respondent woefully commented:

I’m the rule breaker at the University. It’s a very paternalistic
institution with no diversity ethnically and socio-economically.
You can’t blanket everything with T Spirit! The rules of the game
here is “goonism”. No questioning allowed with heavy-handed
methods. It’s about playing nice, knowing who to trust and who
your allies are.

Some did not want to disclose their views on politics, curtly disclosing
that politics exist and that was just how it was. Just as the participants were
reluctant to release their information for this study, they were also hesitant to
discuss such “sensitive and highly volatile” subject. The accounts explicitly
recounted above convey politics and rules of the game as the root of the issues
and challenges unique for these Asian American women. Next I will explore the
issues of racism, sexism, and ageism these women face as roadblocks as
administrators.

187
Racism, Sexism, and Ageism
Incredible racism and sexism; people are ignorant. You have to
meet half-way point. Bring together what you’ve learned in your
profession and your culture to create who you are. They always
ask this question at interviews, “Can you make a tough decision?”
It is so irritating because I wouldn’t be here if I weren’t able to
make tough decisions. Someone said to me and I can quote him, “I
don’t mind at all that you’re oriental, or you’re younger than me,
or you’re a woman.” The fact that he is saying this is total racism
and sexism. They think we have “single agenda item” when we
come to meetings. We get minimized every day. We need to be
incredibly self-assured with some thick skin. That is why I think
access and equity are critical with our institutions—not just for
Asians but in multiculturalism and diversity.
- Celine

As echoed in the next account by Celine, barriers exist to the minority
woman who seeks a position as an education administrator because she is a
woman and because she is a minority (Montez, 1988). “She asks that [the
barriers] be removed along with the mythology that she is sometimes doubly
blessed because she can be exploited as a ‘two-fer’”—a minority within a
minority, in this case, females who are Asian Americans (Williams, 1985).
Racism and sexism were constant reminders to these women on their
places in the “circle”, as explicitly noted in Stacie’s response:
I’m very Indian in a lot of ways. So many don’t know what that
means. I’m just this brown girl in a room. Racism plays
constantly. People are surprised when I speak out. They will say,
“Wow, your English is so good!” I’m thinking, “I was born here
you fool. My English is better than yours.” When you see me,
you register female, non-white and that’s going to have an
implication in your treatment of me and your language towards
me, and your expectations toward me.

188
The pervasive discrimination constantly reflected and displayed in their work
setting through racism and sexism is a deterrent to these women not only
professionally but also psychologically. One respondent vehemently expressed,
“I never felt so female until I was challenged at [her university]. Up until then, I
honestly did not feel my femaleness at work.”
Ageism is another pervasive challenge these women face in their
profession. Also the fact that they look younger than their age plays a big part in
ascribing to the ageism.
Age is an impediment more than anything. Physically, we look
younger and people make assumptions. I moved faster; became a
dean at 35 and a VP at 39. That’s not common. At [her
university], I will have somebody call me a student because of they
way I look. People call me “kiddo”, “gal” and that infuriates me
more. Age is more overt and people think it’s okay. Gender is
more covert.
- Felicity

Another respondent reiterated her experience with age:
I look younger and it’s a huge issue. After we went through
reorganization, I became one of two associate deans. I was already
here doing the work. I have so many friends on campus and a lot
of them are older than me. They said, “Oh my god, do we have to
call her Associate Dean?” My attitude and ethics were the same…
People who report to me are older than me and many don’t use that
against me but there is tension. They’ve been here a long time.
Why wasn’t the opportunity given to them? I learned that I wasn’t
going to answer that question.

As illustrated by another respondent, these women are constantly faced
with having to work against the stereotype image:

189
I’ve always had to work against people’s stereotypical expectations
about a very petit Asian American woman who takes charge and is
in a leadership role. Problem is when your behavior doesn’t match
the stereotype and people have negative reactions (negative
consequences usually). I always had to work harder, faster, more
and smarter to gain the credibility. I was never given the things
automatically.

These deterring factors are certainly part of the challenges these women
face. As youthful Asian faces, these women have yet another hurdle to overcome
in addition to the racism and sexism. As explored later in this section, this
youthful trait negates the leadership quality of these women and exacerbates the
“stereotype image”. Their predicament is further heightened by yet another
impediment—glass ceiling.
Glass Ceiling
Women and racial minorities are thought to face particular disadvantages
in managerial and professional settings (Lee, 2003). Lee (2003) adds that
persistent and even widening gaps in earnings, slower rates of promotion, and
truncated career ladders suggest that a glass ceiling exists for women and racial
minorities. While the presence and status of women in the work force have
increased dramatically since the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, there are
still concerns about the relative absence of women in higher management ranks,
which some have described as the glass ceiling. Women of all races and classes
confront systematic disadvantages as workers (Glenn, 1991). In 1995, the Federal
Glass Ceiling Commission concluded that “today’s American labor force is

190
gender and race segregated – white men fill most top management positions in
corporations.” The issue has taken on particular significance as women and
minorities have increased their occupational status.
Hyun (2005) renamed glass ceiling the “bamboo ceiling” as it relates to
Asian American. The findings clearly indicate the glass ceiling exists for these
women—the two-fers constantly battling racism and sexism to survive and
succeed.
The glass ceiling is there. The perception barrier is there. How do
you deal with that? I was invited to do a speech and was
introduced as the “highest-ranked Asian woman in the state of
California”. I was like wow… I couldn’t believe it.
- Jennifer

Sandler and Hall (1986) found that a chilly climate may affect practices as
they relate to hiring and promoting someone who is not part of the dominant
culture. Female faculty and administrators have lower salaries than men who
hold positions of equal rank, are more likely to hold lower level positions, and are
offered fewer promotions (Blum, 1991). Although more women are aspiring to
greater leadership positions within the university administrative ranks, there still
remains a glass ceiling (Glazer, Bensimon, & Townsend, 1993; Sagaria, 1993;
Touchton & Davis, 1991).
One respondent differed by stating that she felt like she had been able to
break away from the glass ceiling but it didn’t mean that it didn’t exist. As
illuminated repeatedly, Asian American women in senior-level leadership
positions in American higher education administration are a rarity. Because they

191
are so few in numbers, often they are the only Asian American woman at their
respective institutions and this adds yet another layer to the challenges and issues
these women face in their work setting.
“The Only One”
As mentioned previously in chapter one, the number of Asian American
women (in all Asian American ethnic groups except Vietnamese) exceeds the
number of Caucasian women who completed four years of college (Hsia, 1988).
In 1994, Asian American women posted a college graduation rate of 67%, the
highest among all groups, including Caucasians (Montez, 1998). The number of
Asian American women earning doctorates doubled between 1984 and 1994
(American Council on Education, 1996). Yet, there are so few Asian American
women in the higher education administration, as affirmed earlier in this study.
As my sample size clearly indicates, Asian American females are rare in
American higher education administration. In many instances, they are the “only”
Asian American woman in their respective institutions.
As one administrator accounted, “You have to get used to being the ‘only
one’ in this field. I’ve been the only one throughout my entire career. I’m acutely
observed in the senior level.” This administrator also stated that she had to be
very cautious in her actions as she inadvertently represented the whole Asian
American female group.

192
Another administrator echoed this response after a long sigh:
Here we go… It’s being the “Only One”. I think it’s an issue and
it’s a reality of where I am. Black and white thing, I’m not angry
about that. I dealt with all that in terms, like, “What aren’t there
more staff, faculty of color?” There is only so much you can
within your parameters. I make change within what I can do, you
know. And I try to encourage change in my job.

She also disclosed another issue with regard to her being an Asian
American woman:
I bring light to certain things as an Asian American female but they
only go so far… The Virginia Tech shooting is an example. You
know about Asian American identity, about responding
appropriately to major life issues. I think it was a serious thing; it
changed the way all campuses look at responding to emergency.
So here I am doing my duty, first as an Asian American female to
respond to Asian American students to support them. My email
was going to two African American male administrators. But
nothing happened on campus. So, the issue was, “Would you
understand if it was an issue for you? If it was a black murderer,
would it be any different? How would you react?” I believe in
proactive than reactive. But it’s very different because it is the
South.

To reiterate, being the only one affects these women in their leadership
roles and calls attention to the need for critical mass for this underrepresented
group within the higher education administration. Relative to being the minority
within the minority, these women are constantly challenged to dispel the
stereotype myths that are ingrained in the minds of their non-minority, male
counterparts at work.

193
The Package: Presenting the Unexpected and Cracking the Stereotype
I’m not a very tall person. I don’t fit the package. I think inserting
more critical mass in the field, when you have only few, people are
defined by the few. We have to educate and challenge people, ask
questions, and cause reflection. The value of my expertise is not
respected. It has to be internal and unconscious not only external.
- Lucy

Stature is another pervasive challenge among others for these women. These
women are often perceived “less leader-like” because of their petite stature. Lucy
also added on the “package”:
I’m the antithesis to the demeanor (demure, quite, and
accommodating). I’m direct and assertive, and loud. People don’t
know what to do with me. They say, “You’re different”. I’m often
in a teacher mode trying to educate these people.

Not fitting the expectations of people is another common issue for these women
as noted in Lucy’s accounts. Stacie who calls herself a “rule breaker” at the
institution stated:
Presenting the expected is an issue. Riding over the rough shots.
When people think and say, “She is the race girl”, I diffuse that
pretty quickly. We are constantly pigeonholed based on perceived
characteristics. What is it about race work that is so problematic?
Ethnic student affairs may not be valued—take out Asian
American Pacific, what do you have? They ask me, “So… are you
gonna help them be more like… Asian?” The perception of our
center being only about race is a huge issue.

The cultural injunctions that permeate some Asian societies—those values
that discourage assertiveness, outspokenness, and competitiveness in groups—
work against Asian Americans, more for Asian American women, especially
those in administrative positions. Thus, an Asian job candidate may be viewed, at

194
best, by an Anglo-European department chair as being shy or indifferent, or at
worst, as having nothing to say or being unable to act decisively (Hoy, 1993).
Stereotypes are preset in people’s mind. You are either a “dragon
lady” or “wall flower”, nothing in between. We are minorities but
we are not. Asian Americans are not white. Stereotypes dictate a
lot of what we do. It is both negative and positive. People see
Asian American women as “safe” and “good listeners”. People are
drawn to me. They say, “I feel like I can talk to you” but I feel like
you don’t even know me. They say, “You are going to be a nice
one.”

The challenges incurred from the stereotype image about Asian women
being quiet, submissive, and obedient were prominent in the accounts.
They don’t expect me to be vocal and assertive. To them, assertive
means aggressive. Reaction to your behavior is differently
evaluated. Managing other people’s stereotypical expectations has
always been an issue. There is a sense of isolation as an Asian
American woman. Circle gets smaller as ou go up the hierarchy—
fewer people to have friendship with. It’s also positional, not just
racial and gender.

One woman stated that she did fit the stereotype to some degree.
A lot of times, you go to these meetings, I see people state the
obvious. I don’t think you need to state the obvious. Some people
like to listen to themselves talk. My former boss said, “You should
speak up more.” But I don’t want to state the obvious. She said
that people don’t know that and you should say it. I kinda worked
on that because she thought I should. She was very forward, I
really like working with her. You are working against people’s
perceptions and expectations of how you should be.

She also added:

Social science is an odd field for Asians to be in. When they saw
me in that role, as the head of the whole area, when I introduced
myself with my titles, they go, “Oh”, all of a sudden, you know
they defer to you more. I would always do that little experiment.
It’s the assertiveness, stereotypes, expectations, and perception.

195
This respondent had four titles behind her name both in the field of social science
and education.
Jennifer, a very exuberant, animated administrator shared her issues as an
Asian American woman:
No unique issues to my knowledge. I’m not quiet or demure. It
seems out of character for me from the stereotype. It’s magnified
ever more because I spent many years going to an African
American church under the tutelage of African American preachers
— they are very animated you know. I was once married to an
African American. I also had to educate people on the term,
“oriental” and the inappropriateness of the term. People were not
aware of me as an Asian American woman. I don’t see it as a
hindrance. Respect comes with title.

Her acquired mannerism from the African American culture appeared to help her
break away from the stereotype image of a stoic, soft-spoken Asian American
woman. Another respondent, Elora who has just gotten married to an African
American male, expressed similar views on the notion of stereotype myth on
Asian American women and also emphasized the need to dispel the myth.
Another significant challenge these women encounter is the value conflict
between their cultural values and the norms and / or practices at work.
Value Conflict
I’m not into “tooting my own horn”. You know we were raised
not to do that… It’s hard to be out there and promote yourself.
I’m just not used to it.
- Angela

196
As “minorities within a minority” (Chan, 1996), what values and
behaviors lie at the center of Asian American women’s identity? As Angela
described in her account, certain Asian values conflict with the workplace values
for these women. As ascribed in chapter two, Asian values are much resonated
with Confucian principles: 1) primacy of family and community over the rights of
the individual; 2) consensus above dissent; 3) discipline above permissiveness
(Harper, 1997). As recounted earlier through the accounts of these women, these
values are often conflicting with the function of their leadership roles, having to
direct, manage, and make decisions. Asian American women develop what can
be described as a “double consciousness.” While they look at themselves through
the lenses of Asian patriarchal values, they have to confront, at the same time, the
reality of living in the United States as children of immigrants dealing with
assimilation and acculturation.
Cultural shyness and modesty derived from the Confucian values can
prevent Asian Americans from being accepted and rising to the top according to
Hoy (1993). And although not every Asian American may feel this shyness, it is
something that has been encouraged by the culture. As one woman noted in her
account:
My boss promotes me well. She is good at it. Some women don’t
do that you know. Women should promote other women. [Her
supervisor] is a white woman, interesting… Had I had an Asian
American woman as a boss, like D, things could have been
different, maybe better? D promotes Asian American women so
well. Lots of praising and encouragement… I’m not into “tooting
my own horn”. You know, A is expected from us, Asian

197
Americans. You know, when someone else (non-Asian) does
something half-baked, everyone’s like, “Oh, wow!!!” And they
get all these awards and I’m like, they’re getting something for
that?

As illustrated in her account, “tooting one’s own horn” does not fare well with
Asian American women in this study but often they are forced to do so in order to
promote themselves. One woman asserted, “I let my work do the talking.”
The cultural injunctions that permeate some Asian societies—those values
that discourage assertiveness, outspokenness, and competitiveness in groups—
work against Asian Americans, more for Asian American women, especially
those in administrative positions. One recurring theme was “saving face”.
“Saving Face”
I do not confront someone in public meetings. You know as
Asians, we are all about “saving face”. I will discuss things in
closed door. Never in public meetings. Always one-on-one,
closed door.
- Pam

As this seasoned administrator noted in her response, it is her Asian value
that she upholds in her leadership role at the institution. Although she is a third-
generation Chinese American who has been married to a Caucasian male for over
three decades, she still appears to retain one of the highly valued norms among
Asians — saving face.
As noted earlier in chapter two, Asian values are much resonated with
Confucian principles (Harper, 1997). Harper further argues that Asian systems
are defined as an inversion or a corruption of a western form: soft

198
authoritarianism, as opposed to the hard kind; illiberal democracy, as opposed to
the semi-democracy. Another respondent reiterated the notion of saving face, “I
will not place any of my staff in a situation where they have to lose face. It’s
about respecting others. You know how Asians are brought up. I was no
different. It is just not going to happen”. This soft authoritarianism is manifested
in the management/leadership styles which I will disclose next.
Leadership Styles
As most of these women are in student affairs, many of them personified
the humanistic element – being collaborative, participatory, respectful, consensus-
building, nurturing, consultative, developmental, situational, and coaching.
After going through a maze of offices and narrow hallways, I was
finally guided to a conference room by a kind student. Then this
student pointed to a tall woman with dark chocolate, shoulder-
length wavy hair, wearing a tangerine sweater making hand
gestures, and laughing gleefully. She was surrounded by a group
of people, talking and laughing.

As I recall from my field notes, my interview began observing Angela in
action with students, peers, and her supervisor. Angela is a senior-level
administrator at a large public institution that boasts being one of the most diverse
institutions in terms of student population. She is known as an extremely hard
worker and a dedicated professional. In terms of her management style, she
described herself in this way:

199
It’s 70% collaborative and 30% directive. It’s even going to get
worse. Staff meetings, search process… My management style
has changed drastically. It used to be “let’s see what everybody
thinks then make a decision. I do believe in fun and balance.
Team-building is important.

When asked why she changed her management style, she responded:

The job makes it. There are priorities in this division and there are
more demands and less time. For example, for Virginia Tech
shooting, I didn’t want a vigil because we had no staff. But it
turned into ‘Sunflower didn’t want a vigil.’ Before, it was ‘let’s
talk about it.’, now, it is ‘I’ll make it myself.’ I need faster
decisions. Student affairs is all about process. I had a colleague
who was 90% collaborative. I think it will evolve.

Most of the women in this study incorporated collaborative and
participatory with directive in their daily decision-making processes. Reciprocity
and exchanging feedback were recurring themes throughout the interview.
One respondent who had an Asian American male supervisor lamented
with her experience of not receiving feedback from her supervisor:
You need to receive and give feedback, preferably on the positive
end. I’ve had supervisors where feedback was only negative and
when you didn’t received any feedback, that means you’re doing a
great work. I’m a human creature. I need positive reinforcement
that lets me know I’m doing great work. Some people say you
should know on your own but sometimes I need a pat on the
shoulder. I try to do that with my staff very intentionally. There
are plenty of places in everyone’s life where they are constantly
critiqued. No matter what my supervisors would do, I would treat
my staff the way I would like to be treated.

She described her management style as “meeting people where they are”.
According to her, she does regular check in and spends a great of time and effort
in talking to everyone of her 18 staff members.

200
One other respondent who is a senior-level administrator in a student
affairs division of a social science department firmly believed in training at heart.
When asked to describe her leadership and/or management style, she answered:
I’m participatory. I’m into consensus-building. Even though I’ll
probably make the decision, I’d like to hear everyone’s opinion.
Sometimes, I’ll tell people why we did certain things. I think it’s
important to understand why your idea wasn’t chosen or why we
are doing things certain way. People are always going to criticize
management, right?

Despite her adherence to participatory and consensus-building management style,
this respondent did not believe in mentoring and coaching, which is further
explored later in this section.
Teamwork, discussions, advocacy, consensus decision, consultative,
situational and coaching were other descriptors used to describe their management
/ leadership style. One respondent had lunch a month with staff, retreats, and
everyone having the platform to talk as her way of management. Another
respondent stated, “Less I see you, the better our relationship. Let the experts do
the job. My job is to provide information, resources, and advocacy.” Situational
management was also frequently mentioned by the participants.
With regard to consensus, Rachel from a diverse, mid-western institution
affirmed:
My style is consensus decision. I get a lot of feedback from staff.
I get investment and direction from consensus. Everyone starts
with 100% - you can lose or keep. I assume you’re the best. I like
to hear from all stakeholders. Democracy is misunderstood—

201
everyone with equal status in inherent values. It’s not the case in
higher ed. We need hierarchical system to get a job done in higher
education.

The juxtaposition of collaboration and directive was reiterated in another
respondent where she emphasized that one needs to collaborate and consult
widely but can’t stay in that collaborative position too long and that one needs to
push forward. In terms of management style, Elora shared in the following:
I think I use more of the human resources framework from Bolman
and Deal’s four frameworks. I’m very much a coach when it
comes to my employees or staff. I’d like to tell my staff, ‘My role
is to help you succeed here but my more important role is to help
you leave this position’. And they crack up and say, ‘What do you
mean, I want to work for you’. If I did my job well, my job was to
help empower you and teach you to use certain tools, whatever
software, whatever education you need, whatever extra degree you
need, whatever crisis scenarios you have to work out, so when you
become whatever, that’s my role as a manager, is to make sure you
can understand what you’re doing right now and use the tools to
move along. My style is also a humanitarian style. It’s become
that over time because I began to understand that people come as
they are. When they come to work, there is also a person before
they came to work, I have to recognize family, I have to recognize
their culture, I have to recognize that maybe you had a bad night.
I’d like to coach my employees to work in certain, achievable,
tangible steps. I let them go. Hands-off, eyes-on, I guess.

As I discuss later in this chapter, the notion of coaching as it relates to
socialization and support mechanisms for these women in their careers is
critically important. Referring to Bolman and Deal’s organizational framework,
Elora described her “symbolic” and political leadership style:

202
I’m a symbolic leader because I celebrate birthdays, I would take
them out on their whatever anniversaries, things like that. Oh, I’m
becoming more political. Politics is not a nasty word anymore.
And I think as an Asian American female, I think that is something
we have to understand. The politics of Asian American females
will come out in your study. It’s new.

As predicted, the notion of politics was by far one of the most prominent premises
in this study.
When asked about her leadership/management style, Lucy, a senior-level
administrator at a southwestern university, questioned whether it was
management or leadership—because according to her, the two were different.
She described herself as a leader first, then a manager:
My leadership style is visionary, empowering, and willing to roll
up your sleeves (willing to do the hard work with everyone else).
My management style is balancing autonomy with accountability,
developmental — working with people on mistakes, having high
standards, and able to multi-task well.

As a second generation Chinese American, Lucy, who is in her late 30’s, has held
two positions as a dean and is now in her third deanship for the last 2 years.
In ties with their management / leadership style, I asked these women
about conflict resolution. One of the respondents shared her experiences:
I’m better now. It took a long time to learn how to deal with
conflicts. I pull back and think through my position and other
position. Before I would say, “What the _ _ _ _!” There is
definitely inequality in conflict (position and race). What is under
the surface is important. Crying is cathartic.

Majority of these women appeared to be well grounded for resolving
conflicts and they conveyed going to the source, being honest, seeing the big

203
picture and the greater good, and being direct quickly as successful conflict
resolution methods. One respondent recounted:
I’m good with conflicts. I don’t avoid it. I’m transparent,
forthright, direct, and assertive. Some people don’t like it. My
health background helps me bring issues out on the table.

One seasoned administrator was more patient in dealing with conflicts.
I deal with them carefully. I question if it is worth fighting about.
A lot of times, just ignoring it helps. It is important to deal with.
Don’t become defensive, remain professional, try to solve the
problem instead of lowering yourself. Stereotype is there because
we don’t naturally give advice or speak up.

Picking the battles was another recurring response to this question relative to
conflict. One administrator recollected, “I never knew how female I was until I
was challenged”.
As these women unveil their experiences, I submit that these challenges
extend beyond Asian American women as our higher education administration is
still predominantly dominated by white males. Pyke and Johnson’s (2003) study
on Asian American women on racialized gender expectations illustrated the
powerful interplay of controlling images and hegemonic femininity in promoting
internalized oppression. The study affirmed that by constructing ethnic culture as
impervious to social change and as a site where resistance to gender oppression is
impossible, Asian American women accommodate and reinforce rather than resist
the gender hierarchal arrangements of such locales. This can contribute to a self-
fulfilling prophecy as Asian American women who hold gender egalitarian views
feel compelled to retreat from interactions in ethnic settings, thus (re)creating

204
Asian ethnic cultures as strongholds of patriarchy and reinforcing the maintenance
of a rigid gender hierarchy as a primary mechanism by which ethnicity and ethnic
identity are constructed.
Upon learning the various challenges these women encounter at work
uniquely as Asian American women, I now explore their seeking coping strategies
and help-seeking.
Coping Strategies
In the previous section, social capital gained through mentoring
relationships highlighted the critical role of advocacy, information, and
introductions (Lee, 2003, p. 139) for career mobility. It is clear that the presence
of social capital in affecting positive outcomes for career mobility extends beyond
peripheral and sporadic moments of support. The quality of resources these
women received through their ties with institutional gatekeepers reflected a
surprising level of proactive intention and strategy. Given the understanding of
the kinds of social ties present in supportive relations and the subsequent power
these ties exert to influence career mobility, exploring how female administrators,
Asian American female administrators develop these supportive relations is
equally pertinent. This section presents findings and insights on how these
women approach relationship building and whether their help-seeking orientations
influence their access to social capital.
Before turning to the data, a succinct review of help-seeking orientation is
necessary. The decision to seek help tends to be a consequence of an

205
administrator’s generalized disposition to resolve challenges associated with
successful administration through the mobilization of relationships and networks.
Help-seeking orientation is also influenced by the individual’s assessment of the
benefits and risks in soliciting support (Stanton-Salazar, 2001).
What follows exhibits the coping mechanism of these women. When
asked where she goes for help, one respondent questioned, “Do you mean like
emotional sustenance or help at work?” With regard to help at work, she replied:
My boss when he was here. He had institutional history and
knowledge—constituent groups, budget officer, that can make or
break a situation—the in-roads. My dad always said to make
friends with the secretaries; they are the holders of all knowledge.
I make friends with everybody. I feel I’m not in a silo. I cannot
serve our students or our community if I think I can do it all by
myself. It’s an impossibility; it’s a fallacy. You fail the very
groups of the communities you seek to serve, not wiling to ask
others for help. I have no pride for asking, usually it’s for the
larger good.

