Toward a Critical Race Theory Analysis of the Model Minority Myth in Selected Research on Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders in Higher Education: Implications for Critically Analyzing Scholarly Discourse and Advancing Knowledge

• In Event: Engaging Diverse Contexts, Communities, and Solidarities in Research on Asian American and Pacific Islanders

Abstract

The model minority myth (MMM) is often defined as the racial overgeneralization of Asian Americans (and sometimes includes Pacific Islanders) as achieving universal educational and occupational success (Lee & Kumashiro, 2001; Suzuki, 2002). A large body of literature focuses on challenging this stereotype and understanding its effects on AAPI populations (Museus, antonio, & Kiang, 2016). While much of this scholarship has been framed as counterhegemonic, recent discussions have caused some confusion over whether this research combats or reinforces systems of oppression. Poon et al. (2016) conducted a literature review of scholarship on AAPIs in higher education and claimed that research on the myth “has assumed the logic of oppressive dominant frameworks like deficit thinking and has consequently reinforced hegemonic frames and systems” (p. 7). The authors prompted important conversations about research on the model minority stereotype. However, we find that their misapplication of frameworks, narrow prescriptions of what constitutes counterhegemonic research, and failure to take the complexities of contexts and systemic racial processes into account led to their conclusions that AAPI education researchers have been deficit-oriented. We argue that these perspectives actually promote deficit views of AAPI education scholars.We conduct a new analysis of literature on the model minority myth using critical race theory, racial contexts of knowledge production, racial triangulation and racialization processes, deficit thinking as victim blaming, framing effects and resonance, and context and utilization of racial labels. We sought to answer the same research questions: Why is there disagreement regarding whether framing of the myth reinforces deficit paradigms? And, after making sense of these divergent perspectives, how do we understand the ways in which the myth is framed in existing research? To select publications for review, we culled Google Scholar using a combination of racial and ethnic labels and higher education concepts employed by the original authors published between 2000 and 2013. Each text was coded for (1) how the MMM was discussed, and how this discussion was couched in a larger research agenda conveyed in the article; (2) whether the author(s) blamed the victim (and is deficit-oriented) or not; and (3) how model minority myth and AAPI umbrella labels were used throughout the article, and whether there appeared to be systemic influences shaping their use.When more fully accounting for the complexities of racial processes and sociohistorical contexts, our conclusions diverge significantly from Poon et al. and we find no evidence to validate the argument that research on AAPIs has reinforced deficit thinking and hegemonic frames. Specifically, we find that (1) much of the work focused on anti-essentialism as a way of challenging dominant narratives about AAPIs; (2) the literature is largely anti-deficit in orientation when utilizing an accurate definition of deficit thinking; (3) researchers thoughtfully navigate racial labels and are constrained by structures that historically necessitate such labels, and; (4) researchers tailor their framing of the myth to varied audiences to advance a racial equity agenda. We conclude that researchers studying the myth have advanced equity, but generated an incomplete picture of the nature and effects of the myth. Implications offer promising lines of inquiry for future research on the myth.

Authors

• Varaxy Yi, California State University - Fresno

• Jacqueline Mac, Northern Illinois University

• Vanessa S. Na, University of California - San Diego

• Rikka J. Venturanza, University of California - Los Angeles

• Samuel D. Museus, University of California - San Diego

• Tracy Lachica Buenavista, California State University - Northridge

• Sumun Pendakur, University of Southern California