Visible in numbers, silenced in voices: The marginalized experiences of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders in postdoctoral hiring

• In Event: The Academic Journey: Perspectives and Trends

Proposal

Introduction
Postdoctoral positions represent a critical juncture in the workforce pipeline in the United States, especially in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields (Huynh & Shauman, 2021; National Science Foundation, 2018). As they bridge doctoral education and both academic and non-academic scientific careers, postdocs are central to advancing research, generating innovation, and training the next generation of scientists. Despite their importance, postdocs are often overlooked in equity and diversity research, leaving their experiences underexplored, especially those of racialized and marginalized populations.
Within higher education and the STEM workforce, Asian, Asian American, and Pacific Islander (AAPI) scholars occupy a paradoxical position. People often refer to this group as an “overrepresented” minority, characterized by higher educational attainment and workforce participation compared to national averages of underrepresented groups (Kennedy, Fry, & Funk, 2021). Asian postdocs made up 20% of all US postdocs in 2023, the second-largest group after white counterparts. However, these figures do not fully account for temporary visa holders, individuals of mixed race, or those whose race is unreported (Smith et al., 2024). Such categorizations reinforce generalizations that obscure the diversity within AAPI communities and overlook the distinct challenges many still face. Despite their numerical presence, AAPI scholars have historically struggled with invisibility in higher education.
Building on this paradox, research on postdoctoral training, and particularly on hiring, rarely engages AAPI voices. The unique challenges faced by AAPI postdocs in these processes are still largely invisible.This focus is important because hiring decisions shape access to resources, career advancement, and long-term participation in STEM fields. This paper aims to foreground the perspectives of AAPI postdocs on how they navigate hiring processes while confronting both subtle and overt forms of exclusion.
Research Question: How do AAPI postdocs experience racialization and marginalization within postdoc hiring processes?
Theoretical Framework
We employ epistemic injustice to explore the racialization and marginalization of AAPI postdocs during their hiring and to center their voices to illuminate inequities. Coined by Miranda Fricker, epistemic injustice refers to situations in which knowers and knowledge claims are undermined by others due to power imbalances between knowledge producers and audiences who validate knowledge or the knower (Dotson, 2012; Fricker, 2007; Gonzales et al., 2023). We rely on three forms of epistemic injustice: testimonial, hermeneutical, and contributory.
Testimonial injustice occurs when credibility is denied due to prejudice or stereotypes (Fricker, 2007). In hiring, committees or PIs may recognize AAPI postdocs as competent yet overlook them for leadership due to stereotypes. Concerns raised around visas or onboarding may be minimized, with PIs interpreting these concerns as exaggerations or misunderstandings.
Hermeneutical injustice arises when language or concepts to understand experiences are lacking (Fricker, 2007). For AAPI postdocs, this may mean feeling misunderstood or being a target of a microaggression, without understanding it as discrimination.
Contributory injustice occurs when dominant groups dismiss knowledge that could expand understanding (Dotson, 2012). In hiring, committees may ignore AAPI contributions to diversity or collaboration, deeming them irrelevant.
This study challenges assumptions of AAPI “overrepresentation” by showing how racialization shapes postdoc hiring in STEM. By centering their voices through epistemic injustice, we expand scholarship on equity and propose pathways for more transparent and inclusive hiring practices.
Methods
We employed a basic qualitative research design (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015) to examine AAPI postdocs’ experiences across STEM disciplines. We conducted semistructured interviews with 15 AAPI postdoctoral researchers at US universities. We selected participants from a larger study that involved nearly 50 postdocs and included both domestic and international postdocs to capture the diversity of Asian-related identities. Table 1 summarizes participants’ demographic, disciplinary, and institutional characteristics.
Data Analysis
We analyzed transcripts in four iterative phases. After verbatim transcription and an initial round of familiarization through multiple readings, we constructed low-inference case narratives (Coulter & Smith, 2009; Sfard & Prusak, 2005), treating them as data displays (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Each narrative condensed one participant’s story, retaining their own words and key turning points (e.g., recruitment, interview, job offer, and onboarding).
We then applied deductive coding, drawing on prior literature (Bingham & Witkowsky, 2022), specifically the three dimensions of epistemic injustice: testimonial, hermeneutical, and contributory (Fricker, 2007; Dotson, 2012). We highlighted excerpts that illustrate each form of injustice. Table 2 presents the codes, along with simplified definitions and examples.
After coding, we traced how injustices unfolded during hiring phases, while preserving the temporal integrity of each account. We then compared across cases to examine variation in how testimonial, hermeneutical, and contributory injustices manifested. This allowed us to trace both shared and unique experiences. These steps grounded analysis in lived experiences while linking findings to theory. Epistemic injustice provided a framework for interpreting how AAPI narratives reflected structural inequities in postdoctoral hiring.
Preliminary Findings
AAPI postdocs experienced epistemic injustice across all phases of hiring. Their accounts reveal how racialization and marginalization are embedded in postdoc hiring, complicating assumptions of AAPI overrepresentation and exposing subtle and overt exclusion. We will provide a more in-depth analytic interpretation in the next version of this paper.
Contributions and Implications
This study extends Fricker’s (2007) framework of epistemic injustice to postdoc hiring, an understudied site of inequity in STEM. It strengthens Dotson’s (2012) account of contributory injustice by showing how institutional practices silence AAPI postdocs even when they articulate their experiences. The study contributes to scholarship on challenging the “model minority” myth and highlighting epistemic dimensions of marginalization.
This proposal offers practical implications for practice and policy. Future research should include underrepresented Asian regions, non-STEM fields, and comparative studies to deepen understanding of epistemic injustice across contexts.
Our study aligns with the CIES 2026 Annual Conference theme, “Re-examining Education and Peace in a Divided World.” By examining how AAPI postdocs face marginalization despite their statistical representation, we reveal fractures in academic systems that undermine both equity and “peace.” Addressing these processes structurally is essential for building peaceful and inclusive learning communities.

Authors

• Ivet Parra-Gaete, The University of Arizona

• Jesenia Rosales, Oregon State University