In terms of emotional sustenance, she mentioned her parents, brother, husband,
then girlfriends. According to her, her husband of eight years is the rock and
when the doors are closed at nighttime, he is the person she talks to. Most
respondents mentioned their supervisors, mentors, close colleagues, support
groups, and family. One respondent who recently got married shared with slight
embarrassment:
Lately I’ve been going to my husband. He is all I have. I told him
when we were planning our wedding, “You need to look at these
colors, you need to look at this cake, I have no family, my
mother’s not here, my friends are not here, you are it!” My
husband is an extreme support. I also go to my VP, I go to my
mentors, I go to L. I call L often.

206
One respondent offered that she goes to her president but usually the
situation is resolved before then and she does “reflection” on her own for different
situations and predicaments. “Rachel’s number is stored in my cell phone. I call
Rachel, she is my direct supervisor.” As Michelle affirmed in her response, many
go to their supervisors for help and assistance.
Celine had friends outside of the institution as the “go to” people:
I have 20-25 years of friendship, my friends and I go on vacation
together, go over to each other’s houses. We also share
professional identity, ethics and values. Most of your friends don’t
really understand what you do. When you share with your friends
what you do, it’s very special. We have the bond already. We tell
them straight.

Interestingly, she did not identify these friends as part of her social network.
Felicity who is a 1.5 generation Korean American pondered for a while before she
deliberated:
Hmm… personally, I go to my sister and my partner. He gets the
brunt of whatever he gets. Not one person fulfills all of my needs.
You can’t look to one individual and say you have to be everything
to me. You don’t limit yourself and burn out that person.

With regard to seeking, one respondent who had a male supervisor had an
interesting response. This respondent resorted to staff counseling services on
campus as her help-seeking mechanism:
I’m not afraid to… This is confidential right? Okay… My
supervisor and I have different management styles. He is JA
male—Japanese American man, you know. He is from the school
of no praise. There was little guidance from him. I’ve gone to
staff counseling center three times. I went and talked to someone
who was not your friend, spouse, or supervisor. I even told him
about going to the counseling office. He even said to me, “You

207
should, at least you get to talk to someone. I know I’m not the
person to talk to.” He acknowledged. We have so many
resources, we tell our students, we shouldn’t be afraid to use our
resources.

Distinct from the rest of the group, Jennifer who is the highest ranking
Asian American woman in higher education administration and a first-generation
college student, differed in her response:
I don’t usually go for help at work internally. I think that’s
dangerous. You need to build a support system outside your area.
You show you’re weak or perceived as weak and that could work
against you.

When asked to elaborate, Jennifer curtly ended the conversation by stating
that it is the politics and as a woman of color, working in a heavily male work
environment, she has gradually become conditioned to learn not to ask for help at
work. In the similar thread as coping strategies and help-seeking mechanisms,
many of the participants talked about the issue of emotional control for Asian
American women at work. The lack of emotional control or “EI” in Asian
American women is stated to have exacerbated the notion of “non-leader-like”
quality of Asian American women.
EI: Emotional Intelligence
Sastry and Ross (1998) stated that Asian ethnic identity is associated with
comparatively low levels of perceived control. Because of an emphasis on
subordination to family and traditional sources of influence, Asians may feel less
freedom, less autonomy, and generally less control over outcomes in their own
lives. The sense of personal control is a learned, generalized expectation that

208
events and circumstances in one’s life are contingent on personal choices and
actions (Rotter, 1966; Seeman, 1959, 1983).
How did these women fare in terms of their emotional intelligence and
personal control? Four out of twelve women defined and identified with the
emotional intelligence:
APIs are weak on emotional intelligence. To me, emotional
intelligence is the combination of self-awareness (weaknesses and
strengths) combined with acumen and capability to deal with
others. We are taught to deny our feelings. Leading a sheltered
life, I was not allowed to date until I was 25. I had to work on my
EI, I really had to grow. High on the IQ, APIs are among the
brightest people I met, I met few APIs who are high on EI. Older
APIs are EI competent.

One of these four responded with a different perspective:

Emotional intelligence? I’ve been told that it’s high on my end.
It’s the “You do care about me.” I care about you as a human
being. I stood up and shook everybody’s hand in the interview. I
tried to learn about you. I want to know about the people I’ll be
with. I don’t develop relationships with just power players. I
don’t come from that. You might be a sensitive soul, I could be
very blunt, you will hear it differently. It is more difficult to foster
and nurture EI. I don’t know you from atom, but that’s okay.

One respondent affirmed that there was greater potential for women with
emotional intelligence and that socialization was easier with men. However, she
expressed that women may have easier time recognizing the soft part of human
behavior, “Asian culture doesn’t let you express emotion and you are taught to be
stoic. Asians should be tapping into EI because of our cultural elements”.
Hitherto I have examined the various challenges and issues these women
underwent in terms of politics, rules of the game, racism, sexism, and ageism,

209
glass ceiling, “the only one”, breaking the stereotype myths, value conflict, the
notion of saving face, management / leadership styles, coping strategies and help-
seeking mechanisms, and emotional intelligence. I also explored social support
system these women have in their socialization process—mentoring, professional
organizations, and community and family networks. The remaining is focused on
exploring these women in their identity in the context of ethnicity, gender and
culture, the reasons for these women to enter the field of higher education,
attributions of their success, and lessons learned.
I now elucidate on the various networks these women have as part of their
socialization process.
Networks
Previously in chapter two, much of the literature review focused on the
value of social capital in the higher education setting, especially in the
administration area. As affirmed by Stanton-Salazar & Dornbush (1995), the
importance of ties to institutional agents is framed in terms of social capital from
a social network perspective. To reiterate, supportive ties with institutional agents
represent a necessary condition for engagement and advancement in the
educational system and, ultimately, for success in the occupational structure
(Stanton-Salazar, 1995). One of these supportive ties is manifested through
mentoring, as explained by Angela.

210
Mentoring as Instigator and Equalizer
I learn so much from both mentors and mentees. I feel like such a
recipient of good stuff. I love my mentors. Sometimes they don’t
even know they’re mentors but that’s okay. Everyone needs as
tool or push to “equalize everything.”
- Angela

As expressed in Angela’s account, there is certainly a significant level of
appreciation for mentoring. Angela received mentoring from various individuals
throughout her career of thirteen years at a public research university. She was
first mentored by her supervisor, then by other individuals whom she met through
national conferences and organizations. Interestingly, many of these women had
mentioned the same people as their mentors. According to these women, this is
due to the lack of representation of Asian American women in the field. One of
those names that were repeatedly mentioned was of a former chancellor of a
university; she was the first Asian American woman chancellor in the United
States — at a minority-majority institution in a state that was heavily populated
minorities. She is how retired but still continues her mentoring according to the
interviewees, “I think she is a mentor to like 5,000 Asian American women, if not
more. She is every Asian’s mentor”. Despite her open mentoring, I was not able
to reach her for an interview or a meeting after numerous tries. Another person
that was frequently mentioned was an African American woman who now serves
as a senior-level administrator at a southern institution.

211
As others in this study, Angela had mentors of different races and both
men and women. In return, she shared her mentoring experience with incoming
freshmen and students that seek for her guidance.
I select the students whom people don’t see as leaders or whom
didn’t do well academically. They could be lost in the crowd. I try
to pick the ones who are chatty, those know how to select mentors.
That’s what makes me love my job.

Stanton-Salazar (1997, 2001) offers a possible explanation in asserting
that for privileged members of society, the informal and tacit exchange and flow
of information and resources are embedded in dominant networks. As such, the
need for underrepresented group to explicitly identify and seek out key
relationships for social support may be even more pertinent. A majority of the
participants concurred that mentoring has been extremely helpful and important in
their emotional, psychological, and professional experience. They have had
mentors both in and out of higher education setting and their mentors often did
not mirror their own racial and gender make-up. To reiterate, one reason for this
is the lack of representation Asian American women in the field. One respondent
stated, “I’ve had white men, Asian men, white women; but no Asian women.
There weren’t any around in my days.”
However, this lack of representation is perceived positively by these
women because it adds richness to the mentoring relationship with different races
and backgrounds. As Elora emphasized, “There is no boundary with regard to

212
mentorship because to navigate through higher education administration without
support is incredibly difficult.”
For an Asian American female growing up, there were no Asian
American student affairs practitioners for me to role model or
model after. Which is why people like Angela and myself, we try
to give back in that way today. There are so many up and coming
young Asian American females but when I was going to school in
the late 80s and early 90s, there was nothing for me. L, a black
woman, J, a Latina, and a few other people but there were not
Asian American. So I guess at the time, you had to almost be
mentored, be accepting and humble by welcoming other mentors in
your life other than Asian American. You can’t pigeonhole
yourself and think, ‘Oh, I’m going to find that Korean woman or
that Filipino woman and I’m going to model myself after her.’
There is not a lot, there is not a lot of us so we have to be open to
men, being mentored by men, and other people outside our culture.
And people outside student affairs, in business, husbands, children,
you know what I’m saying? You have to be, our network is not as
tight, it’s very small…
- Elora
As she elucidated in her account, Elora reaffirmed the difficulty in finding
mentors who were Asian American women and thus having to broaden her
search. She also emphasized that mentoring relationship evolves and one has to
be open to receiving it. She reaffirmed the significant importance of mentoring as
highly important for retention. “When I have a crisis on my campus, I might call
JJ or L and say, ‘What should I do?’” She also was mentored by the same
woman, as many others in this study.
Jennifer echoed the importance of mentoring:
Mentoring relationship, one primary mentor is completely critical
for emotional, psychological, and professional experience. They
don’t bullshit with me; I don’t have to explain because they are in
the field. It would have been a lonely road without them. It’s not

213
to diminish the drive for the women of color. Power dynamics
exist. I’m the first woman of color in the history of this institution.
To navigate them without the support is incredibly difficult.

Another administrator described her mentor relationship as one that was so
important she felt she would not be where she is today without it – a common
theme expressed by the women in this study. Reiterated by another participant,
the importance of mentoring is emphasized throughout this study, “I’ve been
lucky with wonderful mentors. I am where I am because of mentors.”
Reiterating Elora on the notion of mentoring evolving, Julia described her
mentoring experience on a timeline gradually moving from a mentoring
relationship into a more coaching relationship that was more episodic specific to a
situation. The relationship became more lateral as she grew in her profession.
Julia responded to the question of her mentoring by stating that she was a passive
mentor as there is less time for her to go outside to look for mentees.
Dissimilar to the rest of the group, Stacie had a different perspective on
the notion of mentoring. She has not made active effort to seek out mentors in her
life because the role her dad plays in her life. Her former director, other family
members, and colleagues have been her mentors. She didn’t think there should be
age distinction in mentoring. On the notion of “finding mentors”, she expressed:
Finding mentors is an interesting thing. I don’t think I want
someone who just cares about me, but someone who understands
why. I get angry sometimes. I’m still looking for “the mentor”.
Journey takes longer for people, to find that one or five, or
however many people that click with you that way. We are always
encouraged to go get mentors because it will help you. But it is
harder done than said, especially if you want a mentor who

214
understands where you are coming from. People don’t mind being
your mom and dad—I’m not sure if I want someone like that. I
think it’s a journey everyone should take.

As expressed previously, most of these women looked to mentor and felt it
was an obligation to give back. One respondent stated she mentors two to eight
mentees every year—freshmen to young professionals. One respondent who
received an Outstanding Asian American Woman Award at NASPA shared, “I’m
a mentor to a white woman. You are a role model whether you realize it or not.
The fact that you are there… It’s the ‘if you could do it, I could do it’ thing’.”
Lucy has not had a mentor for a while as she enters her twenty-eighth year
in student affairs, “I had couple of significant mentors; some I intentionally
sought out. As far as mentees, nobody walked up to me and asked if I wanted to
be their mentor. I participated in NASPA mentoring program, aside from that, no
formal mentoring.”
Celine shared her uninspiring experience with a mentee:
I mentored this one student at the high school I went to. It’s
difficult because if they’re not motivated and you’re a busy person,
you can only give so much. And she has not given in the same
return, it’s frustrating for me. I asked her, “What do you need
from me” and she’s like, “I’ll call you, I’ll email you” and I have
not heard from her. I don’t want to take another day out, driving
an hour and visit her when she hasn’t called me. I really like that
participatory thing. I’m probably not going to do another
mentorship. I’ve done mentorship in the past, things don’t work
out.

In terms of how mentoring occurs, Elora exclaimed with passion, “You
have to let the mentoring relationship evolve and you have to let it be. You have

215
to be open to receiving it.” Felicity differed, “You need to be involved
purposefully to expand your network. It doesn’t happen automatically. You need
to seek for it.”
Through exploring these women, I learned that in ties with mentoring,
having role models is critical in both professional and identity development.
Some of the respondents had role models who were also their mentors. In their
personal lives, their role models were usually parents, siblings, or other family
members. Rachel explained about role models in this way:
My mother who came from a family of nine children, being the
oldest daughter, got scholarship to go to college, college in South
Dakota as an international student. Back then, Hawaii was not one
of the 50 states you know… She took huge risks; married outside
to a Danish man, worked in Thailand. She was a risk taker. As a
teenager, I wouldn’t have identified her that way but as I got older
I saw things differently.
- Rachel

Rachel is a single parent who conveyed a tremendous respect toward
mothers. Another respondent shared her grandmother’s story on being a “picture
bride” and having gone through the concentration camp in the 50s and making it
through courage. She was also the only person that credited Asian men as being
her role models—outspoken Asian men who taught her to incorporate her culture
and upbringing in administration.
Felicity stated, “My parents were my role models. The resilience in my
families—all of us are happily successful and content and comfortable. We had
nothing to begin with and us; four sisters are a testament to our strength.”

216
Another respondent reiterated that she doesn’t have a role model. However, she
had a provost at her institution who mentored her—a woman of great integrity, a
parent, hard worker, and energetic person.
The person whom several mentioned as their mentor was also mentioned
as a role model:
My role model is [her mentor]. I would always say, “what would
[her mentor] do? She has all the characteristics of a leader. I
model after her. I’m similar to her style, part of mentoring. She
has been consistent. She is respected, smart, woman of color,
courageous—all the elements I try to employ.

Some stated their role models changed as they grew and as their focus
changed. They looked to people in similar situation—professional working
women.
One respondent took a while to answer the question:
Wow, I am struggling to find one and that bothers me. [her
mentor] has mentored 5,000 people. Surface and spirit of things,
it’s been hard. A lot of them have been other colleagues or people
I worked for. I’m disturbed because I can’t think of anyone. My
younger sister is my role model because of our mutual regard and
the differentness that I admire. My mother became my role model,
as I aged and got older.

To reiterate, the importance of mentoring and role models cannot be more
emphasized as a significant part of these women’s professional lives depended on
this network.
Professional Organizations

As affirmed by social network theorists, one way to develop social
network is to participate in organizations and leadership programs within the

217
professional and ethnic parameters. These women all were intensely involved in
organizations that embraced either student affairs and/or their ethnic origins
throughout the country. In effort to better understand the networking system for
these women outside mentoring, I explored the role of formal institutional support
vehicle.
One organization these women participated was the LEAP, Leadership
Network for Asian Pacifics. This organization has been growing leaders in the
Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) communities for the last 25 years.
Under the auspices of their mission (2007), Leaders are made, not born, LEAP
understands that leaders are made, not born and believes successful leaders are
grounded in strong, vibrant communities. LEAP programs encourage individuals
to assume leadership positions at work and in the community, to be informed and
vocal about policy issues relevant to Asian Americans, and ultimately, to become
role models for future leaders.
Through a comprehensive range of signature leadership development
programs, workshops and customized services designed by and for Asian
Americans and Pacific Islanders (APIs), LEAP develops and cultivates talented
leaders for the educational, nonprofit, private, and public sectors. LEAP offers
programs and workshops of varying lengths for APIs and non-APIs in all sectors.
Inspired by LEAP's training, graduates have furthered their careers, forged
coalitions, and founded organizations.

218
LEAP believes successful leaders are grounded in strong, vibrant
communities. Through comprehensive leadership training and
organizational development programs and workshops, LEAP
promotes the cultivation of new community leaders, strengthens
the effectiveness of existing community-based organizations and
establishes a supportive network for mutual assistance, resource
sharing, and collaborative problem solving.” The impact of
LEAP's training goes beyond its initial delivery. Our model trains
community leaders so that they can, in turn, develop and empower
others. Developed in response to the urgent needs of rapidly
emerging Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI)
communities, this long-range strategy works to build community
infrastructure and mobilize a national network of AAPI leaders.
- LEAP, 2007

Guided by the philosophy: Keep your values and Develop new skills,
LEAP is highly respected for their innovative and culturally-based leadership
development workshops, programs and conferences and their newly created civic
leadership institute that promotes greater civic engagement and political
participation locally, regionally and nationally. Many of these women were
closely involved with the organization and felt the organization had served a
critical role in supporting their career mobility as well as providing with a niche
or a social circle.
Another organization these women were involved was APAHE (Asian and
Pacific Americans in Higher Education). APAHE has, for 20 years, been the
leading national organization addressing issues such as student admissions,
faculty tenure, under-representation in hiring and promotion, affirmative action
and Asian American Studies. APAHE had its 20
th
Anniversary celebration in

219
May of 2007 with a conference, “Going back to our roots – 20
th
Anniversary of
Activism and Empowerment.
NASPA (National Association of Student Personnel Administrators) was
another notable organization that all of the women in this study participated and
had at one point had leadership roles. NASPA is the leading voice for student
affairs administration, policy and practice and affirms the commitment of student
affairs to educating the whole student and integrating student life and learning
(NASPA, 2007). With over 11,000 members at 1,400 campuses, and representing
29 countries, NASPA is the largest professional association for student affairs
administrators, faculty and graduate students. NASPA members are committed to
serving college students by embracing the core values of diversity, learning,
integrity, collaboration, access, service, fellowship, and the spirit of inquiry
(NASPA online, 2007). NASPA members serve a variety of functions and roles
including the vice president and dean for student life as well as professionals
working within housing and residence life, student unions, student activities,
counseling, career development, orientation, enrollment management, racial and
ethnic minority support services, and retention and assessment. Many of the
respondents developed friendship, new mentoring relationships, and a cohort
through this organization.
Community and Family
To reiterate what I presented in chapter two, Stanton-Salazar (2001)
asserts that a critical and network-analytic view of society sees individuals as

220
deeply embedded in social webs that, in turn, are interwoven within other webs,
with these webs further interwoven within ever larger webs or networks. When
applied to the study of social inequality, this critical network approach gradually
reveals what Wellman (1983) calls the social distribution of possibilities, a term
that refers to the unequal distribution of opportunities for entering into different
social and institutional contexts and for forming relationships with agents who
exert various degrees of control over institutional resources, such as bureaucratic
influence (advocacy), career-related information, and opportunities for specialized
training or mentorship (Stanton-Salazar, 2001).
The findings in this study reflect different circles of social network—
professional, social, academic and community setting. Former colleagues,
personal friends, people in their respective ethnic communities, peers outside the
division, book reading club, support group, and sorority group are among the
mentioned. Rachel shares in the following about her involvement with the
community:
I spent 7 years at medical center doing community outreach—free
clinical work. It was social change from grassroot civic. I’m a
single parent with a daughter turning 7 — lots of time spent with
kids and kid’s friend’s family. It has nothing to do with work. My
parameters around social network are a lot of voluntary work,
serving on many advisory boards, and book club. My Asian
women book club is number one outside network. We’ve been
meeting for 11 years.
- Rachel

As indicated in this response, social network circled around their life
obligations more than anything. Another notable point is the fact that these

221
women are fairly high on the hierarchy of their respective division and it is hard
to socialize within their department, “As a dean, it’s hard to get support in your
division, almost everyone reports to you.” This was echoed by others in the
study:
Once you’re going up on the proverbial ladder, you can’t really
have friendship with staff. Collegial friendship happens outside
the division. At work, your social network gets fewer and fewer
depending on the title, where you are organizationally. I need to
find peers to network outside work—national contacts than I do
inside. There is a line I don’t cross with colleagues at work.

One respondent had an interesting mesh of Caucasian sorority sisters with
her passionate, democratic activist friends as her social network. She was very
involved in the Asian American community both socially and politically. In
terms of social network, here is what Stacie had to say:
Coming to LA has been interesting. It took us solid two and a half
years to put our roots here. I didn’t have a car for the first year and
when you’re taking the bus, you’re definitely limited. Car makes
things easier in LA. We made good friends, multi-ethnic friends
who care. Our friends network all across the country, by phone,
long-distance, major events, weddings, etc. You need other
outlets.

Stacie has found the relocation process both a challenge and an opportunity to
broaden her network of friends. One respondent relocated to a very remote part
of a southern state and said this about her social network:
It is a nice community in [city where she lives]. I was invited to
join the [her social network] group. It is a 30-member group
called “Creative City’s Leadership Group” to develop [city where
she lives] headed by a Latino. I met council members, director of
museum, and foundation people. I started an Asian-Indian (Sri
Lanka, Malaysia, India) group. It’s a huge group and I introduced

222
everybody, we get together once a month. I’m #2 person in the
department so there are not many colleagues at my level. I don’t
socialize too much at work.

I sensed her vibrant, animated personality through her uplifting voice coming
through the phone lines.
As disclosed earlier in this chapter, most of these women were unmarried
by choice with 12-14 hour schedule leaving little time for “social” activities and
events. As Celine shared in her response about her work schedule:
I don’t have a husband or children. I’m an only child. I have a
dog though. I think I spend a lot of time working. I need to
balance that out better. I thought it would get better, once I get my
doctorate, once I do finish that other job. I gotta take care of
myself, lose weight, work out, and not work so much. You just get
busy and with this job, I mean it’s so much fun, I find myself
working at home, before I go to sleep, before I go to work, I do put
in 12-hour day, easily. I am thinking, ‘I really need to stop that.’ I
just don’t know when I’m going to stop it, but I need to.

In terms of their involvement with the ethnic community, respondents
were either minimally involved or closely involved. One of the reasons for the
lack of involvement was the time constraints. Pulling 12-hour work schedule did
not allow much room for them to do things outside work. For instance, one
respondent shared, “I’m not involved as much as I would like to be. I always find
the folks in my community that are Asian American and ethnic. Not enough time
to volunteer for things. It is easy to do social things but I don’t think that’s
involvement. The issue is time.” The other issue was the lack of representation
in the community. One respondent wanted to get more involved in her ethnic

223
community but there is a very small population in the area where she is. She
expressed her desire:
I have outreached to I think all the Filipino administrators that I
could find in this city. Ha! Which are two. One is on my campus
in the academics side, and the other one is a Filipino faculty
member at another university. So that’s it. Can I go and find
more, can I go to church with people or social meetings for
Filipinos? Sure, but right now my focus is my family and the
University. In time, I can probably tap into those communities.
Right now, it is important for me to bond with the Filipino students
that are here on campus. I consider them my community too. But
again, the key is there are no females. I have found males in
administration, Filipino administration.

Similarly, the next respondent shared similarly in finding her community:

There is no Asian community in [the city she lives in]. I’m very
involved in student affairs, NASPA, ACPA. I chaired Asian
American Professional Development Pre- Conference. I also co-
chaired Asian Pacific Islander Knowledge Community for 2 years.

Felicity shared her thoughts on the subject in this way:
I am not involved in my Korean community anymore, with a lot of
regret. It’s the cultural perspectives and the value system. I’m
trying to do social justice and you’re trying to buy a Rolex. There
is no Korean community here, if so very little and they are
individual folks. I have Vietnamese and Chinese friends. I can
embrace the craziness of my family but can’t connect with the
value part of the Korean community. It’s unfair for them and for
me.

