An introductory mixed‐methods intersectionality analysis of college access and equity: An examination of first‐generation Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders

Abstract

In this chapter, the author discusses the utility of mixed‐method approaches and intersectionality frameworks in analyzing and understanding inequities in college access faced by first‐generation Asian American and Pacific Islander students.

Mixed Methods for Study of Gender Issues in Access, Application, and Attitudes Toward ICT in Higher Education Institutions in Papua New Guinea

“…She concluded that this method provided a deeper understanding of the multiple dimensions of students' identity and how these perspectives intersect and were renegotiated over time. Museus (2011), in his study of issues of college access and equity among first generation of Asian Americans and South Pacific Islanders, pointed out three important reasons of employing mixed methods: emphasis (both quantitative and qualitative played equally important roles in answering research questions), timing (in his case it was quantitative → qualitative sequential design employed), and purpose (qualitative methods were employed to complement and elucidate findings generated from the quantitative strand). Arguing for the importance of mixed methods in this study, Museus further observed that while quantitative analysis highlighted existing inequities in college access faced by the studied group of students, qualitative analysis complemented the results with more in-depth understanding of factors contributing to the problem and possible ways of addressing the sources of conceived inequalities.…”

Socioeconomic Status and Asian American and Pacific Islander Students' Transition to College: A Structural Equation Modeling Analysis

“…Therefore, there is an urgent need to better understand and address the needs of Southeast Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, as well as first-generation (i.e., generation in college) and low-SES AAPIs in postsecondary education. Finally, the model minority stereotype and the corresponding exclusion of AAPIs from higher education research and discourse function to mask serious challenges that many Asian American students face in college, such as substantial pressure from cultural conflict, unwelcoming climates, pressure from racial stereotypes, racial prejudice and discrimination, and relatively high rates of mental health issues (Chhuon & Hudley, 2008;Cress & Ikeda, 2003;Greenberger & Chen, 1996;Harper & Hurtado, 2007;Lagdameo, Lee, Nguyen, Liang, Lee, Kodama, & McEwen, 2002;Lewis, Chesler, & Forman, 2000;Museus, 2007Museus, , 2008aMuseus, , 2008bMuseus, , 2011Museus & Truong, 2009). For these reasons, it is the moral and ethical responsibility of higher education researchers to include, better understand, and inform efforts to serve this population Museus & Chang, 2009).…”

“…For example, analyses of recent census educational attainment data indicate that Southeast Asian American and Pacific Islander populations-including Vietnamese (26%), Chamorro Islander (21%), Native Hawaiian (17%), Hmong (14%), Cambodian (13%), Guamanian (13%), Laotian (12%), Fijian (11%), Tongan (11%), Samoan (10%), and Micronesian (4%) groups-continue to attain bachelor's degrees at rates lower than the total national population (28%) (Museus, 2013). In addition, extant research demonstrates that AAPIs who are first-generation college students and from low SES backgrounds may suffer from disparities in college-going outcomes as well (Museus, 2011;Teranishi, Ceja, antonio, Allen, & McDonough, 2004). Therefore, there is an urgent need to better understand and address the needs of Southeast Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, as well as first-generation (i.e., generation in college) and low-SES AAPIs in postsecondary education.…”

“…Second, the model minority myth masks the needs of the AAPI population. Several scholars have now demonstrated that many AAPI ethnic groups suffer from drastic racial and ethnic disparities and achieve lower rates of educational attainment than other racial and ethnic groups and the overall 2 The five journals reviewed were the Journal of College Student Development, NASPA Journal, Journal of Higher Education, Research in Higher Education, and The Review of Higher Education. national population (Chang, Park, Lin, Poon, & Nakanishi, 2009;Hune, 2002;Kiang, 2002;Museus, , 2011Museus, , 2013Museus & Kiang, 2009). For example, analyses of recent census educational attainment data indicate that Southeast Asian American and Pacific Islander populations-including Vietnamese (26%), Chamorro Islander (21%), Native Hawaiian (17%), Hmong (14%), Cambodian (13%), Guamanian (13%), Laotian (12%), Fijian (11%), Tongan (11%), Samoan (10%), and Micronesian (4%) groups-continue to attain bachelor's degrees at rates lower than the total national population (28%) (Museus, 2013).…”

“…While researchers have provided substantial evidence that some AAPI subgroups suffer from racial and ethnic disparities in educational attainment (Museus, 2013;Hune, 2002;Kiang, 2002;Museus, , 2011Museus, , 2013Museus & Kiang, 2009), little is known about socioeconomic inequities among AAPIs. Indeed, with few exceptions (e.g., Museus, 2011;Teranishi, Ceja, et al, 2004), researchers have not systematically examined how various factors, such as SES and generational status (e.g., first-generation versus continuing education), influence AAPI students' transitions to and through postsecondary education.…”