On the other end of the spectrum, I had women who were more closely
involved in their ethnic communities. One respondent was very involved in
activist work. She was a “hard core” democrat and used to coordinate all the
events regarding social justice and democratic conventions. She was however not
as involved now with heavier work load and less time. One respondent started a

224
caucus for Asian American students nine years ago and had raised $30,000 for
scholarships. She also volunteers with different organizations in her ethnic
community. As she proudly shared, “I’m one of the faculty advisors for API
Caucus here at the University. Every year, we put on a big scholarship event. We
had our ninth year,” she emphasized the importance of “being connected” to her
ethnic community.
Rachel who is multi-racial described her involvement in the ethnic community:
I am the founder of Chinese American Chapter in this state for
many years. It is a non-profit, Asian American Community
Service, working with the medical center in the city. I was
involved with more conservative groups when I was younger but
now, I’m with new groups beyond API and YWCA. It’s not ethnic
based—girl scouts, breeding organization, and etc. I am spending
more time with non-ethnic based organizations.

Earlier in the interview, she emphasized that there was no one type of culture and
that people were global nomads. She referred to this new generation as “visa
passport culture” where family and social network is more globally based.
Stacie who described herself as being a political animal, was heavily
involved in her Indian community through various organizations such as
Foundations for Indian American community, theatre and performing arts
community for Indian Americans, activism, and community-based organizations.
She illuminated her commitment to the community she came from:
I’m second generation; my parents taught me my language. My
mother tongue which is Kanada, I speak Hindi, and I also studied
Spanish for 11 years. I’m more Indian than others because I have
this connection to the language. Language gives you that access to
your heritage, your people, your culture, and your roots. At the

225
very least, your grandmother. None of my grandparents spoke
English. If I didn’t speak the language, I would have lost out on a
whole generation worth of knowledge and love. Because of that,
my relationship to my community is very strong.

To reiterate, in Manufacturing hope and despair, Stanton-Salazar (2001)
asserts that a critical and network-analytic view of society sees individuals as
deeply embedded in social webs that, in turn, are interwoven within other webs,
with these webs further interwoven within ever larger webs or networks. At the
nexus between class, race, and gender stratification, people’s social relations and
social exchanges become manifest at the individual level as egocentric networks
(i.e. the micro level), at the community and institutional levels as cliques (i.e., the
meso level), and at the societal level as system networks (i.e., the macro level)
(Rogers & Kincaid, 1981; see also Brown, 1999).
Stanton-Salazar further discerns that the very texture of an individual’s
daily existence is fundamentally shaped by structured and accumulated
opportunities for entering multiple institutional context s and forging relationships
with people who control resources and who generally participate in power. An
individual’s social class, racial assignment, and gender play a decisive role in
shaping these structured opportunities. Access to institutional agents, significant
others, resources, and pathways across multiple institutional contexts is a very
messy business, as Stanton-Salazar stated, often requiring the commanding,
negotiating, and managing of many diverse and sometimes conflicting social
relationships and personalities. The concept of social- embeddedness allows us to

226
combine our focus on structural constraints with an appreciation of the
psychological orientations and behavioral strategies people use to adapt to,
negotiate with, and change certain aspects of their social environments (Baca Zinn
& Eitzen, 1999).
With that, I now introduce these women in terms of their ethgender and
cultural identity—a significant component of their social webs.
Ethgender and Cultural Identity
Who are these women in terms of race, culture, and gender? As
previously stated in chapter two, Asian American women, working as prostitutes
in mining areas in the 1800s, to CEOs in 2000s, have come a long way. As Asian
American women evolved in American workforce, so did their socialization
process. To that end, socialization is a process that by definition is rooted in
contexts bounded by time, space, and culture. In order to explore about the
ethgender and cultural identity of the women in this study, I asked these women
to describe themselves using 3 adjectives. Elora described herself in this way:
I’m caring, courageous in many aspects, and hopeful. Very caring,
when I say caring, it’s about my communities, family, others, and
always aware about people’s schedules, very caring about what
goes on with people. Courageous in many aspects. Californian
going to the south, no Filipinos around me, no Asian Americans
around me. It’s very black and white here. You can’t help but be
courageous. Going from an associate dean to an Interim Director,
you have to be courageous. You have to have hope. I’m a hopeful
person. I try not to be pessimistic, I learned as I got older, gotta
have a lot of hope. Because if you don’t have it, then how are you
supposed to model the way for other people? Our ancestors had
hope for us today so… I have hope for the future of higher
education.

227
- Elora

I was interested to learn how these women saw themselves as individuals
and the range of descriptors they would use to describe themselves. Having
grown up as a black sheep in a traditional Asian family, Elora emphasized the
importance of having courage and hope. A 1.5 generation Filipino-American who
underwent constant battle with her “bi-culturalness” while growing up, she
employed courage to spearhead post-Katrina revitalization effort at her new job
fully knowing how unwelcome she was and how unknown her future was at a
conservative, dichotomous institution.
When asked to describe themselves using 3 adjectives, the respondents
used various descriptors to answer the question. Here are the various descriptors
used by the respondents and the frequency of each descriptor:
Table 4.1: Descriptors
Descriptors Frequency
Assertive 1
Caring 1
Compassionate 2
Compliance-building 1
Courageous 1
Creative 4
Detail-doer 1
Empowering 3
Energetic 3
Fair 1
Flexible 1
Focused 1
Friendly 1
Funny 1
Having the drive 1

228
Table 4.1: Continued

Descriptors Frequency
Hopeful 1
Intentional 1
Intuitive 1
Leader 1
Macro-thinking 1
Motivational 1
Nurturing 2
Patient 1
Political 1
Practical 1
Resilient 1
Structured 1
Student Advocate 1
Tenacious 1
Visionary 1
Willing to take risk 1

For all the participants, words such as creative, energetic, compassionate
and empowering emerged more frequently than others. Most of the descriptors
emphasize relationships with people, underscoring the pedagogy of the work
involved in student affairs. Jennifer who was “tracked” to go into vocational
programs and who eventually became a senior-level administrator in American
higher education system stated:
I’m empowering; I believe in lifting as you climb and opening
doors for others. I’m a leader who is compassionate and
passionate. And I have the drive.

Stacie said the following in terms of her identity:
I’m inherently political creature. It’s politics that drives a lot of
my passion and work. I think having a strong world view is very
important for young people. We lose our civil liberty at this point
in time. I do think that a lot of it is applied here at S institution –

229
the microcosm of our world. Oppressing at an institution like S…
I’m loving. At the root of my politics is love. I’m also creative.
In student affairs, you never have the budget you need. You have
to consistently creative about what interventions you will use for
your community.

Stacie will be the first woman in her family to have an advanced degree
had this to say about herself. Having a father who is a leftist, she was raised in a
very humanistic principle. Her role as a mid-level administrator in student affairs
division is critical for the Asian student population which stands at 25% at her
university.
Felicity who recently accepted a position of a senior-level administrator of
student affairs at a southern liberal arts college exclaimed:
I’m intuitive, natural, no training for this position, I knew what to
do. Setting up retreats, instinctive, natural abilities in terms of
leadership; I gravitate towards the positions, not afraid to take
risks, and have new ideas; I’m creative for my approach to new
initiatives, I talk to people. I’m also focused; creating and pushing
people for new programs and being able to prioritize. To
accomplish anything, you have to laser-minded. People are
amazed at how quickly I adapted to a new setting.

Jennifer added the following with regard to her Japanese culture:

All of my role models were not Asian. I needed to be more
assertive and aggressive. There was a white woman who was very
successful, being the President of Academic Senate and etc. I
observed her and she was so forthright. We went for a coffee one
day and she told me, “I was trying to be like you.” All this time, I
was trying to be like her and it was an epiphany. She said she left
meetings without getting what she wanted. She noticed I left
meetings with what I came for. Hanging back in the Asian culture
sometimes works better. My Japaneseness brings other values to
the table. I’m my own person. I may not be the first person to
speak up, but when I do, people will listen.

230
As previously asserted, although one’s identity may seem to be a very
personal and individual decision, there can be many historical, socioeconomic,
and sociological factors that can directly or indirectly influence this decision. Just
as there is a wide range of experiences and circumstances within the Asian
American population, so too can there be many different, overlapping, and
simultaneous forms of ethnic identity among Asian Americans.
In terms of their cultural and racial identity, these women with the
exception of one, identified themselves racially and ethnically. Ironically, the one
that did not identify herself as an Asian American is a well known researcher and
educator in the field of Asian identity development. Most of these women also
distinguished themselves by identifying to the appropriate generation. As Elora
explicitly explained in her account, she wanted to acknowledge herself racially
and generationally:
First of all, I identify myself culturally. From racial, ethnic
perspective, I consider myself a 1.5 generation Filipino American.
Probably wondering why 1.5? The reason why I consider myself
sort of that half is because my parents immigrated here when they
were young so the United States is all they know. My father came
here when he was 14 in the 1950s and my mother came when she
was 10 in 1950. They’ve experienced so much in the 1960s,
segregation, civil rights, and assimilation as opposed to
acculturation – which is why I don’t know Filipino, the language.
I understand it but it was never spoken in my home… yeah… for
many reasons, because of the time, they way we immigrated.
Filipino Tagalog was always suppressed, you weren’t supposed to
speak it in school. ‘You weren’t white so try to be as white as
possible’—this is what my parents instilled in me. That is why
that .5 is so significant for me. I don’t know the language; the
language is lost in my generation. But there is strong Filipino
identity about me and my brothers and my cousins.

231
As previously indicated in the breakdown of the racial make up, there was
a number of “half generations” in this group and they all strongly identified with
their racial and ethnic identity. As another 1.5 generation respondent, Felicity
illuminated:
When I was 5, I came to the United States. My parents were
incredibly traditional and I did not live as an assimilated,
acculturated person. We had strict rules and parameters around my
house. When I compared with my friends, it was a different
experience for me; I’ve had the experience as an immigrant.

Felicity, in her late 30s, is a 1.5 generation Korean-American. She was
one of three Korean Americans identified and one of two who participated in this
study. When asked about what she valued most about her culture, Felicity added:
I’m proud of my culture. We are a resilient group of individuals.
My mother can make a penny stretch a mile. Not knowing the
language, she figured it out. Blood is very strong. At the end of
the day, you got no where else to go; you have each other.

I had one respondent in this study who had a different racial background
from the rest of the group. I initially did not identify her for the study due to her
non-Asian last name but through my gatekeeper, I was able to discover her and
she decided to participate in the study. Rachel is multi-racial and very proud of it,
as illuminated in her account:
My mother is Chinese from Hawaii and my dad is of Danish
descent. They met in college. I have an adopted sister who is
American Indian.

As a single mother of a young girl, Rachel valued her multi-racial identity and her
global background. She believed that family network is more globally used and

232
that one type of culture did not exist. She is also the only one in this group who
did not hold a doctoral degree.
One other respondent in this group, Pam, had a non-Asian name — by
marriage. However, she identified herself as “Chinese”. When asked about her
last name affecting her career mobility, Pam responded:
I don’t know. It would have made a difference in my junior days.
I got my Ph.D. in 1972. I changed my name in 1967. Because
maybe they looked at my CV and didn’t realize until I came into
the interview that I was Chinese. Nowadays, I doubt it would have
been a problem.

As mentioned previously, Pam was the only one in academic affairs
division in this study. Due to her time constraints, a phone interview in place of
an in-person meeting was arranged one evening in May of 2007. She was
walking into the house after a 14-hour-day when I finally found the courage to
call her after 25 minutes of sitting by the phone waiting. She started the interview
with a sigh of relief and words of sincere apology. In terms of what she valued
about her culture, she shared:
I value the broader context around me—more than being Chinese.
Respect for elders, idea of not speaking until spoken to; deferring
to elderly people. It’s the mixed culture of sum of gender and race.
We are accommodating, hard working, deferential — Chinese
women. In my generation, it hasn’t been very difficult.

Having been in the higher education setting for over thirty years, she credited her
parents’ enthusiasm for education and her family of academicians with her father
with an M.D and a Ph.D. and her mother as a nurse educator. Education as a
highly valued component in Asian American families, as reiterated in previous

233
chapters, certainly had a great effect on this respondent’s career. In similar vein,
the reason for these women to begin their journey in the higher education
administration is explained next.
The Reason

A Serendipitous Choice

In response to the question of why they entered the field of higher
education administration, majority of the respondents replied it was their desire to
help others and some by default. One respondent called her decision as a journey
where one ends up there.
A respondent who has been in student affairs for almost two decades
recalled, “I am an accidental careerist. I was in academic advising as a graduate
advisor and didn’t study administration. It was a serendipitous choice.” Another
respondent recounted a similar experience:
It kinda happened by accident. I came to this institution
specifically for industrial social work concentration. I’ve worked
in corporate settings up to now. I worked in the larges employee
assistance management company in the country where I did
management training, brief counseling, and assessment referrals.
Then, one of my friends left me a message saying, “you know that
job, J’s job, umm… that job is open”. I wasn’t looking for a job or
anything. I thought, “Oh, this sounds fun”, I applied for the
position and I got the job. I’ve been in higher education for 14
years now.

This respondent, Celine, is a senior-level administrator at a pacific northwest
research institution. She is a fourth generation Chinese and a third generation
Japanese.

234
She also added that being in higher education administration led her to
pursue a doctoral degree. It was only after she decided to pursue her education
further, that she realized there are so many Asian American Pacific students in
American higher education and very little representation at the faculty level and in
administration, especially in administration. She emphasized that she doesn’t see
herself working with Asian students primarily but the visibility and awareness
that there is an Asian American female in that role will help people identify. “I
just realized that and said that’s what I’m going to do. I’m probably not going
back as a clinician per se so I might as well do it. It took me five years, taking
one class each semester.”
Julia just received an offer for a senior-level administrator position at an
east coast university soon after I completed my first interview with her. She
recollected her early years:
I actually got into the field accidentally. I was TA’ing at U of M
and made little money. So I was looking for more money and
applied for an RA position. I knew little about it but was an
enlightening experience. I was a hall director for 4 years. I was
watching the work of our Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs and
thought he was doing a poor job. And I thought maybe I would do
a better one. I switched my major to Counseling Psychology. I
never wanted to go into higher education.

Julia’s detailed curriculum vitae profiled gradual career advancement from
an assistant directorship to a senior-level administrator position of student affairs.
One respondent did not like her major in business and wanted to compromise, “I
had a great mentor, she is an African-American woman who is the dean of student

235
affairs at [her university] right now. I thought, ‘how do I do what she does?’ I
loved what she does. I’ve always wanted to do what she did.”
Stacie was once an aspiring actress who had gone through a windy road to
get to the field of student affairs. As a second generation Asian American of
Indian descent, she worked as a union organizer with a labor union, worked in
marketing and public relations, and worked at a private educational company.
Then she asked herself what got her going. She called herself a “campus brat”
who grew up on campus with a father who was a professor at a major research
institution. She learned that colleges and universities can make a holistic impact
on students, but not just on the individual human being but on a society as a
community. This was the decision she made to come back to the field—to be
there for the young people, in a way that she didn’t have in her educational
journey. As she conveyed in the following:
I never saw people who looked like me in the field. I go to
conferences and now I see more Asian Americans, that’s
wonderful and inspiring. But when I was in college, I didn’t have
anyone to go talk to, maybe couple of professors but no one in the
student affairs. It puts you in a difficult position because you’re
carrying the burden of your race and yet it’s a burden and a
privilege. You have an obligation to give back, at least I think and
I hope.

In terms of why these women selected higher education as their
professional field, one particular person’s name kept coming up from these
interviews — an African American woman who introduced and mentored these
women into the field of student affairs. Angela was an undergraduate student at a

236
public university when she met this African American woman and developed a
mentoring relationship with her. Since her undergraduate days as a sociology
major, this respondent wanted to work as an administrator in student affairs.
Elora under the tutelage of this African American woman became
involved in student affairs as an undergraduate at the same university as the
previous respondent. She recounted her first step into the journey:
I call it the classic, traditional way of getting in the student affairs.
I was an orientation leader, involved in a sorority, resident hall,
umm, government. I did an internship at the Multicultural Center
in my junior year. Main thrust why I am in student affairs today is
mentor. Her name is [her mentor]. You know who she is. I
cheered for her as a song leader for basketball. I didn’t know her
as an administrator. I knew her as a coach. She took me in my
junior year and said, ‘What are you going to do after you
graduate?’ and I said, ‘I don’t know, I don’t want to be a
sociologist.’ She gave me books. She gave me a GRE book and a
vocabulary book and I started studying for GRE, and applied to 6
schools and chose [her university]. And life unfolded for me then.

It was apparent after walking through the experiences of these women that
either by default or not, these women had incredible sense of commitment and
passion for their work and that they all believed in their work. In similar vein,
these women also shared about their motivating factors that led them to the field
of higher education.
Motivation

State of the world motivates me. Not wanting my kids to go
through what my husband and I went through. For Asian
American male, it’s been a problematic situation. My brother got
beat up a number of times. Construct around masculinity or lack
thereof when it comes to Asian American males. For some, it has

237
deep scars. I would love for us to be at a place where that doesn’t
happen. Communities of color have scars…
- Stacie
Stacie described herself as a political, loving, and creative individual
earlier in the interview. Olive-skinned with long, thick, curly black hair, this
respondent clearly understood the driving force behind her work.
Clearly, students were the single most important motivation in many of
these women’s responses. Other motivational factors were:
• meeting new people
• learning new things
• making a difference
• serving other people’s needs
• wanting to see students succeed
• social justice
• a calling
• growing as a person
• meaning and passion to the work
• leveling the playing field, and
• love

As one respondent exclaimed, “I would be here if it weren’t for education.
Education can level the playing field for minorities; the inequities need to be dealt
with”.
Felicity indicated seeing her parents struggle as immigrants motivated her
to be successful professionally, intellectually, and socially. As a 1.5 generation
Korean American, she also conveyed how her immigrant community has a huge
push to be financially successful through education and that it is critical to start
focusing more on social justice and not so much on the financial success. She

238
lamented, “To not to have conversation around social justice, that’s loss for me.
We are not only humanity-focused.”
Another critical motivating factor, as indicated below by Elora, is love.
Love motivates me. Being able to have talent to offer motivates
me. Passion for working in higher education, being confident in
my work, ability to network… Love for my family, husband, and
work motivates me.

As illuminated by Elora, love appears to be the underpinning of the success of
these women who have made strides in becoming a critical factor in American
higher education administration.
In ties with their reasons and motivating factors to enter the field of higher
education in the United States, I inquired about the elements of their success.
Attributions of Success
Regardless of their positions, these women all personify success in various
magnitudes within American higher education administration. I now explore the
attributes of success for these women.
Persistence was one attribute that these women mentioned repeatedly.
When asked to talk about her success, Elora responded after much deliberation:
Persistence. When things get really really challenging and
difficult, you have to be persistent and always look into your heart
as a reason why you got here in the first place. How did I fall in
love in this field? How did I fall in love with this man, woman,
community? If you lose sight of that, Rhea, you’re going to give
up. I think persistence is the key.

239
She also conveyed an unexpected response in terms of success:

Making mistakes. Absolutely. You have to fail successfully to be
successful if that makes any sense. I know that’s bizarre. If you
fall on your face gracefully, everything else that comes in terms of
hardship or difficulty, you will be more equipped to face it when
you fail successfully. When you fail wrong, you don’t know how
to handle difficulty, manage your emotions, you can’t be
emotionally intelligent. Do not cry in meetings. (Laughing) Being
so humble, or so meek so you can’t have a voice in meeting—
that’s not emotional intelligence.

She credited failing successfully and having emotional intelligence to being
successful. She relocated to a very southern state and began her new career by
creating herself a position in an institution that is very conservative and
homogeneous.
Other attributes were mentoring, passion, clarity of vision and aspiration,
being driven, being outcome-oriented, family support, and Asian work ethics.
One administrator thanked her mother — a single parent who is still taking care of
her unmarried daughter who has 12-hour work days.
Jennifer, the highest-ranked Asian American woman in higher education,
conveyed more inherent elements of success—being open, listening, and
changing. She elucidated that without these attributes, it would be extremely
difficult to succeed as a leader in any organization, not just higher education.
Julia differed in that she mentioned more external attributes such as God,
diversity in student affairs, having a Ph.D., and good luck. In contrast, Felicity
stated that things don’t happen by accident. She stated that it is hard work and
planning that eventually lead to success. Felicity added:

240
One student came up to me and asked, ‘How do you become a
Dean?’ and I asked her, ‘Tell me what that means first.’ I believe
actions come in the form of hard work. Hard working people stand
out. You don’t have to be articulate; you have to show you’re hard
working. Hard work doesn’t come as chore, it should be
instinctive. It’s the non-glamorous stuff. There is no magic
formula. People forget that.

Stacie who had sought staff counseling services for her emotional
sustenance hesitated for a moment before she began sharing about her success:
You’re assuming I’m successful. I’m 31 years old and I’m not
where I want to be in my career but I’ve done interesting things.
Going on the assumption that I’m relatively successful. Being able
to go home and laugh or cry. Being able to let it out in a physical
way, laughing or crying. You need to have those outlets for you to
come back to school. If you can’t, you are only half there. I’m
managed to gain the respect from my colleagues for consistently
working hard and for demonstrating creativity and for balancing
these commitment of community activism, student empowerment,
leadership, and climbing the ladder. I’ve made sure that people
know what I think. I haven’t been a wallpaper. Who knows,
maybe that will impede my success, eventually. I’m not saying
I’m undiplomatic. I’m working on being more “assertive”. I hate
to have to mask. It’s not that I go around saying, “Hi I’m Stacie
and I’m a socialist.” There are a lot of one-day philanthropists.
That’s charity. That just shows that you have more. That’s not
sustainable.

As elucidated in her account, Stacie is very involved politically and socially. She
calls herself a “political animal” and the state of the world motivates her as
explored earlier in this chapter. To reiterate what her colleagues stated, Lucy
agreed that success came from different sources:
It’s about being at the right place at the right time. Learning how
to be politically savvy and learning how to build networks and
collegial relationships. I was recruited for this position, then I was
interviewed, and got the position.

241
As Lucy and others recounted, much of their success depended on their social
network, reaffirming Stanton-Salazar’s social network theory.
As stated in the purpose of the study, this study will provide a roadmap for
aspiring Asian American female leaders in the field in terms of socialization
process throughout career. Hence, I asked the participants what “advices” they
would like to impart on the future upcoming Asian American female leaders
seeking a career in higher education.
Regrets
These women were forthright and genuine in sharing their experiences
through this study. In completing their “journey”, I asked these women two
questions: 1) Do they have any regrets? If so, would they have done things
differently? 2) What one piece of advice would you give to aspiring Asian
American females in higher education administration?
Most of these women had no regrets. They continue to be challenged,
stimulated, and excited about working in American higher education system.
They appear to be happy with their career and life. Lucy noted, however, that she
wished she would have stayed at her university longer as a mid-level
administrator. She has had a lot of job opportunities come her way and wished
she could have stayed in positions longer. But overall, her experience in different
universities has made her a better professional. This is reiterated by Jane who
recounted, “To enjoy each position and not move up so fast because once you
leave a certain level, you can’t go back”.

242
Jennifer recollected in terms of regrets:
My regret when I look back is that I “grew up” too fast in
administration. Becoming a dean is a heavy burden to bear, and I
feel as though I have had less fun and enjoyment as a Dean than
prior to becoming a dean. So, if I had to do it over again, I would
not have accepted a deanship as soon I did. My other regret is that
sometimes, I wonder if I might not have been much healthier
physically, emotionally and spiritually—and less stressed out—in a
different profession. It seems that most of the time student affairs
administration is so reactive, crisis driven, and high pressure. I
have a creative side in me that oftentimes wishes for the chance to
be more proactive, strategic and constructive. Does this make
sense? I wonder what life for me would have been like had I
become a musician, veterinarian, architect, or fashion designer??
Thanks for the opportunity to be involved with your research!

Elora, my gatekeeper who initiated this rich chain of “networks” for this
study, had much more to share when it came to regrets. Her account has not only
revealed the darker side of the higher education administration — cruel politics on
campus that she had to endure through her experience:
I don’t have any regret as I did all that I really could while at [her
university]… I stayed longer and endured the oppressive
environment than most people, talked with all the right people that
I could, sought the counseling and support needed. The only thing
I wanted in order to leave my head held high was a good future
reference from my supervisor.

She listed the things she could have done differently:

• Physically leaving the University 5 months earlier when the
new senior-level administrator was hired. After giving [her
university] the ole’ college try and sticking things out, I was
exhausted professionally and personally. Leaving 5 months
earlier would have rejuvenated me and gave me a healthier
perspective on life.

• As an Asian American female administrator, being too humble
to listening to lots of other people and seeking lots of support

243
within and outside of Student Affairs. Being too feedback
driven in a vulnerable state. My “network” of people to vent
my frustrations grew and of course many people can’t keep
things confidential so my issues reached a broader audience
across campus than I could control. To keep things more
confidential, I should have had a tighter network of about only
3-4 colleagues to confide in about work issues. There is great
value to have some mystery about yourself.

• Being more upfront about Emotional Intelligence and staying
calm as a female administrator when you feel like the target or
when things might be taken personally. Better managing
people’s reputations.

The breadth and depth of expertise, insight, and wisdom of these women certainly
did come through their personal stories.
Advice
With regrets came advices from these women. As I concluded my
interviews with these brave, inspirational women, I asked them to advise people
such as myself who are aspiring to be leaders of the next generation in American
higher education. I captured their counsel in the following:
• Choose your campus well and see the fit for you.
• Keep learning, keep reading, keep expanding your knowledge.
• Always do what you enjoy.
• Be comfortable within yourself.
• Differentiate between working hard and working right.
• Relax and be social.
• Manage your time.
• Be visible, have people know you.
• Be yourself.
• Job is a job, not a relationship.
• Don’t take your job too seriously.
• Prevent burn-out.
• Not everybody is JFK!
• Be balanced and have a full rounded life.

244
• Develop yourself with confidence.
• Fine a mentor!
• Do not do this alone.
• Be nationally connected.
• Be involved; Do the grunt work.
• Be strategic.
• Got to feed the students and the institution (institution is the culture;
you got to feed into that).
• Seek advice early.
• Don’t be shy.
• Watch people around you who are successful and use them as role
models.
• Speak early.
• Accept the unchangeable and move on and focus on the outcome.
• Do not let them hamper you.
• Step outside of your comfort zone.
• Do your homework.
• Don’t live your life structured.
• Be okay with the naysayers and your cheerleaders.
• Let life flow.
• Receive life.
• Look at things differently, from all sides.
• Learn to fail. Fail successfully.
In the next chapter, I return to the problem statement, literature, research
questions and conceptual framework that guided this study. More specifically, I
offer further analysis and insights as well as policy implications and possibilities
for future research.

245
Chapter Five
Destination
I began this journey two years ago when I decided to explore the labyrinth
of higher education administration through the lens of Asian American females.
With ever-increasing number of Asian students in American colleges and
universities and the student demographics in the higher education landscape
increasingly diversifying, there needs to be an urgent action to encourage, recruit,
and support the new generation of leaders that is more indicative of this change
and that will embrace and foster diversity in higher education. The astoundingly
few number of Asian American females in leadership positions in higher
education called for attention.
Also in question is the availability of pipeline for these women and the
new strategies to implement to aid their career mobility. The dearth of research in
this area is another major deterrent to the progress of minority women to uniquely
contribute to the notions of leadership and power. No research study to date has
examined the experiences of Asian American female administrators or how the
concept of social capital contributes to the success of Asian American female
administrators in achieving career advancement. Although certain strategies (i.e.,
mentoring, utilization of support groups, and the value of collegiality) are
explicitly mentioned as necessary both for career ascension and for the
psychological survival of marginalized administrators, researchers have not
directly studied these strategies as part of broader theoretical concepts—namely,

246
the framework of social capital and social support (Turner & Meyers, 2000;
Garcia, 2000; Smith et al, 1996; Glazer-Raymo, 1999; James & Farmer, 1993;
Caplan, 1993).
In this study, I explored how social network impacts Asian American
women in leadership positions in the higher education administration. The
various and simultaneous ways gender, race, and ethnic forces affect the daily
lives of minority women in leadership positions in higher education, particularly
in the development of relationships and social support systems were explored
through the personal experiences of these women. I paid close attention to the
vexing problem of internalized oppression, or in terms conveyed by Bourdieu
(1986), how the dominated always contribute to their own domination.
The purpose of this research study was to offer greater visibility for Asian-
American women in higher education administration and raise a more acute
consciousness about gender and racial diversity in the higher education setting,
particularly in administration. The detailed accounts offered by these Asian
American female administrators regarding the presence of social support during
their careers speak to larger issue of how organizational structure, identity, and
status interact and influence an individual’s help-seeking orientation. The
conceptual framework presented in chapter two draws attention to the ways these
components are inextricably linked and mutual reinforce in a cyclical and
dynamic process that shape the ways Asian female administrators either gain
access to or do not accumulate social capital during their career journey. The

247
stories shared by the women in this study underscore the complex and interrelated
processes of race and gender, power and cultural values. These processes shape
the social interactions, network development, and social capital development that
are inherently a part of their career mobility.
Through a qualitative research method, I examined and investigated issues
of diversity and equity in terms of gender and race in the higher education
administration. Intense interviews with Asian American women in senior-level
leadership positions at four-year universities and colleges provided insight to what
they experienced in workplace setting. The socio-cultural experiences of these
women were examined to better understand this under-represented group. Issues
of equal playing field, access, career mobility/ascension, and internal support
links which include mentoring, professional development, and internal advocacy
groups need more attention.
In order to understand and learn about these women, I interviewed them
individually in and out of their offices, at coffee shops, and at social events. I
shared in their experiences as leaders in their field. The experiences of twelve
individuals reveal both similarities and differences in terms of the leadership style,
network, and ethgender identity. The qualitative differences in responses speak to
their uniqueness as individuals in the journey to and through the higher education
administration.

248
In chapter two I reviewed the literature on factors that affected the
socialization process for Asian American female leaders in higher education
administration. I discussed the issues of race and culture, the gender, social
capital, politics, organization, and help-seeking orientation. Because of the dearth
of research on Asian American women in higher education leadership positions, I
had to turn to business and other sources for data. As mentioned previously in
chapter one and two, the notion of leadership relative to ethgender identity, as
explored later in this study, was not reviewed as the concept emerged only after
the analysis of the findings. As I elaborated in chapter three, I used the grounded
theory approach where the meaning arises from the experiences of participants as
they are shared during the interaction between participants and the researcher.
I focused on the experiences of twelve Asian American women who
articulated an acute recognition of how race and gender distinctions operated
significantly to constrain the career mobility for individuals like themselves—
minorities within a minority. Using a narrative ethnography, I combined the tools
of ethnography with the specific focus on narrative and the narrative process. It
was important for me as the researcher to establish relationships with the
individuals in the study. With the help of my two gatekeepers, I was able to
establish and maintain relationships with my participants. My goal was to
highlight, focus on certain elements, and transform data into further questions or
meaning. In other words, I used language as a fundamental tool to explore, in
more depth, these women’s point of view and the areas important to them.

249
I conducted a rigorous search for the participants with the following
criteria: Asian American females in senior-level administrative positions
employed at the four-year universities and colleges in the United States. Senior-
level administrative positions comprise of chancellor, vice Chancellor, president,
provost, vice president, associate vice President, dean, and associate dean in the
areas of academic affairs, student affairs, and administration. Using various
databases locally and nationally, the researcher was able to locate and identify
fifteen individuals who fit the criteria. Out of 18 identified, 12 agreed to
participate in the study and were interviewed. There were one Chinese
Americans, two Japanese Americans, one Korean American, two Filipino
Americans, one Chinese Japanese American, one Chinese Danish, one Indian
American, and one Asian American. There were 3 at private Research I
institutions, 3 at public Research I institutions, 3 at private liberal arts institutions,
and 3 at public state institutions. Their ages ranged from early thirties to sixties
and nine were unmarried and three were married. Also, out of twelve, eleven
were in student affairs and only one was in academic affairs.
I used purposeful sampling and within the parameters of purposeful
sampling, criterion sampling was used in order to have the appropriate individuals
participating in the study. I established criteria which reflect the objectives of the
study and selected the individuals that meet the criteria. This method of sampling
was used for quality assurance.

250
Interviews were the primary method used to gather the qualitative data.
The interviews were semi-structured with open-ended questions. Interviews were
conducted by the researcher with a protocol of general questions to be covered by
the participants; also provided was the opportunity for the participants to
formulate their own questions during the interview for a holistic understanding of
the culture of the unit under study. The interviews were conducted in person or
via phone depending on the availability of the participants.
The administrators were contacted via phone, and/or email beginning
February 2007 seeking voluntary participation, followed by a personal email,
telephone, or face-to-face meeting. After the administrators were chosen as
participants and consent forms signed, identities of the administrators were kept
confidential by assigning a numerical pseudonym used in recording and reporting
the data.
The interviews took place at various venues on and off the participants’
university campus — in their offices, coffee shops, and in the lobby of a hotel
where one participant was attending a wedding. I asked each participant a set of
29 questions based on specific categories of socialization: mentoring, social
network, help-seeking, career and emotional support, and politics. Data collection
involved interviews being tape recorded and transcribed verbatim. The transcripts
were returned to the participants and short follow-up interviews were conducted
to clarify, correct, and confirm the content of the transcription. The data were
read repeatedly to build an interpretive understanding of key themes. Additional

251
sub-themes evoked a more inductive process in which the data drove the
construction of conceptual categories. Participants were encouraged to be active
in collaborating in the research process sharing their insight, first-hand
experience, and self-reflection.
A subjective approach to the study of the socialization process of Asian-
American females in higher education leadership positions is absent in the current
body of literature. I submit that the overall socialization process, in terms of both
success and failure, may be best understood from those who have undergone the
experiences. What these women have gone through to get to where they are
needs to be documented and studied in order to ensure the democracy and
diversity the higher education setting. Accordingly, this study examined the
experiences of each woman, not merely through the demographic data and
statistics, but by exploring the individual process of socialization and the factors
that lead to career mobility and success. Here are the research questions that
guided this study:
• What did Asian American women in higher education administration
experience in terms of their socialization process?
• What role did mentoring play in these women’s socialization process?
As part of their networks, mentoring as a significant role in terms of
professional and psychological support, information and resources.
• What were the challenges and issues that were unique for these women
as Asian American women?

252
• What effect did cultural values have on these women in leadership
roles?
I also asked the question of the “chilly campus climate” for these women
and if it has thawed for women of color in administration. In order to understand
these Asian American women as leaders in American higher education, I first
needed to learn what these women experienced in their work setting as part of
their socialization process.
The multitude of data from my interviews with these twelve women was
arranged to provide an insightful analysis. I organized the presentation of data in
four broad categories: 1) ethgender identity 2) negotiation, 3) networks, and 4)
reasons for their careers. Within of the category of ethgender identity, I presented
the following: a) leadership styles, b) value conflict, c) saving face, d) coping
strategies, and e) emotional intelligence. In the category of negotiation, I
presented the following: a) politics, b) racism, sexism, and ageism, c) glass
ceiling, d) the only one, and e) stereotype threats. In the category of networks, I
presented the following: a) mentoring, b) professional organizations, and c)
community and family. Lastly, in the category of reasons, I presented the
following: a) going into the field, b) serendipitous choice, c) attributions of
success, and d) lessons learned.
Analysis of Data
Data presented in chapter four have been juxtaposed against existing
research to detect similarities as well as areas of divergence. In an effort to make

253
sense of the data, I have continually tested the accounts against theories and
findings of previous researchers (Hirschman & Wong, 1981, and 1986; Hsia,
1988; Pyke, 2000; Pyke & Johnson, 2003; Bourdieu, 1974; 1977; 1986; Coleman,
1987; 1988; 1990, Portes, 1988, Stanton-Salazar, 1995; Stanton-Salazar &
Dornbusch, 2001). Respondent accounts and comments have been recorded,
coded, and analyzed, ultimately grouped into distinct categories. The analysis of
data reveals that the twelve women shared a number of issues at work as female
leaders:
(1) Ethgender Identity and leadership styles.
(2) Evidence of glass ceiling at work.
(3) Being the only one.
(4) Evidence of racism, sexism, ageism, and stereotype threats at work.
(5) Individuals such as mentors, role models, and family members who
reached out and provided professional support and emotional
sustenance.
In addition to the similarities, the data reveal evidence of distinguished clusters of
ethnic specificity: (1) strongly ethnic, (2) neutral, and (3) assimilated.
All twelve women expressed the recognition of institutional and systemic
barriers to career mobility. Their experiences are a testimony to their optimism
toward successful careers in higher education administration. The twelve
successful women expressed their ambitions while simultaneously registering a
degree of critical consciousness. The concept of struggle was a significant factor

254
in their lives in terms of balancing work, family, and womanhood. I revisit the
five conceptual categories and the additional category and highlight significant
findings before presenting the new theory on this underrepresented group.
Ethgender Identity and Leadership Styles
It may seem easy for anyone to simply step in and go with the flow
of day-to-day decision-making as a senior leadership team, but the
difficult thing for me to realize during my brief experience with
them was how very different we thought, how our different
leadership styles clashed, and how our values were so incongruent.
I guess I had the illusion that this team would work smoothly
together since mine and the Dean’s style were similar. I thought to
myself, “if they liked her and all the great things I did as a result of
her leadership, then what could go wrong?” I thought many times
over and over that this ill-feeling that I had would pass, but the
more I learned and stayed, the more I was upset and disappointed
in student affairs’ processes that I began to question, inquire,
wonder…
- Elora

Many of the respondents mentioned the “differentness” they felt from their
counterparts and supervisor in the leadership styles. As illustrated by Elora in her
account, it is evident that her leadership style was not what the rest of the senior
leadership team believed in or represented. The need to negotiate and code shift
is recurring theme
As ascribed in chapter two, Asian values are much resonated with
Confucian principles (Harper, 1997): 1) primacy of family and community over
the rights of the individual; 2) consensus above dissent; 3) discipline above
permissiveness. As recounted earlier through the accounts of these women, these
values are often conflicting with the function of their leadership roles, having to

255
direct, manage, and make decisions. Asian American women develop what can
be described as a “double consciousness.” While they look at themselves through
the lenses of Asian patriarchal values, they have to confront, at the same time, the
reality of living in the United States as children of immigrants dealing with
assimilation and acculturation.
Cultural shyness and modesty as derived from the Confucian values can
prevent Asian Americans from being accepted and rising to the top (Hoy, 1993).
And although not every Asian American may feel this shyness, it is something
that has been encouraged by the culture. Some of the women in this study
claimed that they are not good at promoting themselves or “tooting their own
horns” because of this cultural shyness. They have been advised by their non-
Asian mentors or supervisors to self-promote more aggressively. When asked to
describe themselves using adjectives, several of these women used adjectives that
implicated consensus-building and non-argumentative. As leaders making
decisions and directing people on various tasks and working in highly political
organizations, this cultural shyness and modesty did present these women with
significant challenges. One administrator differed greatly from the group as she
was conditioned to be more “assertive” and “expressive” through her ties with the
African American community—adopting their more animated manners in
communication and behavior.

256
The cultural injunctions that permeate some Asian societies—those values
that discourage assertiveness, outspokenness, and competitiveness in groups—
work against Asian Americans, more for Asian American women, especially
those in administrative positions. This led to the next conflict or challenge—
stereotypes. Many of the respondents mentioned the metaphor of “a dragon lady
vs. the wall flower” where they were either or, nothing in between. These women
were perceived as “safe” and “good listeners” under the assumption of the
stereotype image of a “submissive, quiet, and meek Asian woman”. Asian
women are rendered hyperfeminine: passive, weak, quiet, excessively submissive,
slavishly dutiful, sexually exotic, and available for white men (Espiritu, 1997;
Tajima, 1989).
Higher education has been dominated by white males; consequently, their
definitions of learning and of scholarship prevail (Menges & Exum, 1983).
Recent decades brought dramatic change to postsecondary education. Institutions
experienced unprecedented growth, particularly following World War II, and
student bodies moved toward greater gender, cultural, and racial inclusiveness
(Menges & Exum, 1983). Menges and Exum also highlight that changes seen
among students are not, however, mirrored in administration. During those
growth years, the proportion of women and minority administrators relative to
higher education did not increase significantly. Very few women hold top-level
administrative positions in higher education in the United States (Andruskiw &
Howes, 1980). Outside of higher education, corporate America has always been a

257
tough terrain for professionals of color to navigate (Hyun, 2005). Various studies
confirm the low percentages of minorities in the executive suites of U.S.
companies.
Sastry and Ross (1998) stated that Asian ethnic identity is associated with
comparatively low levels of perceived control. Because of an emphasis on
subordination to family and traditional sources of influence, Asians may feel less
freedom, less autonomy, and generally less control over outcomes in their own
lives. The sense of personal control is a learned, generalized expectation that
events and circumstances in one’s life are contingent on personal choices and
actions (Rotter, 1966; Seeman, 1959, 1983). How did these women fare in terms
of their emotional intelligence and personal control? The majority of these
women affirmed the need to develop emotional intelligence. They defined
emotional intelligence as the combination of self-awareness with acumen and
capability to deal with others and asserted that Asian American women were
higher on the IQ (Intelligent Quotient) than the EI (Emotional Intelligence). The
findings affirm because of the cultural elements, Asians should be tapping into
Emotional Intelligence.
Politics
Their regime and ways about their work ran counter to my
experiences as a woman of color, knowledgeable and caring
professional, educator, mentor, coach, and leader in NASPA.
Truly there was values dissonance. When I finally came to realize
that this “tug” that I was feeling wasn’t about me and it was
instead all about themselves and their insecurities and anxieties
given the Dean’s departure, I began to feel like I had some control

258
over how I was going to exit [her university] gracefully and walk
away with my head held high, knowing that I did the best that I
could do.
- Elora

Out of twelve respondents, only two shared their experience and thoughts
on the notion of politics. Elora was one that revealed the most about how politics
affected her job as an administrator and how politics eventually drove her out of
the university. Elora recounted her last days at her university:
Looking back, the Dean served as my strongest advocate when she
was at [her university], but when she left the university, I felt like
my words, actions, behaviors, ideas did not matter to my newfound
senior-level colleagues. I essentially felt invisible when I spoke up
or used my voice, for example, in meetings or 1:1s with the [other
administrators]. Part of the larger problem was that the existing
team could not provide the necessary mentorship and guidance that
I might have needed; essentially I stepped on some landmines
ungracefully in a highly politicized environment that was
permeated with rigid protocols; ego-management; territorialism;
constant redirecting of funds; insecurities; and decisions made
from fear. I tried effortlessly to fit in with this team, offering
ideas, sharing, networking with other colleagues, leading and
managing others, but I was shut out so quickly that I couldn’t fully
recover and land back on my feet. They began to work around me
and make decisions without my input.

As previously explored, the ideals and values embedded within an
academic culture are predominantly based on a male, Anglo-Protestant worldview
(Chesler & Crowfoot, 1997; Bonilla-Silva & Lewis, 1996; Lewis, 1998; Margolis
& Romero, 1998; Gainen & Boice, 1993). Participation in higher education
administration requires an accurate deciphering of the “rules” based on a
dominant worldview with regard to behavior and practices within university
culture (Margolis & Romero, 1998; Bourdieu, 1986). These rules must be

259
negotiated in the context of the women administrators’ location and status within
the organizational structure; underrepresented administrators must contend with
these rules as well as other challenges attendant with outsider status (e.g. learning
a new discourse, maintaining cultural identities within a different cultural
environment, dealing with exclusion) (Lee, 2003).
So I gave lots of input that always came across as I was looking
out for the “little people”, those with no voice or say or influence.
I was seen as defiant and rebellious. I gave feedback on how
systems could operate smoothly and efficiently and what made
sense in terms of best practices and trends across the nation. I was
seen as a know-it-all and inexperienced. I cared about individual
programs, staff morale and input, and any impact on students. I
was seen as non-supportive of the VP.
- Elora
It is evident in Elora’s account that not having a supportive supervisor
who was a woman of color impacted tremendously on the overall leadership
experience for her. Her case is more severe than the rest of the respondents but
given what these women shared in their brief accounts, the issue of politics
appeared to be an impediment.
As contended earlier in chapter four, cultural capital has the power to
shape other people’s lives through exclusion and symbolic imposition and thus
legitimizing specific organizational norms and practices, thereby institutionalizing
these claims [norms and practices] to regulate behavior and access to resources.
In other words, rules (informal and formal) serve to specify the schemas or

260
procedures for both how people are to be arranged hierarchically and how
resources and privileges are to be distributed—primarily by class, gender, and by
race (Stanton-Salazar, 2002).
Underrepresented administrators in this study found the “rules of the
game” to be harsh and negative. Majority of these women underwent numerous
challenges and barriers learning the rules of the game and overcoming them. As
explicitly illuminated, one administrator suffered from a collapsed rib, weight and
sleep loss, and anxiety attack due to high stress. She learned the “rules of the
game” the hard way and eventually left the institution.
To review what was discussed earlier, participation in academic
organization requires an accurate deciphering of the “rules” based on a dominant
worldview with regard to behavior and practices within university culture. These
rules must be negotiated in the context of the women administrators’ location and
status within the organizational structure; underrepresented administrators must
contend with these rules as well as other challenges attendant with outsider status.
The politics manifested through the people and the history were found be
toxic, dysfunctional, and pervasive. Every respondent argued higher education
being extremely political. The issues surrounding politics elicited relationships,
depleting resources, and personal preferences and agendas. The power dynamics
between different divisions and groups were at the core of the politics on various
campuses. Not one respondent had positive comments on the politics or the rules

261
of the game. University as a paternalistic organization with dearth of females and
minorities in leadership positions, the underrepresented administrators are forced
to work the politics.
Other challenges and barriers stemmed from racism, sexism, ageism and
stereotype myth — the most pervasive and detrimental deterrent in professional
growth and development for minority women. Barriers exist to the minority
woman who seeks a position as an education administrator because she is a
woman and because she is a minority—a two-fer. Racism and sexism were
constant reminders to these underrepresented women on their places in the
“circle”, as illuminated in the findings. Further, ageism presented as another
barrier for these women throughout their career mobility. Being the youngest
minority female in the senior administration was a common attribute for these
women. The pervasive –isms constantly reflected and displayed in their work
setting are not only deterrents to these women professionally but psychologically.
The notion of glass ceiling was another challenge as explored in this
study. The administrators expressed glass ceiling as prominent and disparaging in
their work setting regardless of their years of experience and their
accomplishments. A chilly climate may affect practices as they relate to hiring
and promoting someone who is not part of the dominant culture. Female faculty
and administrators have lower salaries than men who hold positions of equal rank,
are more likely to hold lower level positions, and are offered fewer promotions
(Blum, 1991). Although more women are aspiring to greater leadership positions

262
within the university administrative ranks, there still remains a glass ceiling.
Lastly, being the “only one” was an issue these underrepresented women
encountered as part of their attribute as leaders in their respective organizations.
Asian American females are rare in American higher education administration
and hence, the issue of critical mass deserves attention.
The lack of representation of Asian American women in educational
research is attributed to the socio-cultural barriers commonly shared by women
members of ethnic minorities (racial and sexual discrimination, lack of role
models, lack of access to the “good ol’ boy” system). Unique barriers faced by
Asian American women are the commonly believed myth of Asian Americans’
success in this country and the additional bondage of their cultural tradition in
which women assume low status in the family and society, asking nothing and
expecting little. These barriers in combination have prevented Asian American
women from equal participation in the professional occupations (Chu, 1980). I
now present my findings on the networks for these women, mentoring, and the
notion of ethnic specificity.
Networks
As presented in chapter four, socialization process for Asian American
women in leadership positions in higher education administration is manifested by
specific types of social networks—various support networks such as mentoring,
institutional support system, professional affiliations, and personal network of
family and friends. The concept of social network has been defined and described

263
in many different ways, for example, as a “social web” that connects people to
each other and that intertwines groups and communities into that integrated
something we call society (Stanton-Salazar, 2001). Social networks have also
been conceived as a “social support system,” that web of relations that keeps us
economically afloat as well as resilient and healthy, and that ultimately sustains
our humanity. They have been conceived as “social freeways,” permitting
privileged people to move about the complex mainstream landscape quickly and
efficiently. They have been theorized as “conduits” and “pipelines” through
which resources, privileges, and opportunities flow to certain groups and
individuals. From a social network perspective, the important of ties to
institutional agents is framed in terms of social capital (Stanton-Salazar &
Dornbush, 1995). Through these networks, these women accessed multiple forms
of resources. Their “conduits” or “pipelines” flew through their mentors,
supervisors, colleagues, and their family members.
The findings indicate these women certainly benefited from their “social
networks” as Asian Americans and as women. While each of these networks
differed with regard to the level of emotional support or the intensity and
frequency of career support, they all seemed to play a critical part in assisting
these administrators in their career mobility as well as emotional sustenance. As
such, I believe that these networks can be categorized as social capital. These
network relationships were in and of themselves a resource, based on their
location within a hierarchical organizational structure; essentially these

264
individuals had the power, ability, and opportunity to provide critical sources of
support. Embedded in these relationships were other forms of convertible capital
(Lee, 2003)—diverse forms of resources manifested foremost as information,
advocacy, or introductions. The accounts of these women indicate that they were
mostly introduced to the higher education administration through these
“relationships” within their social network. These administrators throughout their
career ascension used the “social freeway” to attain the support they needed.
Another critical component of their social network was the professional and/or
academic affiliations. Involvement with organizations such as NASPA, LEAP,
and APAHE, as mentioned earlier supported these women as institutional
vehicles.
To add, involvement with their ethnic community also expanded their
social networks for the majority of women in this study. Findings convey that
these ethnic networks created a niche for these women to feel the sense of
belonging and to feel connected. The focus of the network groups these women
formed were couched as forums to offer identity support as well as instrumental
resources. In these venues, perhaps not having to contend with negative
perceptions around needing career assistance as “tokens” or affirmative action
hires, the risk factor in developing relationships with “like-others” seemed less
threatening or non-existing (Lee, 2003). Alternatively, perhaps because these
groups were “institutionally sanctioned” (Lee, 2003, p. 178) as legitimate forms

265
of support for historically underrepresented faculty, participation would be
viewed as natural.
However, those who were not as involved felt their affiliation should
extend beyond race and ethnicity and these women participated in non-ethnic
organizations such as Book Club, Animal Rights Organization, Political
Organizations and Theatre Arts Group.
Lin’s (2001) assertion that instrumental ties with high status individuals
greatly enhance career mobility parallels the presence of the social network in this
study. The fact that mentors as part of the support network possessed high
positional power and status within the institution confirmed pivotal centrality
during their careers. Access to the storehouse of institutional resources and the
level of influence wielded by the mentors of these women was undeniably
beneficial.
Network research often stresses the “strength of weak ties,”—that diverse
contacts outside of one’s social circle can lead to diverse information helpful for
job acquisition and career advancement (Granovetter, 1982, 1974; Burt, 1998).
An individual benefits professionally from non-redundant information or
resources (Lee, 2003). However, the nature of the relationships between these
women and their mentors exhibited strong ties—relationships characterized by
higher levels of intimacy, trust, contact frequency, and acknowledge obligations
(Lin, 2001).

266
A related concept, confianza, described in Stanton-Salazar’s (2001)
research on Mexican-origin youth also implicates the power of strong ties and
trust experienced in an interpersonal relationship and the impact of trust on help-
seeking behavior. While research on minority youth reveals their struggle to
capture the confianza element with institutional agents, the faculty in this study
exhibited many instances of trust with their mentors and their personal circles of
supporters. The younger and less seasoned administrators trusted their mentors’
advice, feedback, perceptions, and interpretations of cultural practices more than
the seasoned ones. Had this trust not been present, the willingness to seek and
receive support could have been greatly diminished. The underlying presence of
trust and belief in the positive intention on behalf of the mentors was strong
enough that these administrators typically deferred their own judgment or
preference. As these administrators reached higher levels in their leadership
roles, the level of trust decreased and the circle of network became smaller and
tighter.
Mentoring
As noted in chapter one, the literature on women and faculty of color
portrays their struggle in identifying mentoring relationships given the scarcity of
female and minority mentors. Yet many of the underrepresented administrators in
this study had strong supportive relationships with their supervisors or senior
administrators. These Asian American administrators had to move beyond
preferential racial and gender borders to form ties with powerful agents for

267
professional support. To reiterate, many of them lamented that they could not
find one single Asian American woman in leadership position in the field when
they began their career hence had to resort to non-Asian mentors, usually their
supervisors. As attested in chapter four, outreach was initiated by senior
administrators to many of the up and coming underrepresented administrators.
For example, a senior white female vice president guided the career of an Asian
American female. From a structural perspective, institutions of higher education
have limited numbers of Asian American female administrators; aspiring
administrators cannot confine themselves to homophilious networks. They must
seek out and accept overtures from diverse ties for their professional survival
often receiving and seeking support from heterophilious ties given organizational
limitations based on gender and race.
The literature attesting to the difficulties of finding mentoring
opportunities often portray the ideal mentoring relationship as one providing both
emotional and professional support. I remind the reader that for the
underrepresented administrators in this study, mentoring relationships were
critically significant in their career mobility.
Reconsideration and reframing of “mentoring” relationships for the
underrepresented administrators may be necessary. The literature emphasizing
the “ideal” mentoring relationship for women and minorities may not take into
account other types of essential ties for professional advancement. If the aspiring
administrators are taught to recognize not only the value of traditional mentoring

268
relationships but the value of professional affiliations and peer mentoring, their
options for utilizing a myriad of social relationships may greatly maximize the
acquisition of resources needed for their career advancement. To add, institutions
need to heed the need for a more systematic support vehicle for this group as a
dearth of representation is still pervasive in the field.
Another interesting finding that emerged centers not only on the
mentoring relationships but the level of trust toward these mentors by the women
in this study. The women showed genuine trust towards their mentors; this trust
was manifested not only in their profession but in their personal lives as well.
Majority of women kept in touch with their mentors well beyond their profession
and felt a special bond towards their mentors. Another notable finding was the
disproportionate supply and demand ratio of mentor and mentees. Because of the
dearth of representation of Asian American women leaders in the field, when one
was identified as someone of notable rank, she was in high demand by potential
mentees. This caused many to mentor many junior administrators — an example
would be the former chancellor of a minority-serving institution who was said to
have mentored almost all Asian American women leaders in higher education,
particularly in division of student affairs. Due to high volume of demands by the
mentees, it is difficult for the mentor to reciprocate the relationship, as I
experienced throughout this study.

269
To my dismay, not all participants agreed on the benefits of mentoring.
As I recollect from my interview with Celine which barely made forty minutes,
mentoring was not something Celine believed in:
I’m probably not going to do another mentorship. I’ve done
mentorship in the past, things don’t work out.

As noted in Celine’s account, not everyone found mentoring beneficial. In similar
vein, having role models was critical for these underrepresented women in both
professional and identity development. These women looked to family members,
world’s historical leaders, and other professionals as their role models. Some of
these women had role models who were also their mentors and most looked to
people in similar situation—professional working women. Role models differed
from mentors as there may not be the personal interaction with role models as
with the mentors.
This brings my attention to the next significant finding in this study. The
majority of the women in this study were in student affairs; only one was found to
be in the academic affairs division. What does this mean? It is far more difficult
to enter into the academics as Asian American females and student affairs
division is more open and accessible to women and minority. As Lee (2003)
found in her study, network literature has examined the structural and
psychological forces that motivate individuals to seek out same-type networks or
diverse contacts. Given the paucity of senior administrators that are female and
minority, underrepresented administrators may have been compelled to move

270
beyond preference and develop necessary instrumental relationships with
gatekeepers, regardless or race or gender.
The desire and need for expressive ties, as illuminated in this study, did
not preclude underrepresented administrators from seeking relationships that were
emotionally and psychologically meaningful. Although underrepresented
administrators had critical and instrumental mentor relationships, they relied upon
other network forums specifically related to race and gender and their
professional affiliation. One Filipino American administrator spoke of the
unconditional belief and emotional support she received from a national network
of Asian American leaders that encompassed non-education sectors. Several
others recounted their involvement with caucuses that were designed solely for
interacting with other members of student affairs network.
In return, these women, as recipients of support networks, felt obligated to
give back by becoming mentors themselves. They extended their support to the
aspiring leaders, students, and peers regardless of gender and race. Some
mentored as many as ten mentees a year. To reiterate, the paucity of Asian
American women leaders are forcing these women to reach out to as many Asian
Americans as possible.
Ethnic Specificity

The data revealed that the twelve women differed in terms of how strong
they identify themselves ethnically. There are three distinctive groups in terms of

271
ethnic specificity. The first group is strongly tied to ethnicity and the group was
comprised of 1.5 or second generations. As indicated in Stacie’s response:
I’m very Indian in a lot of ways. So many don’t know what that
means. I’m just this brown girl in a room. My mother tongue is
kanada, I speak Hindi. I’m more Indian than others because I have
this connection to the language.

Elora’s response indicated strong ties to her ethnicity and race, as noted below:
I’m a 1.5 Filipino American. That .5 is so significant for me. I
don’t know the language; the language is lost in my generation but
there is strong Filipino identity about me and my brothers and my
cousins.

In terms of their leadership styles, these women who were strongly tied to their
ethnicity, manifested the Confucian principles—value in family and collectivism,
respect for others, sacrifice, and harmony. Help-seeking was also prominent in
this group. This group was also very involved in their ethnic community, social
justice, and equity in terms of social justice. Mentoring was also a significant
factor in career and emotional sustenance for this group. Code-shifting and
negotiation were barriers and challenges for this group.
The second group reflected more neutral ethnic specificity. This group
was not as tied to their ethnic community but believed in social justice and the
significance of mentoring. In terms of their leadership styles, they mirrored the
strongly ethnic specific group in that they emphasized on the greater good, family
value, consensus-building, and harmony. As with the first group, code shifting
and negotiation negatively impacted this group. However, unlike the first group,
help-seeking did not appear to be of great importance in this group.

272
Lastly, the final group manifested assimilation to the mainstream or the
white culture. One respondent identified herself as an “Asian American” and did
not answer to the question of why she identified herself in such a way. She stated
she did not encounter any unique challenges or issues as an Asian American
woman yet she has authored several articles and theories on Asian American
identity development. Her view was similarly expressed in other respondents
classified as assimilated group. In terms of their leadership styles, these women
revealed more of directive, less consensus-building, self-assured characteristics.
As foreseen, code-shifting and negotiation did not manifest as barriers for this
group. The assimilation has dissipated the need for such mechanisms. This group
also did not indicate help-seeking as an important factor in their careers.
I cannot assert the positive and negative effects of ethnic specificity with
the data presented. A further study on this whole notion can provide more insight
on the more measurable comparison. The notion of ethnic specificity, among
other conceptual themes, was not a conceptual framework that I initially
developed for the study, hence, a review of literature on this topic was not
present. As I intended and stated earlier, I used a constructivist approach in
conducting this study—letting the themes and ideas emerge from the individuals
as they shared their experiences. I did not want to limit the richness of data. In
this case, I achieved my goal as a constructivist. I now return to the limitations
for the methodology used for this study.

273
Limitations
Textual Veracity
With respect to textual veracity, the interpretation of data is certainly
negatively affected if the data is not accurate (Jun, 2000). While there is no way
to ascertain with absolute certainly the total accuracy of respondent responses, I
was able to assert some degree of the trustworthiness of the respondents’ accounts
through the high interest from the respondents in participating in the study. As
the study pertained to their own lives, respondents were enthusiastic about
participating as collaborators in the study despite the time commitment.
However, the textual veracity presented as a major concern because after all, these
were “their stories” told by them and I had to take their word for its face value.
As a researcher, I made every effort to use the constructivist approach in inviting
these respondents to be able to openly share and disclose their personal
experiences.
Logistics
Time and geography were major issues I encountered during the process
of this study. As I was limited with time for this study, it was difficult to obtain
all the necessary data to enhance the findings. The twelve women I was able to
interview all had extremely strenuous schedules and time was always sparse.
Another logistical challenge I face was the geography. These women were
geographically located anywhere from pacific northwest to east coast.
Coordinating a meeting with these women within the confines of their schedule

274
and their locations made it even more difficult for me to obtain all that I wanted
for this study. I was forced to conduct phone interviews with a majority of the
participants. In-person meetings certain would have enriched the data. However,
within the confines, as I stated earlier, these women were gracious and sincere in
providing their information.
Data Presentation
Another major challenge came from the small number of participants
fitting the criteria and the apprehension from the participants in terms of
anonymity and confidentiality. Constructing a composite rather than presenting
the respondents individually might have invited more participants for the study,
hence enriching the findings. As indicated earlier in this chapter, one woman was
notably concerned with the anonymity and decided to decline the interview in fear
of recrimination from her counterparts. The participants who agreed to be
interviewed were all concerned about the same issue and made sure that they
reviewed the transcriptions not only for accuracy but for political safety. I submit
the issue of anonymity as the most impeding challenge I encountered throughout
this study.
Further challenges and issues
In terms of triangulation, I did have secondary sources who disconfirmed
some of the evidential data I obtained from the participants in this study. I did not
present the findings from my interviews with the secondary sources as they were

275
not part of my initial criteria for the study. To reiterate, the importance of textual
veracity was emphasized for this reason.
I did not explore the evaluation of the leadership styles of these women in
this study. As I wanted to keep my focus on their socialization process, I
purposely did not include the evaluation component. A 360-degree evaluation of
these women in their leadership roles would reveal a greater insight about these
women.
Gatekeepers
As noted previously in methodology chapter, I benefited greatly from
having gatekeepers for this study who led me to the various individuals critical
not only to this study but for my own personal career mobility. My two
gatekeepers, my dissertation committee chair and my first interviewee, Elora,
completed the leg work for me in terms of identifying and connecting to the
participants. My gatekeepers also acutely advised me with the “to do’s” and the
“not to do’s” in terms of working with these women as they both had established
relationships with them both professionally and personally. Hereto, I introduce a
new developing theory on leadership styles of Asian American females in higher
education.
A New Theory of Cultural Integrity

As I stated earlier, and reiterate here, the academy, especially higher
education, is shaped by many social forces. With that, access, process, and
outcomes are distinct aspects of higher education that need to be examined

276
separately (Jacobs, 1996). Jacobs adds the trends in these areas often do not
coincide with one another, and consequently separate explanations of these facets
of higher education are needed. More women of color are defining and redefining
their roles within it. For example, women remain a minority of administration
and are disadvantaged in terms of rank and institutional prestige. Yet as students
in the United States, women represent a majority of students at nearly all levels of
higher education and are not distinctly disadvantaged in terms of institutional
position.
Clearly, treating women’s standing among the administration and in the
student body as one phenomenon will not do, since the extent of women’s
progress differs between these two statuses. New ways of thinking about teaching
and research have provided spaces for women scholars to challenge old
assumptions about what it means to be in the academy. Higher education
administration needs to overhaul its old assumptions and ways of thinking and
should start the long overdue “reconstitution” process. Women executives will
need to continue to demonstrate exceptional abilities in order to garner and
maintain leadership roles (Lindsay, 1999). If they maintain their esteemed
executive appointments, they are in positions to articulate the benefits of
educational equity to state and national policy-makers, corporate executives, and
to elected local and federal legislators. Hence, their promotion of educational
equity can help pivotal leaders and the general public move beyond myopic views

277
often associated with the current debates on this issue as examined by Franklin
(1993), Gates (1996), Benjamin (1997), Tierney (1997), and others.
The lack of representation of Asian American women in leadership
positions at four-year institutions in the U.S. impelled this study. This dearth is
further impacted by the limited leadership development programs for this
underrepresented group. Also, out of the twelve women illuminated in this study,
only one was in the division of academic affairs. The other eleven were in student
affairs division. Why student affairs? When asked the question, the eleven
women responded stating that student affairs division embraced diversity more
favorably than academic affairs division. This also raised questions in terms of
access, meritocracy, and equity in academia.
The leadership development for this underrepresented group requires a
redefinition of strategies that encourage career mobility while affirming the
cultural backgrounds of those seeking career mobility. To be sure, aspiring
leaders need to learn skills and institutions need to foster their growth by working
from the idea of cultural integrity. Reciprocating this effort, institutions need to
become more sensitive to the characteristics and needs of Asian American women
who are viable components in higher education as administrators, not just as
students.
The central tenet of the leadership theory of Asian American female
administrators in higher education lies within cultural integrity in which
institutional structures and practices that call upon administrators’ racial and

278
ethnic backgrounds in a positive manner. The cultural background of Asian
American female administrators is a critical ingredient for acquiring cultural
capital and achieving success. I submit the following three components of
cultural representation that will help reshape and reframe our understanding of a
unique group of women—Asian American female administrators in higher
education: associating leadership with culture, treating Asian American women as
assets not liabilities, and incorporating ethnic specificity in leadership traits of
Asian American women.
Associate leadership with culture

The theoretical framework of cultural representation has been introduced
by Jun (2000) in his work on qualitative examination of access, mobility, and
resilience of historically underrepresented minorities in education. I offer the
framework as it pertains to the leadership style for another historically
underrepresented group — Asian American women in higher education
administration. The concept of culture is an interactive process of individual
identity development (Jun, 2000) along with the development of leadership style.
One’s identity cannot be separated from his or her leadership style.
The notion of cultural representation has been developed from the notion
of cultural integrity. Cultural integrity is a framework that has previously been
defined as programs and teaching strategies that call upon students’ racial and
ethnic backgrounds in a positive manner in the development of its pedagogies and
learning activities (Deyhle, 1995; Tierney & Jun, 2001). Deyhle (1995) defined

279
cultural integrity as academic success with strong cultural traditions remaining
intact, and in her own work with Navajo youth she found that students who were
more secure in their traditional culture were more academically successful in
school. Cultural integrity removes the problem from the child, and looks on the
child’s background neither as a neutral nor a negative factor for learning. I
submit that the concept applies to Asian American women in their leadership
roles. The framework of cultural integrity extends Cummins’ notion that power is
“not a fixed, predetermined quantity but rather can be generated in interpersonal
and inter-group relations…participants are empowered through their collaboration
such that each is more affirmed in his or her identity” (1997, p. 424).
The framework of cultural integrity operates from the belief in which
Asian American women’s identities and the social structures within institutions
can enable or disable these women from acquiring their career goals. Leadership
in higher education is an interactive process of individual identity development
and the creation of community. As McDermott and Varenne summarize:
Life in culture… is polyphonous and multivocalic; it is made of the
voice of many, each one brought to life and made significant by
the others…. Culture is not so much a product of sharing as a
product as a product of people hammering each other into shape
with the well-structure tools already available.
(1995, p. 326)

Strengths of Ethnic Specificity
My criticisms of Boudieu’s theories are similar to many notions of culture
currently employed today—the culture of an individual often becomes irrelevant

280
and is viewed as the “problem” that needs to be fixed, when in fact it is the
institutional system, and not the individual, that is in need of reform.
A mobilizing factor in leadership development for Asian American
women is ethnic specificity. To reiterate the central tenet of cultural integrity, the
cultural backgrounds of these women should be viewed not as deficient but as
exceptional. Asian American women should be able to affirm, rather than reject,
who they are and they should be able to incorporate their cultural integrity with
their leadership characteristics. As illustrated in Elora’s account, the Virginia
Tech shootings proved to be yet another challenge for this 1.5 Filipino American
who strongly identifies with her ethnicity:
In light of the Virginia Tech shootings, I emailed [a mid-level
administrators in a student affairs division] and [a senior-level
administrator in a student affairs division] and said, “While it is not
an Asian American issue, I feel it is my role as an Asian American
practitioner, because the murderer was of Korean descent, I want
to be available for any student groups or Asian student
organizations that want to talk if they feel victimized or
marginalized, if they’re feeling a little attacked or looked at
differently in class because they have a Korean name. I want to be
there for them,” so I did that. My email was going to 2 African
American male administrators. We have such an anti-political
campus, I mean, I’m used to a candlelight vigil and some kind of a
response forum. Nothing happened on campus.

She added:

One of the issues for me is that I bring light to certain things as an
Asian American female but they only go so far — issues about
Asian American identity, responding appropriately to major life
issues. I think it was a serious thing, it changed the way all
campus, community colleges and up look at responding to
emergency, you know, so here I am doing my duty, as an Asian
American female to respond to Asian American students to support

281
them. So, the issue was, “Would you understand, if it was an issue
for you? If it was a black murderer, African-American, would it be
any different? How would you react?”

Angela encountered similar reaction from her counterparts regarding the Virginia
Tech shootings. She also wanted to hold a vigil on campus but her suggestion
never materialized. Both Elora and Angela strongly identify with their ethnicities
and also are politically charged. This incident reaffirms as another common
challenge these women face in executing their leadership.
As stated earlier in this chapter, the cohort of Asian American female
administrators in this study was classified in three groups in terms of ethnic
specificity: ethnically strong, neutral, and assimilated. Ethnically identified ones
were community-oriented, deferring, consensus-building, politically charged, and
involved in ethnic community. The neutral group was somewhat similar with the
ethnically strong. The assimilated group was much more self-assertive, directive,
politically nonaligned or indeterminate, and individualistic. The leadership styles
of the twelve women illuminated by their ethnic specificity should provide a
framework in distinguishing their unique characteristics as leaders.
Treating them as assets not liabilities

Within the central tenet of the leadership theory, institutions need to treat
Asian American women as assets not liabilities. The goal is to enable Asian
American women to affirm their culture en route to acquiring the social and

282
cultural capital necessary to succeed as leaders in higher education administration.
If culture is a central organizing framework, then the second idea pertains to the
manner in which administrators and institutions work together.
As I’m writing this dissertation, a racially charged incident occurred at an
urban, minority-serving community college where I serve as an administrator.
The event evoked emotional reactions from both African American students and
African American faculty. The groups felt they were targeted unjustly by law
enforcement and the college administration because they were African American.
The incident became a media attraction and called for an immediate action by the
college administration as well as the district. As an Asian American woman, I
represented the “neutral” party in this incident and contributed in alleviating the
predicament simply because I was neither Caucasian nor a male. I did not pose as
a threat to the community of individuals who felt oppressed and subjugated. I
possessed a greater understanding of diversity than my Caucasian male
counterparts and my actions throughout the incident manifested accordingly.
Working from the framework of cultural representation and cultural
integrity for Asian American women, leadership development for Asian American
women needs to incorporate the notion of these women being assets not liabilities.
The strengths of these women strongly grounded in their Asian values need to be
received positively and be utilized more constructively. Their diligent work
ethics, high standards for education, political neutrality and community-centered
leadership style will add value to institutions that are becoming more diverse in

283
terms of student population and programs. The cohort of twelve women explored
in this study all had one goal as leaders in higher education administration — to
help students succeed. Their valuable contributions as Asian American women
should be recognized not penalized.
As affirmed earlier, the empowerment of women of color requires a long-
term, multidimensional strategy aimed at increasing access to independent
positions of power and leadership in the political process. Without strong,
independent voices, women of color risk having their issues co-opted and
misrepresented, and their presence used to validate an already formulated agenda.
The principle challenge facing research on gender in education is to go
beyond documenting specific gender effects to developing a more theoretically
motivated account of the status of women in the educational system (Jacobs,
1996). This perspective would have to account for the relative status of women in
each aspect of the educational system s well as for variation across time and
space. The challenge is to situate gender inequality economically, historically,
culturally, and politically. The substantial research in various fields on women in
education should set the stage for the next generation of researchers to tackle
some of the fundamental issues regarding gender and the educational system. In
particular, the relationship between gender inequality in education and that in the
rest of society is a fundamental question for future theory and research.

284
There still remains much in the way of further access for women to the
higher levels of education, other work and professions; enough to occupy many
scholars and educators for the remainder of the century (Moore, 1987).
Expectations are high that women will consolidate the gains they have made in
access to higher education and will be able to carry them forward into new
dispositions of home and workplace activities. It is in this latter arena that forces
and actors other than higher education alone must become, indeed, are already
involved. Women’s traditional role as child bearer and nurturer, regardless of
race or ethnicity, as wife and family mainstay must be blended with the newer
thrusts toward work and more extensive career commitment (Moore, 1987).
Women’s role in the future is important. Further, minority women’s role
is important; it deserves attention in the highest circles, and it must be matched
with actions and policies now which respect the past but also build toward a
future where women will have a more equal shared in all that transpires. Those in
the margin have the potential to transform the center—to broaden it, strengthen it,
and enrich it. By bringing themselves through the door and supporting others in
doing so as well, they can define themselves in and claim unambiguous
empowerment, creating discourses that address the realities, affirm their
intellectual contributions, and seriously examine their worlds.
Recommendations for Future Research
The study assumes a starting point for future research. The findings
revealed in this study are suggestive although they strongly support findings from

285
available research on social capital and professional or educational mobility for
underrepresented populations. One way to strengthen this study’s analysis might
involve a more extensive qualitative study that follows Asian female
administrators throughout their career.
Also, a comparative analysis between Asian men and women in higher
education administration may reveal more insight. The similarities and
differences in their overall socialization process and their leadership
characteristics will enhance the understanding of this underrepresented group.
Further, a study comparing Asian American females and other underrepresented
groups such as African American females and Latinas in the leadership positions
in higher education will add value to future research. A longitudinal study
looking at gender and race separately throughout the course of a professional
career may reveal insightful data on the impact of socialization process of these
women. Another upcoming research can look at Asian American women in the
business world in comparison with Asian American women in higher education in
terms of the leadership styles. Interviewing identified network ties to understand
their motivations for providing social support would add more depth to the stories
told by these women.
The notion of politics relative to Asian American female administrators
needs to be explored further. This study examined the issue of politics in terms of
challenges in leadership for the twelve women. A closer look at politics

286
integrated with cultural values of Asian American female administrators will
significantly contribute to a greater understanding of the group.
Also, a study on Asian American women faculty can bring new insight to
the population. Lastly, conducting a 360-degree evaluation on the leadership
styles of Asian American women will enhance the awareness and understanding
of the group.
Next Step:
Toward a Greater Understanding of
A New Generation of Leaders in Higher Education
Colleges and universities seemed to be granting people of color
access to a higher education; however, the degrees earned did not
allow them opportunities to be part of the teaching or
administration teams.
- Howard-Hamilton & Williams, 1996
This journey began with a small group of Asian American women who
entered the field of higher education with a quest to create and foster a better
learning environment for our students. My journey as a researcher and an
aspiring leader in higher education began with the quest to understand higher
education administration through the lens of these women — Asian American
women.

Women and racial minorities are thought to face particular disadvantages
in managerial and professional settings. The research studies exploring the
influence of gender and racial discrimination, campus politics, and stereotyping
on the status of women suggest there are barriers for all women being hired,

287
promoted, or mentored. The previous findings also suggest that the stated
progress of women, particularly minority women, even more specifically, Asian
American females, in the higher education workforce requires further
investigation.
With ever-increasing number of Asian American students in colleges and
universities and the fast-changing demographics in the higher education
landscape, there needs to be an urgent action to encourage, recruit, and support
the new generation of leaders that is more indicative of this change. The lack of
representation of Asian American women in higher education administration
needs more attention. Through a review of literature, I recognized the disparities
in professional success for underrepresented women and the important ways
social capital operated in career mobility and educational achievement.
Through the process of interviews of twelve women over thirty hours,
additional research questions surfaced. One key issue was the kinds of barriers or
problems that complicate the process of seeking support and accumulating social
capital for women in higher education administration—specifically Asian
American women. The help-seeking orientation of these women administrators
revealed behaviors informed by organizational values, personal histories as
administrators, and sociopolitical relational dynamics influence by race and
gender. These orientations particularly for underrepresented administrators
reflected negative or self-defeating strategies. Also evident in the study is the

288
politics in the work setting and how politics are juxtaposed with race and gender
for these women.
The implications of various social networks in the world of higher
educational administration deserve attention. If, as this study suggests, ties with
different social networks are a positive benefit for Asian female administrators
both professionally and emotionally, then exploring the consequences of social
capital (its presence and absence) paves a new road toward helping all female
administrators, regardless or race and gender, succeed as new leaders.
The potential benefits of social capital for the underrepresented
administrators cannot be understated. The findings of this study point to the
benefits accrued from developing supportive relationships with critical
institutional agents. It also paints a new and unexplored landscape illustrating the
complex processes associated with seeking support, especially for
underrepresented members of the administration. The brighter side of this tale is
that all administrators in this study are successful or perceived as successful.
However, the struggles and challenges of the underrepresented administrators do
not end with this milestone. The presence of social capital for women and
minorities served an important and necessary function. The majority of the
underrepresented administrators believed mentoring was the deciding factor for
their success.
As my predecessors have discovered and concluded, the other side of this
tale is that too many women of color are entrenched in the stereotype myths of

289
their racial and gender identities. I differ from my predecessors that I present a
more positive outlook on this phenomenon. I agree that it is imperative to
recognize that female administrators may suffer from psychological exhaustion,
beginning early in their professional careers, which may be incredibly detrimental
to long-term success and satisfaction. However, it is more critical that we use
more constructive approach in looking at the issue.
Asian American female administrators interviewed already spoke of their
fatigue explicitly. They were tired of many things – the double standards, the
isolation from being “the only one”, the misperceptions, and the cultural taxation.
Institutions need to set up formal mentoring relationships or provide more
leadership training programs for aspiring administrators. What institutions can do
is to encourage the development of networks as a natural and necessary ingredient
for professional success. Openly teaching aspiring administrators to recognize
opportunities for relationship building and how social support can tangibly assist
them in preparation, advocacy, and information would be an honest approach. It
could be a valuable tool for administrators requiring explicit rather than tacit
access to resources.
Institutions, in acknowledging the factors that might lead to cumulative
institutional weariness, can stop the burden of cultural taxation, correct
misperceptions of tokenism, and reframe the value of nontraditional academic
administration. In many ways, these recommendations are not new. Other
researchers have suggested racial changes in the culture and values that continue

290
to relegate individuals as insiders and outsiders. Until these values shift, I, along
with my predecessors, recommend a new lens by which historically marginalized
administrators are supported– the idea of relying on social relations for survival.
I submit that institutions need to take a more positive approach in
exploring this underrepresented group. Institutions need to embrace the cultural
integrity of these women and explore the value of what these women bring from
their Asian heritage. Moreover, individuals in supervisory positions at various
institutions need to heed the unique assets these Asian American women bring to
the organization. Creative viewpoints can emerge from cultural diversity.
Institutions need to look at these women as “assets” rather than “liabilities”.
Rather than avoiding the pitfall laid by cultural differences and prejudice, Asian
American women need to be focusing more on achieving their goals. Their
valuable contribution needs to be recognized, fostered, and mirrored.
This study, working off the knowledge that — for twelve women — the
intricate process of building social capital facilitated or complicated by cultural
and racial identity and organizational structure as important for career mobility, is
a significant first step towards gaining insights to make necessary systematic
institutional changes for a more equitable professional career acquisition.

291
REFERENCES
Alba, R., & Nee, V. (2003). Remaking the American mainstream: Assimilation
and contemporary immigration. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

American Association of University Women (AAUW), (2007).

Al-Zahrani, S., & Kaplowitz, S. (1993). Attributional biases in individualistic
and collectivistic cultures: A comparison of Americans with Saudis.
Social Psychology Quarterly, 56, 223-233.

Almquist, E. M. (1979). Minorities, gender and work. Lexington, MA: D.C.
Heath.

Almquist, E. M. (1987). Labor market gender inequality in minority groups.
Gender and Society, 1(4), 400-414.

Almquist, E. M. Forthcoming. Gender inequality in the world of work. Albany,
NY: SUNY Press.

American Council on Education (ACE) (1996). Fourteenth annual status report,
1995-96: Minorities in higher education. Washington, D.C.: Office of
Minorities in Higher Education: American Council on Education.

American Council on Education (ACE) (1998). On the importance of diversity.
www.acenet.edu.

Adkison, J. A. (1981). Women in school administration: A review of the
research. Review of Educational Research, 51(3), 311-343.

Andruskiw, O. & Howes, N. J. (1980). Dispelling a myth: That stereotypic
attitudes influence evaluations of women as administrators in higher
education. The Journal of Higher Education, 51(5), 475-496.

Astin, H. S. (1990). Education women: A promise and a vision for the future.
American Journal of Education, 98(4), 479-493.

Astone, N. M., Nathanson, C. A., Schoen, R., & Kim, Y. J. (1999). Family
demography, social theory, and investment in social capital. Population
and Development Review, 25(1), 1-31.

Baca Zinn, M., & Eitzen, D.S. (1999). Diversity in families (5
th
ed.). New York,
NY: Longman.

292
Barrett, M., & McIntosh, M. (1980). The ‘family’ wage: Some problems for
socialists and feminists. Capital and Class, 11,51-72.

Barringer, H. R., Takeuchi, D. T., & Xenos, P. (1990). Education, occupational
prestige, and income of Asian Americans. Sociology of Education, 63(1),
27-43.

Bateson, M. (1990). Composing a life: Life as a work in progress. New York:
Plume Books.

Bellah, R. N., Madsen, R., Sullivan, W. M., Swidler, A., & Tipton, S. (1985).
Habits of the heart. San Francisco: Harper & Row.

Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155-162.

Benjamin, P. (1997). The case for affirmative action. The Black World Today, 1-
11. http://www.tbwt.com.

Bensimon, E. M. (1989). A feminist reinterpretation of presidents’ definitions of
leadership. Peabody Journal of Education, 66, 143-156.

Bensimon, E. M. (1995). Total quality management in the academy: A rebellious
reading. Harvard Educational Review, 65(4), 593-611.

Bergman, B. F. (1986). The economic emergence of women. New York: Basic
Books.

Bianchi, S. M. & Spain, D. (1986). American women in transition. New York:
Russell Sage.

Blauner, R. (1972). Racial oppression in America. New York: Harper and Row.

Blum, D. E. (1991). Environment still hostile to women in academe, new
evidence indicates. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 38(7), A1 & A20.

Blumberg, R. L. 1984. A general theory of gender stratification. pp. 252-270 in
Sociologial Theory, edited by R. Collins. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bode, R. K. (1999). Mentoring and collegiality. In Mengers, R. (Ed.). Faculty in
new jobs: A guide to settling in, becoming established, and building
institutional support. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

293
Boice, R. (1992). The new faculty member: Supporting and fostering
professional development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Bond, M. H. (1983). A proposal for cross-cultural studies of attribution. In
Hewstone, M., Attribution theory: Social and functional extensions (pp.
144-157). Oxford: Basic Blackwell.

-- 1988. Intruduction. In Bond, M., The cross cultural challenge to social
psychology (pp. 9-13). Hong Kong: Oxford University Press.

Bond, M. H., Leung, K., & Wan, K. (1982). The social impact of self-effacing
attributions: The Chinese case. Journal of Social Psychology, 118, 157-
166.

Bonilla-Silva, E., & Lewis, A. (1996). The new racism: Toward an analysis of
the U.S. racial structure. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.

Boswell, T. (1986). A split labor market analysis of discrimination against
Chinese immigrants, 1850-1892. American Sociological Review, 51, 352-
371.

Bourdieu, P. (1977a). Cultural reproduction and social reproduction. In J.
Karabel & A. H. Halsey (Eds.), Power and ideology in education (pp.
487-511). New York: Oxford University Press.

Bourdieu, P. (1977b). Outline of a theory of practice (R. Nice, Trans.). London:
Cambridge University Press.

Bourdieu, P. (1980). Le capitale social: Notes provisoires. Actes de la Recherche
on Sciences Sociales 3, 2-3.

Bourdieu, P. (1983). The forms of capital. Originally published as
“Okonomisches Kapital, kulturelles Kapital, soziales Kapital.” In Soziale
Ungleichheiten (Soziale Welt, Sonderheft 2), edited by Reinhard Kreckel.
Goettingen: Otto Schartz & Co.

Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook
of theory and research for the sociology of education. New York:
Greendwood Press.

Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J. (1977). Reproduction in education, society, and
culture. London, England: Sage Publications.

294
Bourdieu, P., & Wacquaint, L. (1992). An invitation to reflexive sociology.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Brass, D. (1985). Men’s and women’s netowkrs: A study of interaction patterns
and influence in an organization. Academy of Management Journal,
28(2), 327-343.

Brown, T. F. (1999). Theoretical perspectives on social capital. Unpublished
manuscript. [On-line.] Available:
http://jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu/~tombrown/Econsoc/soccap.html.

Brenner, O. C., Tomkiewicz, J., & Schein, V. (1989). The relationship between
sex-role stereotypes and requisite management characteristics revisited.
Academy of Management Journal, 32, 662-669.

Burt, R. S. (1984). Network items and the general social survey. Social
Networks, 6, 293-339.

---. (1997). A note on social capital and network content. Social Networks, 19,
355-373.

Cancian, F. M. (1987). Love in America. New York: Cambridge University
Press.

Caplan, P. J. (1993). Lifting a ton of feathers: A women’s guide to surviving in
the academic world. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Carbonnell, J. L. (1984). Sex roles and leadership revisited. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 69, 44-49.

Chafetz, J. S. (1984). Sex and advantage: A comparative, macro-structural
theory of sex stratification. Towata, NJ: Rowman and Allanheld.

Chan, S. (1996). Asian American historiography. The Pacific Historical Review,
65(3), 363-399.

Chan, K. S., & Hune, S. (1995). Racialization and panethnity: From Asians in
America to Asian-Americans. In W. D. Hawly, A. W. Jackson, et al
(Eds.), Toward a common destiny: Improving race and ethnic relations in
America, pp. 205-233. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

295
Chang, R. S. (1993). Toward an Asian American legal scholarship: Critical race
theory, post-structuralism, and narrative space. California Law Review,
81(5), 1241-1323.

Charmz, K. (2000). Grounded theory objectivist and constructivist methods. In
N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.) Handbook of qualitative research
(2
nd
ed. Pp. 509-536). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Chen, E. W. (1998). The continuing significance of race: A case study of Asian
American women in white, Asian American, and African American
sororities. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.

Cheng, L., & Bonacich, E. (1984). Labor immigration under capitalism: Asian
workers in the United States before World War II. Berkeley: University of
California Press.

Chesler, M., & Crowfoot, J. (1997). Racism in higher education II: Challenging
racism and promoting multiculturalism in higher education organizations.
Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.

Chia, A. Y. (1983). Toward a holistic paradigm for Asian American Women’s
studies: A synthesis of feminist scholarship and women of color’s feminist
politics. A paper presented at the Fifth Annual Conference of the National
Women’s Studies Association, Columbus, OH.

Chliwniak, L. (1997). Higher education leadership: Analyzing the gender gap.
(ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 4). Washington, D.C.:
George Washington University.

Chodrow, N. (1978). Mothering, psychoanalysis, and the social organization of
gender. Berkeley: University of California.

Chow, E. N. (1987). The development of feminist consciousness among Asian
American women. Gender and Society, 1(3), 284-299.

Chow, E. N. – Forthcoming. The women’s liberation movement: Where are all
the Asian American women? In Asian American Women, edited by Judy
Yung and Diane Yen-Mei Won. San Francisco: Asian American Women
Untied.

Chu, L. (198). Asian-American women in educational research. Integrated
Education, 18(5-6), 55-60.

296
Chung, D. K. (1992). Asian cultural commonalities: A comparison with
mainstream American culture. In Furuto, S., Biswas, R., Chung, D.,
Murase, K., & Ross-Sheriff, F. (Eds.), Social work practice with Asian
Americans (pp. 27-44). Newbury Park: Sage.

Cohen, J. (1997). Finishing the bridge to diversity. Academic Medicine, 72, 103-
109.

Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American
Journal of Sociology, 94, S95-S120.

Collier, J. (1974). Women in politics. In Saldo, M. & Lamphere, L. (Eds.),
Women, culture, and society. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.

Coltrane, S. (1989). Household labor and the routine production of gender.
Social Problems, 36, 473-490.

Coltrane, S. (1996). Family man. New York: Oxford University Press.

Coontz, S. (1992). The way we never were. New York: Basic Book.

Di Leonardo, M. (1987). The female world of cards and holidays: Women,
families, and work of kinship. Signs, 12, 440-454.

Colyar, J. (2003). Understanding student stories: a narrative ethnography of
minority student experiences in the first year of college. Ph.D.
Dissertation, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA.

Committee of 100. (2004). The Committee of 100’s Asian Pacific American (A)A)
corporate board report card. New York: Committee of 100. Available at
http://www.committee100.org/News/engc100highlights_files/2004.04.23
%20Formal%20Report.pdf.

Corporate Board Report Card (2004). The Committee of 100.

Creal, R. C., & Beyer, K. D. (1993). 1992-93 Administration compensation
survey. Washington, D.C.: College and University Personnel Association.

Crespo, E. (1991). Changing conceptions of femininity among Puerto Rican
women. Ph.D. Dissertation, State University of New York, Bingham.

297
Crittenden, K. S. (1991). Asian self-effacement or feminine modesty?
Attributional patterns of women university students in Taiwan. Gender
and Society, 5(1), 98-117.

Cummins, J. (1986). Empowering minority students: A framework for
intervention. Harvard Educational Review, 56(1), 18-36.

De Graaf, N. D., De Graaf, P. M., & Kraaykamp, G. (2000). Parental cultural
capital and educational attainment in the Netherlands: A refinement of the
cultural capital perspective. Sociology of Education, 73(2), 92-111.

De Graaf, P. M. (1986). The impact of financial and cultural resources on
educational attainment in the Netherlands. Sociology of Education, 59,
237-246.

De Graaf, P. M. (1988). Parents’ financial and cultural resources and transition to
secondary school in the Federal Republic of Germany. European
Sociological Review, 4, 209-221.

Deyhle, D., & Margonis, F. (1995). Navajo mothers and daughters: Schools, jobs,
and family. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 26(2), 135-167.

Dika, S. L., & Singh, K. (2002). Applications of social capital in educational
literature: A critical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 72(1),
31-60.

Dill, B. T. (1983). Race, class, and gender: Prospects for an inclusive sisterhood.
Feminist Studies, 9, 131-150.

DiMaggio, P., & Mohr, J. (1985). Cultural capital, educational attainment, and
marital selection. American Journal of Sociology, 90, 1231-1261.

Doeringer, P. B., & Piore, M. J. (1971). Internal labor markets and manpower
analysis. Lexington: D. C. Heath.

Doughty, R. (1980). The black female administrator: Woman in a double bind.
In S. K. Biklen & M. B. Brannigan (Eds.), Women and educational
leadership. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Economist. (2005). The conundrum of the glass ceiling. Retrieved January 10,
2007 http://www.economst.com/cfm?story_id=4197626.

298
Edson, S. K. (1981). “If they can, I can”: Women aspirants to administrative
positions in public schools. In P.A. Schmuck, W.W. Charters, Jr., & R.O.
Carlson (Eds.), Educational policy and management: Sex differentials (pp.
169-185). New York: Academic Press.

Edwards, B., & Foley, M. W. (1998). Civil society and social capital beyond
Putnam. American Behavioral Scientist, 42(1), 124-140.

Ely, R. J. (1994). The effects of organizational demographics and social identity
on relationships among professional women. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 39(2), 203-238.

Endo, G. T., & Della-Piana, C. K. (1981). Japanese Americans, pluralism, and
the model minority myth. Theory into Practice, 20(1), 45-51.

Epstein, C. F. (1970). Woman’s place: Options and limits in professional
careers. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Erickson, B. H. (1995). Networks, success, and class structure: A total view.
Sunbelt Social Networks Conference. Charleston, S. C., February.

Espiritu, Y. L. (1997). Asian American women and men. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Estler, S. E. (1975). Women as leaders in public education. Signs, 1(2), 363-386.

Fagenson, E. A. (1990). Perceived masculine and feminine attributes examined
as a function of individuals’ sex and level in the organizational power
hierarchy: A test of four theoretical perspectives. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 75, 204-211.

Federal Glass Ceiling Commission. (1995). Good for business: Making full use
of the nation’s human capital. Washington, D.C.: U. S. Department of
Labor.

Feng, P. (1996). Being Chinese American, becoming Asian American: “Chan is
missing”. Cinema Journal, 35(4), 88-118.

Fernandez, M. (1998). Asian Indian Americans in the bay area and the glass
ceiling. Sociological Perspectives, 41, 119-149.

299
Fernández Kelly, M. P. (1995). Social and cultural capital in the urban ghetto:
Implications for the economic sociology of immigration. In A. Portes
(Ed.), The economic sociology of immigration: Essays on networks,
ethnicity, and entrepreneurship (pp. 213-247). New York: Russell Sage.

Fetterman, D. (1998). Ethnography: Step by step. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.

Fischer, C. S. (1982). To dwell among friends. Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.

Flora, J. (1998). Social capital and communities of place. Rural Sociology,
63(4), 481-506.

Fong, T. P. (1998). The contemporary Asian American experience: Beyond the
model minority. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

Franklin, J. H. (1993). The color line: Legacy for the twenty-first century.
Columbia: University of Missouri Press.

Freeman, J. M. (1989). Hearts of sorrow: Vietnamese-American lives. Stanford:
Sanford University Press.

Freize, I. H., Fisher, J., Hanusa, B., McHugh, M. C., & Valle, V. A. (1978).
Attributions of the causes of success and failure as internal and external
barriers to achievement in women. In Sherman, J., & Denmark, F.,
Psychology of women: Future directions of research. New York:
Psychological Dimensions.

Frow, J., & Morris, M. (2000). Cultural studies. In Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y.
(Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publications.

Gainen, J., & Boice, R. (1993). Building a diverse faculty. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Garcia, E. E. (2001). Hispanic education in the United Statets: Raíces y Alas.
Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Garcia, M. (2000). Succeeding in an academic career: A guide for faculty of
color. Westport: Greenwood Press.

300
Garmezy, N. (1974). Children at risk: The search for antecedents of
schizophrenia. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 8, 14-90.

Gates, H. L. (1996). Joining the block overclass at Yale University. Journals of
Blacks in Higher Education, 11, 95-110.

Geertz, C. (1973). Thick description. In C. Geertz (Ed.), The interpretation of
cultures (pp. 3-30). New York: Basic Books.

Geschwender, J. A. (1987). Race, ethnicity, and class. In Levine, R., & Lembki,
J. (Eds.), Recapturing Marxism: An appraisal of recent trends in
sociological theory. New York: Prager.

Geschwender, J. A. (1991a). Ethnicity, gender, and economic status.
Unpublished document.

Geschwender, J. A. (1991b). State policy, immigration, ethnicity, and female
labor force participation: Report of a national comparison between the
United States and Canada. Unpublished research report submitted to
Statistics Canada.

Geschwender, J. A. (1992). Ethgender, women’s waged labor, and economic
mobility. Social Problems, 39(1), 1-16.

Geschwender, M., & Carroll-Seguin, R. (1988). Asian American success in
Hawaii: Myth, reality or artifact of women’s labor.” In Smith, J.,
Hopkins, T., Muhammad, A., & Collins, J. (Eds.), Race, sexism, and the
world-system. Westport: Greenwood.

Geschwender, M., & Carroll-Seguin, R. (1990). Exploding the myth of Afri-
American progress. Signs, 15, 285-299.

Glazer, J. S., Bensimon, E. M., & Townsend, B. K. (Eds.) (1993). Women in
higher education: A feminist perspective. Needham Heights, MA: Ginn.

Glazer-Raymo, J. (1999). Shattering the myths: Women in academe. Baltimore:
John Hopkins University Press.

Gleason, P. (1980). American identity and Americanizatino. In Thernstrom, S.
(Ed.), Harvard Encyclopedia of American Ethnic Groups, 31-58.

Glenn, E. (1986). Issei, Nisei, war bride: Three generations of Japanese
American women in domestic service. Philadelphia: Temple University.

301
Glenn, E. (1991). Cleaning up/kept down: A historical perspective on racial
inequality in “women’s work”. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1333-1356.

Glenn, E. (1999). The social construction and institutionalization of gender and
race. In Ferree, M. M., Lorber, J., & Hess, B. B. (Eds.), Revisioning
gender. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Goktepe, J. R., & Schneier, C. E. (1989). Role of sex, gender roles, and attraction
in predicting emergent leaders. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 165-
167.

Goldin, C. (1990). Understanding the gender gap: An economic history of
American women. New York: Oxford University.

Gordon, M. M. (1964). Assimilation in American life: The role of race, religion,
and national origins. New York: Oxford University Press.

Gorena, M. (1996). Hispanic women in higher education administration: Factors
that positively influence or hinder advancement to leadership positions.
Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, New York.

Gough, K. (1971). The origin of the family. Journal of marriage and the family,
33, 760-771.

Gould, R. J., & Slone, C. G. (1982). The “feminine modesty” effect: A self-
presentational interpretation of sex differences in causal attribution.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 8, 477-485.

Granovetter, M. S. (1982). The strength of weak ties: A network theory revisited.
In P. V. Marsden & N. Lin (Eds.), Social structure and network analysis
(pp. 105-130). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Granovetter, M. S. (1982). The strength of weak ties: A network theory revisited.
In Mardsen, P. & Lin, N. (Eds.), Social structure and network analysis.
Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

---. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of
embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91(3), 481-510.

Greeley, A. (1987). Today’s morality play: The sitcom. New York Times, p. H1.

302
Green, M. F. (Ed.) (1989). Minorities on campus: A handbook for enhancing
diversity. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education.
Gregory, S. T. (2001). Black faculty women in the academy: History, status, and
future. The Journal of Negro Education, 70(3), 124-138.

Gross, A. E., & McMullen, P. A. (1983). Models of help-seeking process. In
DePaulo, B. M., Nadler, A., & Fisher, J. D. (Eds.)., New directions in
helping, v.2 help-seeking. New York: Academic Press.

Gross, N., & Trask, A. E. (1976). The sex factor and the management of schools.
New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Guthrie, G.P. (1985). A school divided: An ethnography of bilingual education in
a Chinese community. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Hacker, A. (1992). Two nations: Separate, hostile, unequal. New York: Charles
Scribner’s Sons.

Hall, R. M., & Sandler, B. R. (1982). The classroom climate: A chilly one for
women? Washington, D.C.: Project on the Status and Education of
Women, Association of American Colleges. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 215 628).

Hall, R. M., & Sandler, B. R. (1984). Out of the classroom: A chilly climate for
women? Washington, D.C.: Association of American Colleges, Project on
the Status and Education of Women. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED 254 125)

Han, A., & Hsu, J. (2004). Asian American X: An intersection of twenty-first
century Asian American voices. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan
Press.

Hansot, E., & Tyack, D. (1981). The dream deferred: A golden age for women
school administrators (Policy Paper No. 81-C2). Stanford, CA: Stanford
University, Institute for Research on Educational Finance and
Government.

Harper, T. N. (1997). ‘Asian values’ and Southeast Asian histories. The
Historical Journal, 40(2), 507-517.

Hartman, H. (1976). Capitalism, patriarchy, and job segregation by sex. Signs, 1,
137-169.

303
Harwarth, I., Maline, M., & DeBra, E. (1997). Women’s colleges in the United
States: History, issues, and challenges. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and
Improvement, National Institute on Postsecondary Education, Libraries,
and Lifelong Learning.

Heath, S.B. (1981). Ethnography in education. Children in and out of school.
Washington, D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics.

Herring, C., Keith, V. M., & Horton, H. D. (2003). Skin deep: How race and
complexion matter in the ‘color-blind’ era. Champagne: University of
Illinois Press.

Higginbotham, E. (1987). Employment for professional Black women in the
twentieth century. In Bose, C. & Spitze, G. (Eds.), Ingredients for a
women’s employment policy, 73, p.88.

Hill Collins, P. (2000). Black feminist thought. New York: Routledge.

Hirschman, C. & Wong, M. (1981). Trends in socioeconomic achievement
among immigrant and native-born Asian Americans, 1960-1976. The
Sociological Quarterly, 22, 495-513.

Hirschman, C., & Wong, M. (1984). Socioeconomic gains of Asian Americans,
blacks, and Hispanics: 1960-1976. American Journal of Sociology, 90,
584-607.

Hirschman, C., & Wong, M. (1986). The extraordinary educational attainment of
Asian-Americans: A search for historical evidence and explanations.
Social Forces, 65(1), 1-27.

Horner, M.S. (1969). Fail: Bright women. Psychology Today, 3, 36-62.

Howard-Hamilton, M. F., & Williams, V. A. (1996). Assessing the environment
for women of color in student affairs. Unpublished document,
electronically retrieved from www.eric.gov. January 16, 2007: ED 398
516.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work
related values. Beverly Hills: Sage.

Hogan, R. T., & Emler, N. P. (1978). The biases in contemporary social
psychology. Social Research, 45, 478-534.

304
Hoy, R. R. (1993). A ‘model minority’ speaks out on cultural shyness. Science,
262(5136), 1117-1118.

Hsia, J. (1988). Asian Americans in higher education and at work. Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.

Hsu, F. L. K. (1981). Americans and Chinese: Passage to differences.
Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

Hui, H. C. (1988). Measurement of individualism-collectivism. Journal of
Research in Personality, 22, 17-36.
Hui, H. C., & Triandis, H. (1986). Individualism-collectivism: A study of cross-
cultural research. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 17, 225-248.

Hurtado, S., & Carter, D.F. (1997). Effects of college transition and perceptions
of the campus racial climate on Latino college students’ sense of
belonging. Sociology of Education, 70(4), 324-345.

Hune, S. (1997). Asian Pacific American women in higher education: claiming
visibility and voice. Washington, D.C.: Association of American Colleges
and Universities, Program on the Status and Education of Women.

Hurh, W. M. (1998). The Korean Americans. Wesport: Greenwood Press.

Hwang, S., Saenz, R., & Aguirre, B. E. (1997). Structural and assimilationist
explanations of Asian American intermarriage. Journal of Marriage and
the Family, 59(3), 758-772.

Hyun, J. (2005). Breaking the bamboo ceiling. New York: Harper Collins.

Ianello, K. (1992). Decisions without hierarchy: Feminist interventions in
organization theory and practice. New York: Routledge.

Ibarra, H. (1992). Homophily and differential returns: Sex differences in
network structure and access in an advertising firm. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 37, 422-447.

---. Personal networks of women and minorities in management: A conceptual
framework. Academy of Management Review, 18(1), 56-77.

---. Race, opportunity and diversity of social circles in managerial networks.
Academy of Management Journal, 38(3), 673-691.

305
Ibarra, H., & Smith-Lovin, L. (1997). New directions in social network research
on gender and organizational careers. In Cooper, C. L., & Jackson, S. E.
(Eds.), Creating tomorrow’s organizations. New York: John Wiley &
Sons.

Ignatiev, N. (1997). Treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity. In Delgado, R.
& Stefancic, J. (Eds.), Critical white studies: Looking behind the mirror.
Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Inuzuka, J.K. (1991). Women of color and public policy: A case study of the
women’s business ownership act. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1215-
1239.

Ishii-Kuntz, M. (1997). Intergenerational relationships among Chinese, Japanese,
and Korean Americans. Family Relations, 46(1), 23-32.

Jacobs, J.A. (1996). Gender inequality and higher education. Annual Review of
Sociology, 22, 153-185.

Jacobs, L., Cintron, J., & Canton, C. E. (2002). The politics of survival in
academia: Narratives of inequality, resilience, and success. Lanham:
Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Jarrett, R.L. (1995). Growing up poor: The family experiences of socially mobile
youth in low-income African American neighborhoods. Journal of
Adolescent Research, 10, 111-135.

Jaquette, J. S. (1971). The status of women in the profession: Tokenism. PS,
4(4), 530-532.

Jaquette, J.S. (1997). Women in power: From tokenism to critical mass. Foreign
Policy, 108, 23-37.

Jeffries, V., & Ransford, H. (1980). Social stratification: A multiple hierarchy
approach. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Johnson, K. A. (1983). Women, the family and peasant revolution in China.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Johnsrud, L.K. (1991). Administrative promotion: The power of gender. The
Journal of Higher Education, 62(2), 119-149.

306
Jovick, T.D. (1981). Ambitions and the opportunity for professionals in the
elementary school. In P.A. Schmuck, W.W. Charters, Jr., & R.O. Carlson
(Eds.), Educational policy and management: Sex differentials (pp. 153-
168). New York: Academic Press.

Jun, A. (2000). The price of admission. Ann Arbor, MI: UMI Dissertation
Services.

Kade, J. (1988). Subjektwerdung und Gemeinschaftsbezuge-die
qualifizierungsoffensive als Herausforderung fur die
Erwachsenenbildungstheoric (Zeitschrift fur Padagogik: Vol. 23, pp. 99-
107). Cited in Jansen and Wildemeersch 1996, p. 330.

Kandiyoti, D. (1988). Bargaining with patriarchy. Gender & Society, 2, 274-291.

Kanter, R.M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic
Books.

Kanter, R.M. (1983). The changing masters. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Kashima, Y., & Triandis, H. C. (1986). The self-serving bias in attributions as a
coping strategy: A cross-cultural study. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 17, 83-97.

Kent, R.L., & Moss, S.E. (1994). Effects of sex and gender role on leader
emergence. The Academy of Management Journal , 37(5), 1335-1346.

Kessler, S., & McKenna. (1978). Gender: An ethnomethodological approach.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Khanna, N. (2004). The role of reflected appraisals in racial identity: The case of
multiracial Asians. Social Psychology Quarterly, 67(2), 115-131.

Kibria, N. (1990). Power, patriarchy, and gender conflict in the Vietnamese
immigrant community. Gender and Society, 4(1), 9-24.

Kibria, N. (2000). Race, ethnic options, and ethnic binds; Identity negotiations of
second-generation Chinese and Korean Americans. Sociological
Perspectives, 43(1), 77-95.

Kim, C. J. (1999). The racial triangulation of Asian Americans. Politics &
Society, 27(1), 105-138.

307
Kim, C. J., & Lee, T. (2001). Interracial politics: Asian Americans and other
communities of color. Political Science and Politics, 34(3), 631-637.

Kim, J. (1981). Process of Asian-American identity development: A study of
Japanese American women’s perceptions of their struggle to achieve
positive identities as Americans of Asian ancestry. Doctoral dissertation,
School of Education, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Kim, J. (2001). Asian-American identity development theory, in C. L.
Wijeyesinghe and B. W. Jackson III, New perspectives on racial
development: A theoretical and practical anthology. New York: New
York Press.

Kim, P. S., & Lewis, G. B. (1994). Asian Americans in the public service:
Success, diversity, and discrimination. Public Administration Review,
54(3), 285-290.

Kim, U., & Choi, S. (1994). Individualism, collectivism, and child development:
A Korean perspective. In Greenfield, P., & Cocking, R. (Eds.), Cross-
cultural roots of minority child development (pp. 227-257). Hillsdale:
Erlbaum.

Kim, Y. K. (1999). Are Asians black? The Asian-American civil rights agenda
and the contemporary significance of the Black/White paradigm. The Yale
Law Journal, 108(8), 2385-2412.

Kitano, H. H. L. (1981). Asian-Americans: The Chinese, Japanese, Koreans,
Pilipinos, and Southeast Asians. Annals of the American Academy of
Political and Social Science, 454, 125-138.

Kuh, G.D. (1993). In their own words: What students learn outside the
classroom. American Educational Research Journal, 30, 277-304.

Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews: An introduction to qualitative research
interviewing. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Lamont, M., & Lareau, A. (1988). Cultural capital: Allusions, gaps, and
glissandos in recent theoretical developments. Sociological Theory, 6,
153-168.

Lamphere, L. (1974). Strategies, cooperation and conflict among women in
domestic groups. In Rosaldo, M. R., & Lamphere, L. (Eds.), Women,
culture and society. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

308
Lareau, A. (2000). Home advantage: Social class and parental intervention in
elementary education (2
nd
ed.). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
---. (2001). Linking Bourdieu’s concept of capital to the broader field: The case
of family-school relationships. In Biddle, B. J. (Ed.), Social class,
poverty, and education: Policy and practice. New York: Routledge
Falmer.
Lareau, A., & Horvat, E.M. (1999). Moments of social inclusion and exclusion:
Race, class, and cultural capital in family-school relationships. Sociology
of Education, 72, 37-53.

Lather, P. (1986). Research as praxis. Harvard Educational Review, 56(3), 257-
277.

Le, C. N. (2007). Assimilation and ethnic identity: Asian-Nation: The landscape
of Asian America. Retrieved on May 14, 2007 from http://www.asian-
nation.org/assimilation.shtml.

LEAP. (2007). http://www.leap.org/develop_main.html. Retrieved
electronically September 17, 2007.

Lee, E. S., & Rong, X. (1988). The educational and economic achievement of
Asian-Americans. The Elementary School Journal, 88(5), 545-560.

Lee, F. J. (2003). Social capital and tenure: The role of race and gender in
academic promotion. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Southern
California, Los Angeles.

Lee, J. Y. (1996). Why Suzie Wong is not a lesbian: Asian and Asian American
lesbian and bisexual women and femme/butch/gender identities. In
Beemyun, B., & Eliason, M., Queer studies. New York: New York
University Press.

Lee, S. M. (2002). Do Asian American faculty face a glass ceiling in higher
education? American Educational Research Journal, 39(3), 695-724.

Lee, S. J., & Vaught, S. (2003). “You can never be too rich or too thin”: Popular
and consumer culture and the Americanization of Asian American girls
and young women. The Journal of Negro Education, 72(4), 457-466.

Lenski, G. (1966). Power and privilege: A theory of social stratification. New
York: McGraw-Hill.

309
Lew, C. (2005). Asian Pacific Americans and graduate social work education:
career choice influences. Ed.D. Dissertation, University of Southern
California, Los Angeles.

Lewis, A. (1998). Theorizing whiteness: Interrogating racial privilege. Ann
Arbor: University of Michigan.

Lewis, G. (1988). Progress toward racial and sexual equality in the federal civil
service. Public Administration Review, 50, 220-227.

Levinson, B.A.U., & Holland, D.C. (1996). The cultural production of the
educated person: An introduction, In B.A. Levinson, D. E. Foley, & D. C.
Holland (Eds.), The cultural production of the educated person: Critical
ethnographies of schooling and local practice (pp. 1-54). Albany: State
University of New York Press.

Lewis, G. B., & Kim, P. S. (1997). Asian Americans in the federal service:
Education, occupational choice, and perceptions of discrimination: A
reply. Public Administration Review, 57(3), 267-269.

Liang, B., & Bogat, G. A. (1994). Culture, control and coping: New perspectives
on social support. American Journal of Community Psychology, 22, 123-
147.

Lieberson, S., & Waters, M. C. (1988). From many strands: Ethnic and racial
groups in contemporary America. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Lin, N. (1999). Building a network theory of social capital. Connections, 22(1),
28-51.

Lin, N. (2000). Inequality in social capital. Contemporary Sociology, 29(6), 785-
795.

Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.

Lindsay, B. (1999). Women chief executives and their approaches towards equity
in American universities. Comparative Education, 35(2), 187-199.

Locke, L.F., Silverman, S.J., & Spirduso, W.W. (2004). Reading and
understanding research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

310
Loo, C. & Ong, P. (1982). Slaying demons with a sewing needle: feminist issues
for Chinatown women. Berkeley Journal of Sociology, 27, 77-88.

Lorber, J. (1994). Paradoxes of gender. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Lorber, J., & Farrell, S. A. (1991). The social construction of gender. Newbury
Park: Sage.

Lucal, B. (1999). What it means to be gendered me: Marking Asian American
differences. Diaspora, 1, 24-44.

Lucas, J. W. (2003). Status processes and the institutionalization of women as
leaders. American Sociological Review, 68(3), 464-480.

Macias, J. (1993). Forgotten history: educational and social antecedents of high
achievement among Asian immigrants in the United States. Curriculum
Inquiry, 23(4), 409-432.

Mann, J., & Smith, C. (1990). Prewriting for academic failure: Barriers to
advancement to administrative positions in higher education. CUPA
Journal, 41(1), 25-30.

Marable, M. (1995). Beyond black and white. London: Verso.

Margolis, E., & Romero, M. (1998). The department is very male, very white,
very old, and very conservative: The functioning of the hidden curriculum
in graduate sociology departments. Harvard Educational Review, 68(1),
1-32.

Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for
cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 2, 224-253.

Matsuda, M. (1993). We will not be used. UCLA Asian American Pacific Islands
Law Journal, 1, 79-84.

Matthaei, J. A. (1982). An economic history of women in America: Women’s
work, the sexual division of labor and the development of capitalism. New
York: Shocken.

Maxwell, J. (2002). Understanding and validity in qualitative research. In Miles
& Huberman (Eds.), The qualitative researcher’s companion. Thousand
Oaks: Sage Publications.

311
McDermott, R., & Varenne, H. (1995). Culture as disability. Anthropology &
Education Quarterly, 26(3), 324-348.

McKinney, K., Saxe, D., & Cobb, L. (1998). Are we really doing all we can for
our undergraduates? Professional socialization via out-of-class
experiences. Teaching Sociology, 26(1), 1-13.

McNeal, R.G., Jr. (1999). Parental involvement as social capital: Differential
effectiveness on science achievement, truancy, and dropping out. Social
Forces, 19(3), 281-301.

Megargee, E.I. (1969). Influence of sex roles on the manifestation of leadership.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 53, 377-382.

Mehra, A., Kilduff, M., & Brass, D. J. (2001). The social networks of high and
low self-monitors: Implications for workplace performance.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(1), 121-146.

Meneer, P. (1978). Retrospective data in survey research. Journal of Market
Research Society, 20, 182-195.

Menges, R. J. (1999). Faculty in new jobs: Guide to settling in, becoming
established, and building institutional support. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass Publishers.

Menges, R.J., & Exum, W.H. (1983). Barriers to the progress of women and
minority faculty. The Journal of Higher Education, 54(2), 123-144.

Min, P. G. (1998). Changes and conflicts: Korean immigrant families in New
York. New York: Allyn and Bacon.

Mirowsky, J., & Ross, C. (1984). Mexical culture and its emotional
contradictions. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 25, 2-13.

Monkman, K., Ronald, M., & Theramene, F. D. (2005). Social and cultural
capital in an urban Latino school community. Urban Education, 40(1), 4-
33.

Montez, J.M. (1998). Asian/Pacific American women in higher education
administration: Doubly bound, doubly scarce. Issues in Policy, 9, 1-8.

Moody, J. (1997). Demystifying the profession: Helping junior faculty succeed.
New Haven: University of New Haven Press.

312
Moore, K.M. (1987). Women’s access and opportunity in higher education:
Toward the twenty-first century. Comparative Education, 23(1), 23-34.

Moritsugu, J., & Sue, S. (1983). Minority status as a stressor. In R. D. Felner, L.
A. Jason, J. N. Moritsugu, and S. S. Farer (Eds.), Preventive psychology:
Theory, research, and practice, pp. 162-173. Elmsford, NY: Pergamon.

Muller, G.H. (1994). Gateways to success: Urban community colleges and
administrative diversity. In R. C. Bowen & G. H. Muller (Eds.), New
Directions for Community Colleges: No. 94 Achieving administrative
diversity (pp. 57-67). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Nakanichi, D.T., & Hirano-Nakanishi, M. (Ed.). (1983). The education of Asian
and Pacific Americans: Historical perspectives and prescriptions for the
future. Phoenix, AZ: The Oryx Press.

Nakayama, T. (1994). Show/down time: Race, gender, sexuality and popular.
Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 11, 162-179.

National Center for Education Statistics. (1997a). The digest of education
statistics. Washington, D.C.: Department of Education.

National Center for Education Statistics. (1999a). IPEDS 1991-92 fall enrollment
data. Retrieved April 3, 1999 from
http://nces.ed.gov/data/postsec/ipeds/fallenroll/ef9192.zip

National Center for Education Statistics. (1999b). IPEDS 1996-97 institutional
characteristics 1996-97. Retrieved April 3, 1999 from
http://nces.ed.gov/Ipeds/ic.html.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2000). Integrated postsecondary
education data system fall staff data file, fall 1997. Retrieved April 4,
2000 from http://nces.ed.gov/Ipeds/s9798.

National Education Association. (1998). Non-instructional staff in higher
education. NEA Update, 4(3), 1-8. Retrieved May 15, 1999 from the
http://www.nea.org/ne/neupdate.

Nettles, M. T., & Perna, L.W. (1997). The African American education data
book, Vol. I: Higher and adult education, executive summary. Fairfax,
VA: College Fund / UNCF.

313
Netles, M. T., & Perna, L. W., & Bradburn, E. M., & Zimbler, L. (2000). Salary,
promotion and tenure status of minority women faculty in U.S. colleges
and universities. National Center for Education Statistics. U.S.
Department of Education.

O’Brien, S., & Fathaigh, M. O. (2004). Bringing in Bourdieu’s theory of social
capital: Renewing learning partnership approaches to social inclusion. A
paper presented at the ESAI Annual Conference, NUI Maynooth April 1-
3, 2004.

Ogbu, J.U. (1979). Social stratification and the socialization of competence.
Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 10(1), 3-20.

Okamoto, D. G. (2003). Toward a theory of panethnicity: Explaining Asian
American collective action. American Sociological Review, 68(6), 811-
842.

Olneck, M. (2000). Can multicultural education change what counts as cultural
capital. American Educational Research Journal, 27(2), 317-348.

Omi, M., & Winant, H. (1994). Racial formation in the United States. 2
nd
Ed.
New York: Routledge.

Opp, R.D., & Gosetti, P.P. (2000). Women administrators in higher education: A
trend analysis of IPEDS data by institutional characteristics. Paper
presented at the annual conference of the American Educational Research
Association, New Orleans, LA.

Opp, R.D., & Gosetti, P.P. (2000). Promoting equity for women administrators of
color. A paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the
Study of Higher Education, Sacramento, CA, November 17, 2000.

Oppenheimer, V. K. (1982). Work and the family: A study in social demography.
New York: Academic.

Ortiz, F.I., & Marshall, C. (1988). Women in educational administration. In N. J.
Boyalnd (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational administration (pp.
123-141). New York: Longman.

Ortiz, F.I., & Venegas, Y. (1978). Chicana (female) school administration.
Emergent Leadership, 2(2), 55-60.

314
Osajima, K. (1993). The hidden injuries of race. In Revilla, L., Nomura, G.,
Wong, S., & Hune, S., Bearing dreams, shaping visions: Asian Pacific
American perspectives. Pullman: Washington State University Press.

Ottinger, C., & Sikula, R. (1993). The new agenda for women revisited.
Educational Record, 73(4), 47-55.

Paddock, S.C. (1978). Careers in educational administration: Are women the
exception: Sex equity in educational leadership projects. Eugene, OR.

Paddock, S.C. (1979). Male and female high school principals: A comparative
study. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, San Francisco.

Paddock, S.C. (1981). Male and female career paths in school administration. In
P.A. Schmuck, W.W. Charters, Jr., & P.O. Carlson (Eds.), Educational
policy and management: Sex differentials (pp. 187-198). New York:
Academic Press.

Paulsen, R. (1991). Education, social class, and participation in collective action.
Sociology of Education, 64(2), 96-110.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand
Oaks: Sage Publications.

Payne, N.J., & Jackson, B.L. (1978). Status of black women in educational
administration. Emergent Leadership, 2(3), 1-17.

Pearson, C.S., Shavlik, D.L., & Touchton, J.G. (Eds.) (1989). Educating the
majority: Women challenge tradition in higher education. New York:
MacMillan.

Pena, R. A. (1997). Cultural differences and the construction of meaning:
Implications for the leadership and organizational context of schools.
Education Policy Analysis, 5(10), 1-17. Retrieved from
http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v5n10.htm. October 24, 2007.

Pham, V.H., Hokoyama, L.E., & Hokoyama, J.D. (2005). Become Visible: Let
Your Voice Be Heard. www.ucla.edu/asianstudies/html.

Picker, A.M. (1980). Female educational administrators: Coping in a basically
male environment. Educational Horizons, 58(3), 145-149.

315
Polkinghorne, D. (1983). A response to Anyon from the Antipodes. Curriculum
Inquiry, 13, 295-320.

Portes, A. (1998). Social capital: Its origins and applications in modern
sociology. Annual Reviews in Sociology, 24, 1-24.

Portes, A., & Landolt, P. (1996, May 1). The downside of social capital.
American Prospect, 26, 18-22.

Powell, G.N., Posner, B.Z., & Schmidt, W.H. (1984). Sex effects on managerial
value systems. Human Relations, 37, 909-921.

Prolman, S. (1982). Gender, career paths, and administrative perceptions.
Administrator’s Notebook, 30(5), 1-4.

Pyke, K. (2000). “The normal American family” as an interpretive structure of
family life among grown children of Koreans and Vietnamese immigrants.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62(1), 240-255.

Pyke, K. D., & Johnson, D. L. (2003). Asian American women and racialized
feminitieis: “Doing” gender across cultural worlds. Gender and Society,
17(1), 33-53.

Rai, K.B., & Critzer, J.W. (2000). Affirmative action and the university: Race,
ethnicity, and gender in higher education employment. Lincoln:
University of Nebraska Press.

Ramsay, E. (2000). Women and leadership in higher education: Facing
international challenges and maximizing opportunities. Keynote address
delivered at the international seminar: Asian Women Leaders in Higher
Education II: Leadership competencies to face the local-global challenges
of the 21
st
century, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur.

Randall, K.P., Daugherty, P., & Globetti, E. (1995). Women in higher education:
Characteristics of the female senior student affairs office. College Student
Affairs Journal, 14, 17-23.

Ranford, H., & Miller, J. (1983). Race, sex, and feminist outlooks. American
Sociological Review, 48, 46-59.

Richards, C. (1988). The search for equity in educational administration. In N. J.
Boylan (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational administration (pp.
159-168). New York: Longman.

316
Riehl, C., & Byrd, M.A. (1997). Gender differences among new recruits to
school administration: Cautionary footnotes to an optimistic tale.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19(1), 45-64.

Riessman, C. (1993). Narrative analysis. London: Sage Publications.

Roey, S., Rak. R., Fernandez, R., & Barbett, S. (1998). Fall staff in
postsecondary institutions, 1995 (NCES Publication No. 98-228).
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational
Research and Improvement, National Center for Education Statistics.

Rogers, E.M., & Kincaid, D.L. (1981). Communication networks: Toward a new
paradigm for research. New York, NY: Free Press.

Roos, P. (1985). Gender and work: A comparative analysis of industrial
societies. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Rosaldo, R. (1993). Culture and truth: The remaking of social analysis. Boston,
MA: Beacon Press.

Ross, M., & Green, M.F. (1998). The American college president. Washington,
D.C.: American Council on Education.

Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal vs. external control of
reinforcements. Psychological Monographs, 80, 1-28.

Rubin, H.J., & Rubin, I.S. (1995). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing
data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Ryan, M. P. (1979). Womanhood in America: From colonial times to the present,
2
nd
ed. New York: New Viewpoints.

Sagaria, M.D. (1988). Administrative mobility and gender: Patterns and
processes in higher education. The Journal of Higher Education, 59(3),
305-326.

Sagaria, M.D. (1988). Empowering women: Leadership development strategies
on campus. (Vol. 44). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Sagaria, M.D. (1993). Administrative mobility and gender: Patterns and
processes in higher education. In J.S. Glazer, E.M. Bensimon, & B. K.
Townsend (Eds.), Women in higher education: A feminist perspective (pp.
449-464).

317
Sakamoto, A., & Kim, C. (2003). The increasing significance of class, the
declining significance of race, and Wilson’s hypothesis. Asian American
Policy Review, 12, 19-41.

Sakamoto, A., Liu, J., & Tzeng, J. (1998). The declining significance of race
among Chinese and Japanese American men. Research in social
stratification and mobility, 16, 225-246.

Sakamoto, A., Woo, H., & Yap, K. (2004). Are Native-Born Asian Americans
less likely to be managers? A working paper.

Sakamoto, A., Wu, H., & Tzeng, J. (2000). The declining significance of race
among American men during the latter half of the twentieth century.
Demography, 37, 41-51.

Sampson, E. E. (1981). Cognitive psychology and ideology. American
Psychologist, 36, 730-743.

Sandler, B. (1993). Success and survival strategies for women faculty members.
American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 40, 1-16.

Sandler, B., & Hall, R. (1986). The campus climate revisited: Chilly for women
faculty, administrators, and graduate students. Washington, D.C.: Project
on the Status and Education of Women Association of American Colleges.

Sandler, B.R., Silverberg, L.A., & Hall, R.M. (1996). The chilly climate: A guide
to improve the education of women. Washington, D.C.: National
Association for Women in Education.

Sands, G.S., Parson, L.A., & Duane, J. (1991). Faculty mentoring faculty in a
public university. The Journal of Higher Education, 62(2), 174-193.

Sastry, J., & Ross, C. E. (1998). Asian ethnicity and the sense of personal
control. Social Psychology Quarterly, 61(2), 101-120.

Schmuck, P. (1976). Sex differentiation in public school administration.
Arlington, VA: National Council of Administrative Women in Education.

Schwandt, T.A. (1994). Constructivist, interpretivist approaches to human
inquiry. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative
research (pp. 118-137). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

318
Seeman, M. (1959). On the meaning of alienation. American Sociological
Review, 24, 783-791.

--- (1983). Alienation motifs in contemporary theorizing: The hidden continuity
of classic themes. Social Psychology Quarterly, 46, 171-184.

Shakeshaft, C. (1989). Women in educational administration. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage Publications.

Shakeshaft, C. (1998). Wild patience and bad fit: Assessing the impact of
Affirmation Action on women in school administration. Educational
Researcher, 27(9), 10-12.

Shavlik, D.L., & Touchton, J.G. (1992). The new agenda for women revisited.
Educational Record, 73(4), 47-55.

Shavlik, D.L., Touchton, J.G., & Pearson, C.S. (1988). The new agenda for
women for higher education: A report of the ACE commission on women
in higher education. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education.

Shin, D. (1999). Class and self-identity in clay walls. MELUS, 24(4), 125-136.

Smith, D. G., Wolf, L. E., & Busenberg, B. E. (1996). Achieving faculty
diversity: Debunking the myths. Washington, D.C.: Association of
American Colleges and Universities.

Smith, E.J. (1991). Ethnic identity development: Toward the development of a
theory within the context of majority/minority status. Journal of
Counseling and Development, 70, 181-188.

Sokoloff, N. (1980). Between money and love: The dialectics of women’s home
and market work. New York: Praeger.

St. John, Y., & Feagin, J. R. (1998). Double burden: Black women and everyday
racism. Armonk: M. E. Sharpe.

Stack, C.B. (1974). All our kin: Struggles for survival in a black community.
New York: Harper and Row.

319
Stanton-Salazar, R. D. (1997). A social capital framework for understanding the
socialization of racial minority children and youths. Harvard Educational
Review, 67(1), 1-40.

---. Defensive network orientations as internalized oppression: How schools
mediate the influence of social class on adolescent development. In
Biddle, B. J. (Ed.), Social class, poverty, and education. New York:
RoutledgeFalmer.

---. Manufacturing hope and despair. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

---. Peer social capital among working-class minority students: Prospects for
applying a new concept to peer influences in achievement. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association.
Chicago, Illinois.

Stanton-Salazar, R. D., & Dornbusch, S.M. (1995). Social capital and the
reproduction of inequality: Information networks among Mexican-origin
high school students. Sociology of Education, 68(2), 116-135.

Stanton-Salazar, R.D., & Spina, S.U. (2005). Adolescent peer networks as a
context for social and emotional support. Youth & Society, 36(4), 279-
417.

Steltenpohl, E. & Shipton, J. (1986). Facilitating a successful transition to college
for adults. Journal of Higher Education, 57(6), 637-65.

Stockard, J., & Johnson, M. (1981). The sources and dynamics of sexual
inequality in the profession of education. In P.A. Schmuck, W.W.
Charters, Jr., & R.O. Carlson (Eds.), Educational Policy and management:
Sex differentials (pp. 235-254). New York: Academic Press.

Stockard, J., & Kempner, K. (1981). Women’s representation in school
administration: Recent trends. Educational administration Quarterly,
17(2), 81-91.

Stoecker, J.L., & Pascarella, E.T. (1991). Women’s colleges and women’s career
attainments revisited. The Journal of Higher Education, 62(4), 394-406.

Stoloff, J. A., & Glanville, J. L., & Bienenstock, E. J. (1999). Women’s
participation in the labor force: The role of social networks. Social
Networks, 21, 91-108.

320
Strauss, A.L., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques
and procedures for developing grounded theory (2
nd
ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.

Stromquist, N.P. (1995). Romancing the state: Gender and power in education.
Comparative Education Review, 39(4), 423-454.

Suitor J., Wellman, B., & Morgan, D. (1997). It’s about time: How, why, and
when networks change. Social Networks, 19, 1-17.

Svoboda, J.M. & Crockett, R.W. (1996). Subculture roleover: The anatomy of a
hostile environment. Initiatives, 57(2), 37-48.

Tajima, R. E. (1989). Lotus blossoms don’t bleed: Images of Asian women. In
Asian Women United of California, Making waves. Boston: Beacon.

Tanaka, G. (2005). Higher education’s self-reflexive turn: Toward an
intercultural theory of student development. In Maureen E. Wilson, &
Lisa E. Wolf-Wendel, ASHE Reader on College Student Development
Theory. Boston, MA: Pearson Publishing Co. (Original work published
in 2002).

Tang, J. (1993). The career attainment of Caucasian and Asian engineers.
Sociological Quarterly, 34, 467-496.

Tang, J. (1997). The model minority thesis revisited: (Counter) evidence from the
science and engineering fields. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science,
33(3), 291-315.

Takaki, R. (1998). Strangers from a different shore: A history of Asian
Americans. New York: Little, Brown and Company.

Teachman, J.D., Paasch, K., & Carver, K. (1997). Social capital and the
generation of human capital. Social Forces, 75(4), 1343-1360.

Tedrow, B., & Rhoads, R.A. (1998). Senior women community college
administrators: Life in higher education’s inner circle. Paper presented at
the Annual Meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education,
Miami, FL.

Teng, J. E. (1996). The construction of the “traditional Chinese woman” in the
western academy: A critical review. Signs, 22(1), 115-151.

321
Thomas, G.D., & Hollenshead, C. (2001). Resisting from the margins: The
coping strategies of black women and other women of color faculty
members at a research university. The Journal of Negro Education, 70(3),
166-175.
Tierney, W. G. (1997). The parameters of affirmative action: Equity and
excellence in the academy. Review of Educational Research, 67, 165-196.

Tierney, W. G. (1999). Models of minority college-going and retention: Cultural
integrity versus cultural suicide. Journal of Negro Education, 68(1), 80-
91.

Tierney, W. G., & Jun, A. (2001). A university helps prepare low income youths
for college: Tracking school success. The Journal of Higher Education,
72(2), 205-225.

Touchton, J.G. (1995). Women presidents in U.S. colleges and universities, a
1995 higher education update. Washington, D.C.: ACE.

Touchton, J.G., & Davis, L. (1991). Fact book on women in higher education
administration. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Touchton, J.G., & Ingram, D. (1995). Women presidents in U.S. colleges and
universities: A 1995 higher education update. Washington, D.C.:
American Council on Education, Office of Women in Higher Education.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 393 325)

Touchton, J.G., Shavlik, D., & Davis, L. (1993). Women in presidencies: A
descriptive study of women college and university presidents.
Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, Office of Women in
Higher Education.

Tran, T. V. (1988). The Vietnamese American family. In Mindel, C. H.,
Habenstein, R. W., & Wright, Jr., R. (Eds.), Ethnic families in America:
Patterns and variations (pp. 276-299). New York: Elsevier.

Triandis, H. C. (1988). Cross-cultural contributions to theory in social
psychology. In Bond, M., The cross-cultural challenge to social
psychology (pp. 122-140). Newbury Park: Sage.

Tsui, P., & Schultz, G. (1985). Failure of rapport: Why psychotherapeutic
engagement fails in the treatment of Asian clients. American Journal of
Orthopsychiatry, 55, 561-569.

322
Tuan, M. (1998). Forever foreigners or honorary Whites? The Asian ethnic
experience today. Rutgers: Rutgers University Press.

Turner, C. (2000). Defining success: Promotion and tenure—planning for each
career stage and beyond. In Garcia, M. (Ed.), Succeeding in an academic
career: A guide for faculty of color. Westport: Greenwood Press.

Turner, C. S. V. (2002). Women of color in academe: Living with multiple
marginality. The Journal of Higher Education, 73(1), 74-93.

Turner, C., & Meyers, S. L. (2000). Faculty of color in academe: Bittersweet
success. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Turner, C., Meyers, S. L., & Creswell, J. W. (1999). Exploring
underrepresentation: The case of faculty of color in the Midwest. The
Journal of Higher Education, 70(1), 27-59.

Twombly, S.B. (1993, March/April). What we know about women in community
colleges: An examination of the literature using feminist phase theory.
Journal of Higher Education, 64(2), 186-210.

Twombly, S.B., & Amey, M.J. (1994). Leadership skills for participative
governance. In G. A. Baker (Ed.), A handbook on community colleges in
America (pp. 268-283). Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing.

Uba, L. (1994). Asian Americans: Personality patterns, identity, and mental
health. New York: The Guildford Press.

U.S. Census Bureau (2002). Educational attainment in the United States: March
2002 detailed tables. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Census Bureau. Available
at http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/education/pp1-
169.html.

U.S. Department of Labor. (1991). A report on the glass ceiling initiative.
Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.

Valenzuela, A., & Dornbusch, S.M. (1994). Familism and social capital in the
academic achievement of Mexican origin and Anglo adolescents. Social
Science Quarterly, 75(1), 18-36.

Van Maanen, J. (1988). Tales of the field. Chicago, IL: The University of
Chicago Press.

323
Villenas, S., & Deyhle, D. (1999). Critical race theory and ethnographies
challenging the stereotypes: Latino families, schooling, resilience and
resistance. Curriculum Inquiry, 29(4), 413-445.

Walton, D.K. (1998). Against the tide: The career paths of women chief
academic officers of American colleges and universities: In M. David &
D. Woodward (Eds.), Negotiating the glass ceiling: Careers of senior
women in the academic world (pp.45-59). Washington, D.C.: Falmer
Press.

Warner, L.S. (1995). A study of American Indian females in higher educational
administration. Initiatives, 56(4), 11-17.

Warner, M. (1999). Social capital construction and the role of the locate state.
Rural Sociology, 64(3), 373-393.

Wellman, B. (1983). Network analysis: Some basic principles. In R. Collins
(Ed.), Sociological Theory (pp.155-200). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.

Welsh, S. (1977). Women as political animals? A test of some explanations for
mal-female political participation difference. American Journal of
Political Science, 21(4), 711-730.

West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1987). Doing gender. Gender & Society, 1,
125-151.

White, M.J., & Glick, J.E. (2000). Generation status, social capital, and the routes
out of high school. Sociological Forum, 15(4), 671-691.

Wijeyesinghe, C.L., Griffin, P., & Love, B. (1997). Racism curriculum design.
In M. Adams, L. A. Bell, and P. Griffin, Teaching for diversity and social
justice: A sourcebook, pp. 82-109. New York: Rutledge.

Williams, S.S. (1985). Surviving double jeopardy in academe: Minority female
administrators at predominantly white universities. Paper presented at the
Annual Meeting of the National Association for Women Deans,
Administrators, and counselors, Milwaukee, WI.

Wilson, R. (1995). Affirmative action policies have helped minorities, women
progress. Higher Education & National Affairs. ACE.

324
Wolcott, H. (1990). On seeking- and rejecting- validity in qualitative research. In
E. W. Eisner & A. Peshkin (Eds.), Qualitative inquiry in education: The
continuing debate (pp. 121-152). New York: Teachers College Press.

Wolcott, H. (1999). Ethnography: A way of seeing. Walnut Creek: AltaMira
Press.

Wolf, M. (1972). Women and the family in rural Taiwan. Palo Alto: Stanford
University Press.
Wong, M., & Hirschman, C. (1983). Labor force participation and
socioeconomic attainment of Asian American women. Social
Perspectives, 26(423), 432-433.

Wong, R.S. (1998). Multidimensional influences of family environment in
education: The case of socialist Czechoslovakia. Sociology of Education,
71(1), 1-22.

Woo, D. (1999). Glass ceiling and Asian Americans: The new face of workplace
barriers. Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press.

Woods, P. (1986). Inside schools. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Wu, J., & Eoyang, C. (2004). Asian Pacific American Senior Executives in the
Federal Government.

Yamada, M. (1981). Asian Pacific American women and feminism. In This
bridge called my back: Writings by radical women of color, edited by C.
Moraga and G. Anzaldua. Watertown: Persephone.
Yamauchi, J. S. (1981). The cultural integration of Asian American professional
women: Issues of identity and communication behavior (Research Report).
Washington, D.C.: National Institution of Education, Washington, D.C.

Yu, E., & Phillips, E. H. (1983). Traditional thoughts and practices in Korea.
Los Angeles: The Center for Korean-American and Korean Studies.

Zavella, P. (1987). Women’s work and Chicano families: Cannery workers of the
Santa Clara Valley. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

325
APPENDIX A:
Informed Consent Form

University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
WPH 500B, Los Angeles, CA 90089-4035

INFORMATION SHEET FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH

********************************************************

CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN RESEARCH

A Study on the Socialization Process of Asian Females in
Higher Education Administration

You are asked to participate in a research study conducted by Alexander Jun,
Ph.D. and Jiah (Rhea) Chung, 2
nd
Year Doctoral Student in the Ed. D. Program
from the Rossier School of Education at University of Southern California. Study
results will contribute to Ms. Chung’s Doctoral Dissertation. You were selected
as a possible participant in this study because you are of Asian American heritage
and your position in higher education administration in the United States. A total
of 10 subjects will be selected various 4-year universities and colleges in the
United States. Your participation is voluntary. You must be aged 18 or older to
participate.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
To better understand the socialization process of Asian American women in
higher education administration in the United States.

Response to the interview questions will constitute consent to participate in this
research project.

PROCEDURES
If you volunteer to participate in this study, we would ask you to do the following
things:

1) participate in an individual interviews of approximately 30-60 minutes
2) participate focus group interview with all participants, and
3) A follow up interview via telephone or email might ensue if there are more
questions from the first interview.

326
The interviews will take place during Spring and Summer of 2007 either in
person, via phone, or email. Each interview will be 30-90 minutes with 20
questions. You might be interviewed more than once if there is a need for a follow
up. You will have the opportunity to review the content of the interview upon a
second contact from the interviewer. If you agree, the interviews will be audio-
taped. If you do not wish to have your interview taped, the researcher will take
notes of the interview.

POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
There are no anticipated risks. You may feel uncomfortable taking time out of
your day, answering personal questions or being audio-taped.

POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO SUBJECTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY
You will not directly benefit from participating in this study.

It is hoped that a better understanding of this unique group of women in the
American Higher Education and an exposure of the unique experiences of this
group will help create a pipeline for the next generation of leaders in higher
education. This study may also bring more insight in career mobility for minority
population in higher education administration, especially women.

PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
You will not be paid for participating in this research study.

CONFIDENTIALITY
There will be no information obtained in connection with this study and that can
be identified with you. Your name, address or other information that may identify
you will not be collected during this research study.

You will have the right to review and edit the notes taken during the interview.
All data, including notes and tape recordings will be deleted 3 years following the
acceptance of the dissertation. The data collected will be safely stored with the
principal investigator and the co-investigator at the offices of the two parties
during the research.

When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no
information will be included that would reveal your identity. The audio-tape
recordings of you will only be used for collecting and analyzing data. When the
results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no information
will be included that would reveal your identity.

327
PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
You can choose whether to be in this study or not. If you volunteer to be in this
study, you may withdraw at any time without consequences of any kind. You
may also refuse to answer any questions you don’t want to answer and still remain
in the study. The investigator may withdraw you from this research if
circumstances arise which warrant doing so. If the participant seems unfit for the
research, the investigator will have the rights to terminate the interview process.

IDENTIFICATION OF INVESTIGATORS
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to
contact Dr. Alexander Jun, at the Rossier School of Education of University of
Southern California at (213) 740-9747 or ajun@usc.edu or the co-investigator,
Jiah (Rhea) Chung at (213) 763-7053 or chungj@lattc.edu.

RIGHTS OF RESEARCH SUBJECTS
You may withdraw your consent at any time and discontinue participation without
penalty. You are not waiving any legal claims, rights or remedies because of your
participation in this research study. If you have questions regarding your rights as
a research subject, contact the University Park IRB, Office of the Vice Provost for
Research, Grace Ford Salvatori Hall, Room 306, Los Angeles, CA 90089-1695,
(213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu.

328
APPENDIX B:
Interview Protocol

I. INTRODUCTION (script)

A. Introduce myself
B. I am conducting a study concerning the experiences of Asian
American female administrators in four-year universities and colleges
in the United States. One goal of this study is to identify and explore
the socialization process of Asian American women in the leadership
positions in the higher education setting. The interview should last
approximately 1-2 hours. I will need to interview you again after I
have reviewed the information you share today. Would you be
interested to participate in this study?
C. I would like to tape record our conversation in order to allow me to
listen more carefully to what you say. If you don’t mind, I would also
like to write down some important points for my notes. Do I have
your permission to use the tape recorder?
D. Present consent form. Would you mind taking a few minutes to sign
the consent form?
E. Should you feel any discomfort answering any of the questions during
this interview, please state so.
F. I have developed a set of questions which I emailed you for your
review and I will go down the list of questions, if you don’t mind.

PART I: BACKGROUND

1. What is your background? (Ethnic, Academic, etc.)
2. Please explain your decision to go into the field you’re in right now.
3. Please tell me how long you’ve been in the current position.
4. Describe your first day at work in the current position.
5. What does your typical day look like at work?
6. How would you describe your “management” style?
7. Describe yourself using 3 adjectives.
8. How would your colleagues describe you using 3 adjectives?

329
9. How would your supervisor describe you using 3 adjectives?
10. What motivates you?
PART II: SUPPORT SYSTEM
11. Describe your experience with mentor(s) and / or mentee(s).
12. Tell me about your “social network” both at work and outside work.
13. Who was or is your “role model”?
14. What do you attribute your success to?
15. Who are the people you go to for support?
16. How would you place gender, race, and culture in order? (From most
important to least important)
PART III: CULTURE / COMMUNITY
17. How involved are you in your ethnic community?
18. What do you value most about your culture?
19. What are the issues you encounter at work that are unique to you as an
Asian American woman?
PART IV: WORK
20. What do you like most about your job?
21. What do you find most challenging in your job?
22. Tell me about “politics” in your work setting.
23. What are the “rules of the game” at your workplace, if any?
24. How do you deal with conflicts?
25. What is your vision for the institution where you are right now?

330
PART V: FUTURE
26. What do you see yourself in 10 years?
27. If you could envision a “dream job”, what would that look like?
28. If you could give one piece of advice for future administrators?
PART VI: OTHERS
29. Do you have any regrets? If so, how would you have done things
differently?
30. Tell me about “emotional intelligence”.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Women and racial minorities are thought to face particular disadvantages in managerial and professional settings. The research studies exploring the influence of gender and racial discrimination, campus politics, and stereotyping on the status of women suggest there are barriers for all women being hired, promoted, or mentored. The previous findings also suggest that the stated progress of women, particularly minority women, even more specifically, Asian American females, in the higher education workforce requires further investigation.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Cyber-harassment in higher education: online learning environments

PDF

The relationship of model minority stereotype, Asian cultural values, and acculturation to goal orientation, academic self-efficacy, and academic achievement in Asian American college students

PDF

A study of student affairs administration professional preparation in Chinese higher education

PDF

"A steady drop will wear a hole in the rock": feminism, the John Henry myth, and the black male experience in higher education

PDF

Women and the superintendency: characteristics of and barriers encountered by female superintendents in California

PDF

Secondary school violence and Hawai’i’s mahu population

PDF

Hawaii Board of Education's middle grade promotion policy: a policy implementation study

PDF

Asian Pacific Americans and graduate social work education: Career choice influences

PDF

Asian American leaders in higher education: Career aspirations in student affairs

PDF

Educating the Corps: real and perceived barriers to higher education for United States Marine non-commissioned officers

PDF

The perceptions of faculty and administrators of remedial mathematics education in two higher education institutions

PDF

The possible impact of elements of institutional culture on women students' higher education attainment in Hawaii

PDF

Acculturation styles, gender differences, and meanings of smoking in Asian-American college students

PDF

Exploring the undergraduate Latina/o experience: a case study of academically successful students at a research institution

PDF

Closing the achievement gap in a high performing elementary school

PDF

In pursuit of higher education: external and internal factors influencing the decision to attend college among Cambodian-American students

PDF

A grounded theory study on the academic and athletic success of female student-athletes at a private, research, Division I university

PDF

The relationship between parenting styles, career decision self-efficacy, and career maturity of Asian American college students

PDF

Gender equity and Cambodian high school students in a large urban school district: perspectives from administrators, teachers, and students

PDF

The journey to leadership: examining the opportunities and challenges for Asian American women leaders in K-12 schools

Asset Metadata

Creator Chung, Jiah "Rhea" (author)

Core Title The journey: Asian American females in higher education administration

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 01/29/2010

Defense Date 12/06/2007

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag Asian American female leaders,higher education administration,OAI-PMH Harvest

Place Name USA (countries)

Language English

Advisor Jun, Alexander (committee chair), Stowe, Kathy Huisong (committee member), Sundt, Melora A. (committee member)

Creator Email chungj@lattc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m1002

Unique identifier UC1203971

Identifier etd-Chung-20080129 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-46754 (legacy record id),usctheses-m1002 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Chung-20080129.pdf

Dmrecord 46754

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Chung, Jiah "Rhea"

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu