The Pennsylvania State University
The Graduate School
College of Education
BE(COM)ING DESI:
A CRITICAL EXPLORATION OF SOUTH ASIAN (INDIAN & PAKISTANI) COLLEGE
STUDENT IDENTITY
A Dissertation in
Higher Education and Comparative & International Education
by
Sridevi Rao
Ó 2020 Sridevi Rao
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
August 2020
The dissertation of Sridevi Rao was reviewed and approved by the following:
Leticia Oseguera Associate Professor of Education – Higher Education Senior Research Associate Professor in Charge, Higher Education Program Dissertation Advisor Co-Chair of Committee
Gerald K. LeTendre Professor of Education – Education Policy Studies Professor in Charge, Comparative and International Education Co-Chair of Committee
Karly Ford Assistant Professor of Education – Higher Education Comparative and International Education Advisor
Gail L. Boldt Professor of Education – Language & Literacy Education
iii ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to explore the identity negotiations of undergraduate domestic and international South Asian students during college at Rural
State University (RSU), a large, research one, historically and predominantly white institution located in a rural college town in the eastern region of the United States. South
Asian experiences are distinctly underrepresented in higher education scholarship and particularly in literature on identity negotiations. In order to address this gap, this study engaged narrative methods while employing Desi Critical Race Theory (DesiCrit) as a theoretical lens to explore whether and how South Asian identities are negotiated as undergraduate college students.
The key findings of this study indicated that South Asian students, international and domestic, negotiated their identities in the many different contexts of their lives. The identity negotiations made between students and family were especially complex in relation to their multiple identities. The participants’ racial identity was particularly salient and participants described the struggle of balancing their racial roots with white
American culture. For domestic students, this occurred from childhood into college, whereas for international students college in the United States was the first time they experienced their race in this way. College provided an environment where many South
Asian students found community through ethnic organizations and what the participants termed “Browntown.”
iv TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES ...... vii
LIST OF TABLES...... viii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... ix
Chapter 1: Introduction ...... 1
Context for South Asians...... 3 Statement of the Problem ...... 6 Purpose of the Study ...... 8 Research Questions ...... 9 Significance ...... 10
Chapter 2: Literature Review ...... 12
Asian American Identity...... 13 Multidimensional Model of Asian American Identity ...... 18 South Asian American Identity ...... 21 Dissertations About South Asian Students...... 24 Sexual Orientation, Gender, Religion, and International Identities ...... 27 Sexual Orientation ...... 27 Gender...... 28 Religion ...... 29 International Student Identity ...... 30 College & Identity ...... 34 Contextual Influences ...... 36 State of the Field ...... 37 College Student Identity/Student Development Theories ...... 37 History of RMMDI ...... 42 Limitations of the RMMDI ...... 49 Theoretical Framework ...... 50 Theoretical Lens: Desi Critical Race Theory ...... 50 Summary of Literature Review & Next Steps ...... 53
Chapter 3: Methodology ...... 55
Overview of Tradition & Theoretical Framework ...... 55 Qualitative Research Methods...... 55 Narrative Inquiry ...... 56 Theoretical Framework: DesiCrit ...... 58 Setting & Participants...... 59 Site Location ...... 59 Sampling Method ...... 60 Data Collection, Interview Protocol & Analysis...... 61 Data Collection ...... 61
v Interview Protocol ...... 63 Data Analysis ...... 65 Ethics, Trustworthiness, Pilot Study & Limitations ...... 67 Ethics ...... 67 Pilot Study ...... 67 Trustworthiness ...... 68 Summary of Methodology ...... 71
Chapter 4: Presentation of Findings ...... 72
Background of Participants...... 74 Theme One: Influence of Family & Friends on Identity ...... 76 International Students and Their Familial Relationships ...... 77 Domestic Students and Their Familial Relationships ...... 85 International Students and Friendships ...... 95 Domestic Students and Their Friendships...... 100 Summary ...... 104 Theme Two: Centrality of Race, Ethnicity, and Religion in Defining Self ...... 105 Centrality of Race & Ethnicity ...... 105 Am I Religious?...... 127 Summary ...... 133 Theme Three: Salience of Gender and Sexual Orientation ...... 133 Gender Salience ...... 133 Sexual Orientation ...... 139 Summary ...... 141 Theme Four: Nationality on Campus ...... 141 International & Domestic South Asians Students on Campus ...... 142 Balancing American & South Asian Identities ...... 147 Summary ...... 149 Theme Five: College Influence on Identity ...... 150 RSU Culture and Involvement ...... 150 Student Identity Shifts in College ...... 158 Summary ...... 160 Summary of Findings ...... 161 Findings Through the Lens of DesiCrit ...... 162 The Performative Nature of Race and Religion as a Result of Racialization ...... 163 Desiring Whiteness While Keeping Racial Roots ...... 167 The College Campus as a “Racial Microclime” ...... 170 The Complexity of Identity Negotiations with Family ...... 171
Chapter 5: Discussion & Implications ...... 174
Overview of Study ...... 174 Overview of Findings ...... 175 Limitations & Recommendations for Future Research ...... 179 Implications for Theory ...... 183 Implications for Practice...... 184
REFERENCES ...... 187
vi APPENDIX A: Recruitment Script ...... 205
APPENDIX B: Interview Questions...... 206
APPENDIX C: Participant Vignettes ...... 208
vii LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1: Multidimensional Model of Asian American Identity (Johnston-Guerrero, & Pizzolato, 2016)...... 20
Figure 2 -1: Model of Multiple Dimensions of Identity (Jones & McEwen, 2004)...... 45
Figure 3 -1: Reconceptualized Model of Multiple Dimensions of Identity (Abes, Jones & McEwen, 2007)...... 48
viii LIST OF TABLES
Table 1- 1 Participant demographics...... 76
ix ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
On this journey of life there is little that we truly do alone and this Ph.D. journey was no different. It would not have been possible without my support system of faculty, mentors, family, and friends. I am also appreciative for all of the participants in this study for sharing their stories with me and making this dissertation come to life.
To my committee – Leticia, Gerry, Karly & Gail, thank you for constantly pushing me think deeper and more critically. Your feedback has made my study richer and made me a better scholar. And a big thank you to Leticia for not giving up on me and always encouraging me to be better.
To my family – first and foremost I want to thank my Mom, Dad, and sister for a lifetime of love and support. Preethi, thank you for never letting me quit this dream. Thank you to my
Ammamma and Grandpa for making this possible and for teaching me to think in scholarly ways from a young age. Thank you to my Nainamma for your love. To all of my aunts and uncles thank you for keeping me well-dressed, well-fed, housed, and sane. To my cousins (Jyothi,
Hansa, Sahana, Shalini, Kiran, Sreya, Aishni, Tej, Taran, Shiva, Syona) thank you for checking up on me during this process, letting me test out my interview questions on you, editing parts of my dissertation. Anisha – I miss you every day, thank you for being such a source of support and inspiration. Finishing this dissertation in the midst of losing you was nearly impossible, but I promised you I’d do it.
To my Penn State faculty mentors – thank you for checking in on me regularly and made sure I did not quit: KP, Dave & Cindy G., and Lauren. Thank you to all of the other mentors who have helped and encouraged me on this journey including Vijay K., Sumi P., Santiago, David S., and Smita R.
To my Penn State community - this has been quite an adventure. I am the most grateful to have met you all in this Ph.D. process. Thank you to the Nasty Women who have read and edited
x way too many versions of my papers through the years. Especially Ali who always pushed me to think deeper or differently about my study and my data. Thanks for being my Sunday coffee club friend! Sarah Zipf, my writing buddy from the beginning who has also read countless versions of my work, especially in the proposal stage - and who always comes through when I’m in a crunch.
Vanessa thanks for being the best roommate and friend through all these years. Sarah Kern thank you for always being there to pick me up when I just wanted to quit and for being the most thoughtful friend. Nontalie thanks for keeping my company during all those late-night Wegmans study sessions and being the best HESA mentor, answering all my questions and helping to edit.
Lee thank you for being you - you are one of the sweetest people I have ever met and I cannot thank you enough for all the words of encouragement. Elyzza and family thank for keeping me sane and laughing through this process and reminding me to keep life in perspective and focus on what truly matters. A big thank you to Rafael, Hyun Ju, Javiera, Tyler, Yi, Litzy, and Nakisha.
To my friends – I don’t know how I got so lucky to have the most supportive, thoughtful, and intelligent friends around. This would have been impossible without all of your support.
Thank you to my childhood friends, Abbey, Lindsay, Amanda, Amanda, and Meera. Thank you to my Lehigh friends – Trina, Stephanie, Dannielle, Shaili, and the 2011 class officers. Thank you to my Penn GSE crew – Alexis, Aman, Andrew, Lily, and Lola. And a thank you to DebOrah,
Kate, Ann, and Ashley.
1
Chapter 1: Introduction
College is a crucial period for traditional age undergraduate students seeking to answer the central questions of identity: “Who am I?” and “What will I be?” (Jones &
Abes, 2013). Identity is a process of becoming, not of being (Urrieta, 2007); and the construction and reconstruction of self through identity negotiations play an integral role in shaping the overall development of college students (E. Kim, 2012).
Theories of identity— including foundational education scholar John Dewey’s
(1916) humanist approach which embraces a holistic view of students beyond their participation in formal academic learning spaces—are reflected in the student affairs profession’s Student Personnel Point of View philosophy, which holds central that part of the purpose of education is to assist the student in achieving their potential and contributing to the improvement of society (NASPA, 1989). The philosophy “imposes upon educational institutions the obligation to consider the student as a whole,” which includes intellectual capacity, achievement, emotional make-up, physical relationships, social relationships, moral and religious values, and economic resources (NASPA, 1989, p. 1). The philosophy puts an emphasis on “the development of the student as a person rather than upon his intellectual training alone” (NASPA, 1989). Similarly, the American
Council on Education (1937) claimed that identity theories explain how students discover their abilities and aptitudes which help them to achieve their “maximum effectiveness”
(p. 69). Although both the Student Personnel Point of View (1989) and the American
Council of Education (1937) articles are several decades old, the core belief of the
2 importance of the development of a student as a whole is still valued in many institutions today (Mayhew et al., 2016).
It is important to note that identity is not just an innate characteristic of the individual, but rather exists within socially defined statuses and may be more salient in specific historical moments (Dill & Zambrana, 2009). Like members of other marginalized populations, South Asian students navigate their multiple identities within current political and social conditions that impact the way that their identities are viewed by the greater American society (Bhatia & Ram, 2009). For example, after 9/11 South
Asians were described as non-American, leading them to rethink their place in American culture (Bhatia & Ram, 2009). National events and the overall country climate could impact college campus environments. This could cause tension for undergraduate South
Asian students who consider themselves both South Asian and American. Little research has been conducted on South Asian students which attempts to understand their diverse experiences and how those experiences influence their identity negotiations (Davé et al.,
2000; Museus, 2009). In order to limit variables and attempt to understand how the college environment influences identity this study is limited to a single institution. This dissertation explores the identity negotiation of traditional age (18-24 year-old) undergraduate South Asian students at Rural State University (RSU), a large, research one, historically predominantly white institution, located in a rural college town in the eastern region of the United States.
3 Context for South Asians
In a 2009 article, Sam Museus highlighted the underrepresentation of Asian
Americans in education research by observing that only 1% of articles published in the five most widely read peer-reviewed journals in higher education focused on this population. Asian American students are often described as an invisible minority
(Museus & Kiang, 2009; Osajima, 1995; Teranishi, 2002; Wing, 2007). One reason for this term is that Asian Americans have been labeled “the model minority.” The term model minority was first coined by sociologist William Petersen in a 1966 New York
Times Magazine article about Japanese American success (Petersen, 1966). The perception that all Asians are successful is largely due to the history of immigration laws in the United States. For example, the 1965 Immigration Act reduced the restrictive immigration policies for Asians and prioritized immigration for only highly-educated
Asian professionals and scientists, which fundamentally changed the demography of
South Asian America (Maira, 2002; Prashad, 2000). It was not until later waves of immigration that nonprofessionals have migrated as workers in the transportation, lodging industry and as small businessmen (Prashad, 2000).
Historically, this belief led higher education institutions to ignore Asian American concerns as they selectively focused their attention on Asian Americans’ relatively stable and successful model minority status (Museus, 2009; Museus & Kiang, 2009; Osajima,
1995), failing to understand the varied developmental needs of Asian American students.
This pattern of erasure is made additionally problematic because, in the United States, the term “Asian American” serves as an umbrella concept that further obscures the
4 experiences of sub-groups like those of South Asian1 descent. Some researchers (Kibria,
1996; Shankar & Srikanth, 1998) suggest that South Asians are further marginalized because the term “Asian American” often implicitly refers to and centers around East
Asians (i.e. those of Chinese, Japanese, and Korean) while obscuring South Asian
Americans.
This gap in the research is particularly troubling as South Asian Americans are one of the fastest growing subgroups of Asian Americans in the United States, but much of the already scarce research on Asian Americans further excludes South Asian
Americans (Davé et al., 2000). Between the 2000 and 2010 census, the South Asian population in the United States experienced unprecedented growth, increasing 81% in just ten years (Thakore, 2016). Relative to their population size, this indicates that South
Asians are the fastest-growing ethnic population in the United States. As the population of South Asian Americans increases, the need for research, discussions, and conversations about South Asian American identity has become more pressing.
Studying South Asian identity is important because identity is a crucial element in the holistic development of students and student success. Although, Magolda (2009) states that “literature on student success, outcomes, and learning is often separated from literature on student development” (p.621), there are a couple of studies that link identity to academic achievement. Students who are confident in their identity tend to experience
1 The term South Asian is used to identify individuals with ancestral roots originating from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Maldives, or Bhutan (Shankar & Srikanth, 1998; Accapadi, 2012). While the term is used to define the parameters of the population, for this study, it is not intended to imply that South Asians are one homogenous group as this would mask the diversity of nationality, religion, culture, and language present within the South Asian community (Kibria, 1996).
5 higher rates of academic achievement (Sellers et al., 1998; Boyd et al., 2003; Pizzolato et al., 2008). In fact, Pizzolato et al. (2008) found that ethnic identity and development were as indicative of college GPA as high school GPA and SAT scores. Sellers et al. (1998) found that higher race centrality and racial identity in students led to higher levels of academic performance in college. This provides evidence that holistic development, which includes identity development promotes superior academic performance for students.
Cowley (1983) asserts that “Personnel work constitutes all activities undertaken or sponsored by an educational institution, aside from curricular instruction, in which the student’s personal development is the primary concern” (p. 65), highlighting the importance of students’ holistic development. Proponents of higher education recognize that knowledge acquisition, academic achievement and degree attainment are essential outcomes of college; however, a holistic education should also include developing self- understanding (Mayhew et al., 2016), which could include reflecting on particular identities. Magolda (1999) warns that in the study of aspects of students’ development it is important not to forget that the student is a whole and complex person. Holistic development captures the “whole of an individual more complexly, by emphasizing both social identities and the overlapping domains of identity, cognitive and interpersonal development” (Torres, Jones, & Renn, 2009, p.586). This dissertation explored one aspect of holistic development: identity negotiations.
Many liberal arts universities include elements of holistic development within their missions (King, Brown, Lindsay, & VanHecke, 2007). Martha Nussbaum, a professor of law and ethics, argued that the purposes of a liberal arts education have
6 evolved to meet the various demands of society and states that “a cultivation of the whole human being for the functions of citizenship and life generally” is necessary (As cited by
King et al., 2007, p.2). The authors of the Learning Reconsidered report discuss the purpose of educational involvement as being the “evolution of multidimensional identity, including but not limited to cognitive, affective, behavioral, and spiritual development”
(As cited by King et al., 2007, p.3). The report also argues for student-centered learning that recognizes the holistic nature of student development (King, et al., 2007).
Identity development is a key component of student development, especially for immigrant groups as they “encounter tensions between traditional cultural practices and those of the dominant (white American) society” (Harpalani, 2013, p. 106; Shankar,
2008). South Asians then have to negotiate these tensions in their identity development
(Harpalani, 2013). The negotiation of campus and home cultures for Asian American students is central to their understanding of self and experiences in college (Kodama &
Maramba, 2017).
Statement of the Problem
One of the many identities a student possesses is their racial identity. South Asian identities are further obscured by the Black-White binary present in much of American racial thought (Delgado & Stefancic, 2017; Teranishi, 2002) which is described as an unstated mindset that dictates how non-Black minority groups are often times compared to African Americans. The Black-White paradigm overly simplifies a complex issue and further marginalizes non-Black minority groups by rendering them invisible, foreign, and un-American (Delgado & Stefancic, 2017, p. 80). Harpalani (2013) posits that the
7 continued salience of the Black-White paradigm is because White and Black are the two most prominent social statuses in the United States. South Asian students fall outside the paradigm and consequently their experiences and identity are not heavily researched. As a result of this binary, there is a tendency to recast the racial identities of Asian groups as symbolically whitened or blackened (Visweswaran, 1997). However, Kibria (1996) argues that South Asian Americans appropriately fit neither the Black-White racial hierarchy nor the umbrella Asian American category (as cited by Harpalani, 2013).
Despite the ideological press towards erasure created by the binary, the amount of literature available on Asians is increasing, particularly since the emergence of Chang’s
(1993) Asian Critical Race Theory (CRT) which focused scholarly attention on the Asian
American experience. More recently, Harpalani’s (2013) Desi2 Critical Race Theory
(DesiCrit) has emerged, which directly addresses challenges in the lives of South Asians in the United States, including being characterized as racially ambiguous, both white and non-white, model minorities, mystical foreigners, and malleable scapegoats (Harpalani,
2013, p. 78). Both CRT traditions acknowledge the importance of race and ethnicity in what is being researched or considered (Delgado & Stefancic, 2001). South Asian students have numerous other social identities such as their gender, religion, and country of origin that may be interwoven with their racial/ethnic identity. Harpalani (2015) further describes how South Asian Americans are caught in between their own identity
2 The term Desi, originating from the Hindi word Desh and meaning homeland, refers to those from the South Asian diaspora in the United States (Mallapragada, 2014).
8 and how others perceive them, which means they must negotiate the tension between identity and socialization3 (Harpalani, 2013).
College students working through these tensions would clearly benefit from access to relevant models for identity negotiation. Although many theories on psychosocial change and college student identity exist (Chickering, 1969; Cross, 1991;
Erikson, 1959; Inkeles, 1966; Josselson, 1987; Magolda, 2001; Marcia, 1966), few take into consideration Asian American identity (Helms, 1995; Kim, 1981), and none explicitly study South Asian undergraduate students. The result is that college personnel who work with South Asian students do not have adequate research and information on how best to support these students and their needs. This dissertation addresses this deficit by exploring the identity negotiations of South Asian students. Students hold multiple identities in addition to their racial/ethnic identity, and using DesiCrit in conjunction with narrative interviews reveal how these identities are interwoven, and how they relate to or complicate one another.
Purpose of the Study
This study sought to better understand what influences identity among undergraduate South Asian students. In addition, this study aimed to understand the nuanced experiences of South Asian students that impact their multiple identities. In order to do this, I conducted in-depth, semi-structured narrative interviews with South
3 Thornton, Chatters, Taylor, and Allen (1990) defined socialization in relationship to the messages and practices pertinent to personal and group identity, intergroup relationships, individual relationships, and positions in the social hierarchy.
9 Asian students at RSU, an American university. The methodology will be further described in chapter three.
This study acknowledges the fluidity of identity in shifting contexts while aiming to understand an individual’s identity and how they make meaning of it (Abes, Jones, &
McEwen, 2007). Using DesiCrit as a theoretical framework helps to understand the complex and intersecting identities of South Asian participants while holding central their unique racialized experiences in the United States.
The second purpose of this study is to dispel the myth of a monolithic Asian experience by providing a range of narratives through the use of in-depth interviews that highlight the diversity within the South Asian student population. South Asian students have a broad variety of experiences depending on the country or countries they were raised in, their family, gender, sexual orientation, and religion (Harpalani, 2013; Ruzicka,
2011). This dissertation highlights the stories of both international and domestic South
Asian students in order to provide a deeper understanding of the varying influences on their identity during college in the United States.
Research Questions
The following question guides this research: How do undergraduate South Asian students negotiate their identities as college students?
To further analyze this topic, the following sub-questions were asked:
• How do South Asian students relate to and describe their multiple identities as
they understood them prior to coming to college?
10 • How do South Asian students relate to and describe their multiple identities
during college?
Significance
Williamson (1961) asserts that it is important to consider the whole student,
“intellect and all” (p. 429). Identity is an important element in developing holistic students (Torres, Jones, & Renn, 2009). Many higher education researchers and practitioners recognize the importance of college student identity development and some have dedicated research studies to better understand it and to create student development theories. Some of the earliest student development theories (Chickering, 1969; Marcia,
1966) were criticized for only including white men. As a result of these criticisms, theories with women (Josselson, 1987), sexual orientation (Cass, 1979), international students (Kim, 2012a) and theories that centered on race (Cross, 1991; Helms, 1995;
Phinney, 1989) emerged in the following years. There are also a few Asian American models of identity development (Kim, 1981; Kim, 2012b; Kodama, McEwen, Liang, &
Lee, 2002), but many of these exclude South Asian participants (Accapadi, 2017).
Several of these studies do not consider the fluidity of identity; however, this dissertation addresses this gap in the research by using identity as a process that is constantly forming and shifting.
The literature often defines Asian American students’ purpose on campus using themes of academic achievement (Kodama et al., 2002). This sense of purpose is embedded by students’ families who often have academic and economic based definitions of success (Kodama et al., 2002). Although academic achievement and
11 cognitive development are crucial, it is important to also focus on identity development in order to cultivate a holistic perspective of student development (Evans et al., 2009).
Studies have shown that race and identity affect nearly every aspect of Asian American students’ college experiences and development including well-being (Sue, Bucceri, Lin,
Nadal, & Torino, 2007), major and career choice (Poon, 2014), and sense of belonging
(Wong, 2013). Exploring identity can lead to positive developmental outcomes such as greater self-esteem and confidence, understanding of self in context, critical thinking skills, resilience, and engagement in leadership (Inkelas, 2004; Kodama & Laylo, 2017;
Museus et al., 2016; Poon, 2013).
Understanding identity helps create a holistic educational experience for undergraduate students, consequently, more attention should be paid to South Asian student identities. In order to do this, faculty, administrators, and student affairs practitioners first need to understand South Asian students’ multiple identities and the complexities the identity negotiations made. The results of this dissertation are significant because they contribute to the scarce higher education literature regarding South Asian students by employing DesiCrit to explore the multiple identities of these students in their college environment through their stories. Using stories of South Asian students is essential because it highlights the most important influences, experiences, and lessons in their lives, which, in turn, reveals their identity (Atkinson, 1998). These narratives shed light on the varied experiences of South Asian students and challenge the prevalent monolithic discourse.
12 Chapter 2: Literature Review
Identity has been and continues to be studied by many scholars across disciplines including Frantz Fanon (1952; 1963), known for his work on post-colonial studies, critical theory and the psychological effects of colonialism upon black people, and Gloria
Anzaldúa (1987) who is known for her work on Chicana cultural theory and borderlands.
Anzaldúa (1987) describes all identities as being both real and artificial, while being both socially constructed and internalized into reality.
While there are many more scholars whose life work was dedicated to the study of identity, the literature on identity is too extensive to review comprehensively, therefore, this review will focus primarily on college student identity development theories and the usage of DesiCrit as developed by Harpalani (2013). This literature review is organized into the following categories: a brief overview of student development theories; Asian American identity; other identities including sexual orientation, gender, religion, and international student identity; the college environment; the state of the field, which discusses prevalent college identity theories; and the theoretical framework: DesiCrit.
Due to the limited literature available on South Asian American specific identity, the literature review focuses on Asian American student identity models, and South
Asian American identity is nested within that section. There is also a limited amount of literature available on South Asian international student identity, which is why that portion of the literature review focuses on general international student identity, followed by a brief description of the composition of South Asian international students in the
United States, and a section on how college can influence identity. The chapter will
13 conclude with an introduction to DesiCrit and how it is used as the theoretical lens for this study.
Asian American Identity
Dill and Zambrana (2009) suggested that individual identities as well as group identity be recognized while being mindful of the variations with groups and not essentializing groups of people. Since the research on South Asian American4 identity, especially within the college context, is limited, the next section of this literature review will focus on studies that center general Asian American student identity, while paying special attention to how South Asian American students are presented within these models. South Asian Americans are one of the many subgroups within the larger umbrella of Asian Americans and have not been the single focus in much of the literature.
Asian Americans represent a heterogeneous group that comprises about 5 percent of the United States population and includes at least 30 different ethnicities (U.S. Census,
2010). Each of the groups within the Asian American umbrella has its own histories, migration experiences, and cultural values (Kodama, McEwen, Liang, & Lee, 2001). Due to the breadth of ethnicities and populations included in the Asian American umbrella,
Asian America is sometimes disaggregated into four major categories. The categories are
East Asian, Southeast Asian, South Asian, and Pacific Islander (Lai & Arguelles, 2003).
Within each of these categories there is a vast diversity of languages, nationalities, and cultures. However, this division works towards more inclusion by insuring that all the
4 In addition to the South Asian definition above, it is important to note this study uses the term South Asian American with the understanding that many generations are included – second generation, third generation etc.
14 categories of Asian America are seen. In an effort to be inclusive and to highlight the complexity of this population, there are many different acronyms used to describe this population including Asian American, APA - Asian Pacific Americans (Kodama,
McEwen, Liang, & Lee, 2001), API – Asian Pacific Islander, and APIDA – Asian Pacific
Islander Desi Americans (Accapadi, 2012). These nuanced terms are intentionally used in order to ensure that all the subgroups in the Asian umbrella feel included and not further marginalized.
When discussing Asian Americans, it is important to note the different generations of immigration since that likely influences their level of acculturation.
Acculturation can be described as being a dialogical negotiation between identity positions and social representations, which shape how people think and regulate their behavior in specific communities (Andreouli, 2013). Andreouli (2013) discussed the process of acculturation for immigrants and how it is both an enrichment of identity and an identity threat. The level of acculturation influences identity development for Asian
American students as they negotiate between the accepted identities in their society or current context (Andreouli, 2013). What is considered an accepted identity varies between individuals, families, cultures, and communities. Scholars in the United States tend to use the following definitions of generational terms: first generation- referring to those who were born in Asia and later immigrated to the United States; generation 1.5 - referring to those who were born in Asia but immigrated to the United States as a child; second generation - referring to those born in the United States to parents who immigrated to the United States; third generation -referring to those born in the United
States with grandparents who immigrated to the United States (Kodama et al., 2001).
15 Within the university context, there are a few studies that examined how Asian
American college students construct their identities. Some of these identity development models that explicitly study Asian Americans are Kim’s (1981, 2012b) Asian American
Identity Development Model, and Kodama, McEwen, Liang, and Lee’s (2002) psychosocial model. Kim’s (1981) dissertation served as the foundational study for the creation of her model. It is a five-stage model that attempts to understand the racial identity development of Asian American college students. The model begins with the ethnic awareness stage where the child uses the family as the ethnic group model. The second stage is the white identification stage, which begins once the child enters school and peers and the school environment become key in promoting racial prejudice which negatively affects the child’s self-esteem and identity; in this stage the child wants to distance their self from their Asian heritage. The third stage, awakening to social political consciousness, means there is an adoption of a new perspective and is associated with an increased understanding of oppression and oppressed groups, resulting in no longer wanting to identify with white society. The fourth stage is the redirection stage, it is characterized by a reconnection with and pride of their Asian American heritage and culture and sometimes anger about white racism. The final stage of Kim’s (1981) model is the incorporation stage, which represents the highest form of identity evolution and includes a positive identity as an Asian American as well as a respect for other racial groups and cultures. In this final stage the feelings of association for or against white culture are no longer pertinent.
The scope of Kim’s (1981) study was narrow as she conducted interviews with ten third generation Japanese American women, and then attempted to create a
16 generalized Asian identity development model based on experiences from this limited sample. As discussed above, Asian American is a very broad term and contains ethnic groups with very different experiences, values, etc., and therefore such a tightly bounded survey does not reflect the breadth of the Asian American community. Additionally, similarly to Chickering’s (1969) theory, the structure of the model suggests a linear progression of identity development. Newer conceptualizations resist the notion of identity as a linear process and emphasize the fluid, dynamic, performative nature of identity (Torres, Jones, Renn, 2009, p. 578). Although the dissertation remained unpublished, it is often cited since it was the only available identity model for Asian
Americans for a long period of time.
In the second model relevant to Asian American identity, Kodama, McEwen,
Liang, and Lee (2001, 2002) criticized Chickering and Reisser’s (1993) work since it defines separation and individuation as a key component in identity development and does not account for the cultural values of many Asians. Kodama et al. (2002) proposed a new model of psychosocial development specifically for Asian American students based on much of Chickering’s theory. The new model recognizes two arenas of external influence that impact Asian American identity: societal influences and family/cultural influences. The societal influences include the perpetual foreigner myth5, the model minority myth, homogenization, gender stereotypes, and invisibility. Kodama et al.
(2002) discuss Western values of individualism and independence, racism, the lack of
5 The perpetual foreigner myth assumes that only Whites can be American and because of this Asian Americans tend to be “othered” and denied American status (Wu, 2002). This results in many Asian Americans encountering questions like “where are you really from?” implying that they are not from America.
17 Asian American heritage in education, and stereotypes from society and media of “who they are and what they should be” (p.46) as examples of societal influences that become a part of the identity negotiation process with the dominant culture. The family/cultural influences include deferment to authority, collectivism, guilt and shame, humility, educational value, language, generational status, and gender roles. Family and dominant white society are likely exerting opposing forces on Asian American students that influence the student’s identity development. The authors explain that how a student negotiates the “tension of dominant societal norms and familial and cultural values influences the development of their identity” (Kodama et al., 2002, p. 46). Yeh and
Huang (1996) note that Asian Americans’ identity is strongly influenced by others, which may run counter to many traditional theories that view identity development as an individual process (Kodama et al., 2002). In an effort to be mindful of students’ cultural backgrounds and how that plays a part in identity formation, Kodama and Maramba
(2017) recommend that educators be aware of biases that favor independent decision making in identity development, since many Asian students have interdependent relationships with their families. These Asian American specific influences based on
Kodama et al.’s (2002) model provided an explanation to parts of the students’ narratives in this dissertation, however this model did not provide a complete picture of the complexities of identity negotiations present in their narratives.
While Kodama et al.’s (2002) model represents a more culturally relevant version of Chickering’s (1969) vectors, it was developed using secondary literature rather than independent empirical research and is therefore limited. The model is more relevant to
Asian American college students than Chickering’s (1969) theory since it accounts for
18 Asian specific values, however it overgeneralizes to compensate for including the entire
Asian American community and does not address differences between the different ethnic groups. The model also presents each context as mutually exclusive and does not acknowledge the fluidity of identity negotiation.
Multidimensional Model of Asian American Identity Johnston-Guerrero and Pizzolato’s (2016) study used the Model of Multiple
Dimensions of Identity (MMDI) to help understand whether and why Asian American college students treat race and ethnicity as separate dimensions of social identity (p. 908).
They interviewed 52 participants in their study that self-identified as Asian American or an Asian ethnic group. Among the participants four were categorized as South Asian with two from India, one from Nepal and one from Pakistan. The majority of the participants were 2nd generation Asian Americans, with a few 1.5 generation, 1st generation, and 3rd generation Asian Americans.
Johnston- Guerrero and Pizzolato (2016) found that the context influenced how participants differentially used race and ethnicity in describing their identities. From this study, the Multidimensional Model of Asian American Identity (MMAAI) was created, which allows for dimensions to intersect the core rather than remain outside of it. The model considers the context and the way identity questions are asked. For example, if the question were centered around the question “What are you?” then race was used more, while if it was about what group they belonged to, then culture was used, and if the question was about who they were or where they were from, then ethnicity was used. The authors noted that in the original MMDI model (Jones & McEwen, 2000) they included race and culture but not ethnicity.
19 Some of the limitations of the study include the over representation of second- generation Asian Americans, the unequal sample sizes and the lack of diversity of the sample (Johnston-Guerrero & Pizzolato, 2016). In addition, the authors noted that South
Asian American participants had a different experience than the other participants because they struggled to fully identify with other’s conceptions of Asian personhood that often centered East Asians. This led to the South Asian students in this study struggling with claiming an Asian American identity. Johnston-Guerrero and Pizzolato
(2016) found that South Asian students struggled with not being seen by others as Asian and one of the recommendations was that the identity of South Asian students be explored further.
The MMAAI is not an ideal model for this dissertation since even the authors stated that further research should be conducted exploring South Asian students. Also, the
MMAAI model is distinct from the MMDI and Reconceptualized Model of Multiple
Dimensions of Identity (RMMDI), which are both composed of the core, social identities, and contextual influences. The MMAAI only accounts for racial, ethnic, and cultural identity in its creation, as opposed to the MMDI and RMMDI, which include all the core and social identities and can be seen later in this chapter in figure 2-1 and 3-1. The
MMAAI model can be seen below in figure 1-1.
20
Figure 1-1: Multidimensional Model of Asian American Identity (Johnston-Guerrero, & Pizzolato, 2016). No sample can capture all of Asian America, but skewed samples that claim to represent all Asian Americans and exclude entire categories of experiences and voices misrepresent Asian Americans (Accapadi, 2012). This dissertation focuses solely on the
South Asian category, but recognizes that even within this smaller sub-population there are seven different countries and that there are differences even between individuals who are monoracial (Torres, Jones, & Abes, 2009). This dissertation provides insight into some South Asian student identities, since this group of students has previously been excluded from much of the current identity research.
21 South Asian American Identity In Kodama and Ebreo’s (2009) study they found Asian American students preferred ethnicity specific labels such as Chinese American or Indian American, to the broader label of Asian American. Often times the college context is the first-time students are experiencing a pan-ethnic Asian American community (Kodama & Ebreo, 2009).
This is problematic since most of the research on college students and support services focus on Asian Americans as a whole, appealing to students’ sense of a shared identity
(Kodama & Ebreo, 2009). Kodama and Ebreo (2009) explained that “the unstated assumption behind this umbrella identity is that students from Asian ethnic backgrounds have enough in common to be able to identify with each other racially and perhaps even have a common understanding of what Asian American means” (p. 155). However, whenever given a choice, individuals choose to identify with their specific ethnic group as opposed to Asian American (Kodama & Ebreo, 2009). Although most prefer using their ethnicity, 60% of respondents in Lien, Conway and Wong’s (2003) study claimed the Asian American identity when they understood the utility of it. This means that people may check the Asian American box on a form, but it may not hold much personal meaning (Phinney, 1996).
Community-specific studies exemplify the complexities of the Asian community
(Accapadi, 2012). Shankar and Srikanth (1998) discuss the changing composition of the
Asian American population as South and Southeast Asians who generally identify less with the Asian American label grow. South Asian Americans are considered to be one portion of the larger multi-ethnic Asian American population. Although there are similarities between the pan-Asian community, there are also differences. This section
22 focuses specifically on South Asian American identity for college students studying in the United States.
South Asian Americans, those with roots originating from India, Pakistan,
Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Maldives, and Bhutan (Accapadi, 2012; Shankar &
Srikanth, 1998), comprise 22.56% of the total Asian American population (U.S. Census,
2010). In the limited South Asian American literature available, the terms South Asian and Desi are used interchangeably. The term Desi, originating from the Hindi word Desh and meaning homeland, refers to those from the South Asian diaspora in the United
States (Mallapragada, 2014).
In their study conducted from 2000-2002, Bhatia and Ram (2004), conducted fieldwork and in-depth interviews with 38 first-generation Indian migrants, with most of the interviews taking place in the immediate aftermath of the events of 9/11. One of the participants discussed the struggle of negotiating and reexamining their cultural and racial identities after the media following 9/11 recast South Asian’s as being suspicious and dangerous (Bhatia & Ram, 2009). Another participant discussed how someone in their neighborhood thought that all South Asians were Muslim and didn’t realize there were differences within the community. Harpalani (2013) noted that although the United
States categorizes Arab Americans as White and South Asian Americans as Asian they are often time racialized together. This grouping is made based of superficial similarities in physical appearance and cultural symbols (Harpalani, 2013).
The idea that Americanness and Indianness could co-exist harmoniously with each other was gone for participants after 9/11. The media portrayal of the events of 9/11 equated Brown humans with terrorists. One participant said he was “forcefully reminded
23 that he can never really belong and that he will never really be considered truly
‘American’” (Bhatia & Ram, 2009, p.144). In their previous work, Bhatia and Ram’s
(2004) described the identity negotiation process in South Asian Americans as involving many components including home, language, customs, food and the voices of parents, peers, language, siblings, homeland and American society (p.237). South Asian
Americans must continue to “negotiate their own hyphenated-American identity”
(Thakore, 2014, p.150). It can be hypothesized that the post 9/11 United States environment creates negative external influences for South Asian students studying in the
United States.
In addition to the general Asian American myths and stereotypes, South Asian
Americans face unique stereotypes and profiling in the United States. They are stereotyped as being either convenience store owners and cab drivers or doctors and engineers (Thakore, 2014). These stereotypes are perpetuated by main stream media and
TV shows such as the Simpsons where Apu perpetuates a one-dimensional view of South
Asians (Davé, 2005). These stereotypes, labels, and expectations cause tensions in South
Asian American students and their identity development by creating external influences that may not align with their internal identification.
Colonialism. In its simplest form, postcolonialism studies the interactions between Europeans and the nations and people they colonized. A country may become decolonized but the effects of colonization leave lasting marks on the formerly subjugated people and their culture. Prakash focused specifically on South Asian colonial history. In one of his articles, Prakash (1992) stated that the concept of multiple selves is not enough for conceiving adequate colonial differences and encourages us to think of
24 “the specificity of colonial difference as overwriting race and gender, class, ethnicity, and religion and so forth” (p. 15). This highlights the depth of the roots of colonialism and how powerful of a force it can be in shaping a person’s identity. Colonialism played a major role in the histories of many South Asian countries, consequently, it is especially important to keep the effects of colonialism at the forefront when considering the shaping forces in identity formation for students with roots in these countries.
Dissertations About South Asian Students Within the university context, there is a limited amount of research on the identity development of South Asian American college students. Although there is a lack of published work, there are a handful of new researchers and dissertations on South Asian college experiences and identity. Some of these dissertations are highlighted below.
Ruzicka (2011) studied intergenerational issues and identity development of
South Asian American college students by interviewing second generation undergraduate women and first generation South Asian mothers. In the study, the researcher found mothers helped their daughters understand what it means to be a South Asian woman while friends shaped and strengthened their understanding of what it means to be a South
Asian American woman which includes various levels of invisibility, tension regarding sexuality, multiple narratives that offset the prevalent monolithic image of South Asian
American women, and striving for perfection in multiple identities. Ruzicka (2011) claims that “South Asian American women inherit a more complex and gendered image of the model minority that is transmitted by their families and community as a whole”
(p.203). Her study also explored how these students make sense of their identity and negotiate aspects of it. Her findings explained that being a South Asian American was not
25 a neat split between the South Asian and Western culture, neither was it expressed as a constant tension between values and traditions. It was described as a fluid and dynamic relation between the South Asian and American identities. For the majority of participants, identity was not constrained to being South Asian and/or American, rather there were multiple dimensions of identity including ethnicity, religion, and gender.
Kanagala (2011) studied the experience of immigration, integration and consciousness development among generation 1.5 Asian Indian college students.
Generation 1.5 was defined as those who were born in India and moved to the United
States at the age of 12 or older and enroll in middle or high school in the United States. In this study, the author discusses the tension of sounding like an American but looking
Indian and attempts to characterize the in-between space of being Indian while becoming
American. The researcher interviewed each of his participants three times: the first interview focused on their lives in India, the second interview discussed their lives in the
United States, and the third interview focused on how they negotiated these identities as a generation 1.5 student. The study found the main themes to include centrality of friends and family, Indianness, religion, transition shock and realizing the American Dream.
Since my dissertation uses participants ranging from international students to third generation South Asian students, some of the themes found in Kanagala’s study may also appear in the data in this dissertation, but his findings are specific to generation 1.5 students.
Rana (2016) studied whether the ethnic identity of South Asian college students affects their choice of engagement and involvement in campus activities. The study used a phenomenological approach and interviewed students about the types of
26 organizations/activities they were involved in, how they became involved, and what role their ethnic identity played in these choices and involvements. The themes found in terms of the motivation to join campus activities include family influence, ethnic identity, childhood involvement and career choice.
These three dissertations approached South Asian American identity from different avenues. Ruzicka’s (2011) study focused specifically on how intergenerational differences between mothers and their second-generation daughters influence their identity. Inevitably when students talk about their parents, there will be some themes revolving around generational differences and familial expectations of students.
Kanagala’s (2011) study focused on generation 1.5 students who have lived both in India and the United States and how they navigated these two different worlds. Some of the themes found in his study may also appear in this study, in terms of students feeling as though they are negotiating their identity through two separate worlds. It is expected that elements of each of these three dissertations will appear in this study. Ruzicka’s (2011) findings on the multiple dimensions of identity that her participants discussed are promising since this dissertation is exploring the multiple identities that South Asian students have in addition to their race and ethnicity. Since Ruzicka’s (2011) study is most similar to this dissertation a couple of her questions were used to inform the interview protocol for this dissertation. This will be discussed more in depth in the interview protocol section of chapter 3. Next, I will discuss some of the literature on identities that were discussed as being important to the participants. These identities include sexuality, gender, religion, and nationality/international student status.
27 Sexual Orientation, Gender, Religion, and International Identities
Asian Americans have a great deal of diversity including their ethnicity, class, immigrant status, language, and religions backgrounds but that diversity often becomes masked by aggregated racial perspectives (Teranishi, 2002). Wong, and Santa Ana (1999) claim that almost no “aspect of the human existence is untouched by race/ethnicity, gender, and sexuality” (p.172). This section focuses on sexual orientation, gender, religion, and nationality/international identities in Asian and/or South Asian population.
Sexual Orientation Sexual orientation is at the center of queer theory. The term queer is used as an umbrella term to describe people with marginalized sexualities and/or gender identities, a transgressive action to reclaim the word queer, and as a way to erase boundaries by
“queering” them or by challenging and disrupting the status quo (Cheng, 2011). Queer theory explores how sex, sexuality, gender, and gender identity shape and are shaped by institutional structures, including education and continually being negotiated (Cheng,
2011; McWilliams & Penuel, 2016, p.93). Queer theory offers insights into identity by providing an explanation for the gaps between the “natural laws” of human nature and the inconsistencies of human action (McWilliams & Penuel, 2016).
In their article Ocampo and Soodjinda (2016) argued that gay Asian Americans have to navigate their sexuality and race strategically within their education lives (p.
481). One of their participants explained that “As a gay man, he felt his sexuality negated his ‘model minority’ status within his ethnic community” (Ocampo & Soodjinda, 2016, p. 481). Their findings suggest that some gay Asian American men negotiated their identity by suppressing their sexuality and using academics as a scapegoat by excelling in
28 school and living up to model minority expectations (p.497). The authors conclude that
LGBTQ student identity is even more complex for gay students of color since there are multiple identities intersecting.
Gender Gender is one of the major contributors to identity development in college students (Abes, Jones, McEwen, 2007). Gender norms are connected to power structures in the academy (Lester & Harris III, 2015). Some of these gender norms include what it means to be masculine and a college student, the majority/minority dynamics of a single gender in the classroom or specific major, and the hierarchies of gendered social clubs on campus (Lester & Harris III, 2015). Women often face being in the gender minority in science and engineering classrooms (Lester & Harris III, 2015). Kelly and Torres (2006) also found that women students experience research universities as overall being a chilly campus climate that perpetuates a culture of fear women students felt for their campus safety. The gendered identities of students intersect with other salient identities and shape the way students’ experience college contexts (Abes, Jones, McEwen, 2007).
Cheung (1997) states that race and gender have been intertwined in Asian
American history from the beginning. Similar to many communities Asians have a binary view of gender with men and women being expected to maintain certain gender roles and very little discussion about those with gender identities that do not fit this binary. Women are expected to be the homemakers and preserve South Asian culture. However, there is a slow shift from patriarchal to egalitarian gendered roles, especially in immigrant South
Asian families (Ibrahim, Ohnishi, & Sandhu, 1997). Asian American women are also often torn between choosing their womanhood or their ethnicity (Wong & Santa Ana,
29 1999). However, Wong (1992) describes gender and ethnicity as being fused and stating
“ethnicity is, in some sense, always already gendered, and gender is always already ethnicized” (p. 126).
In her analysis of Asian women Lowe (1996) found that labor is gendered, sexuality is racialized, and race is associated with class. Gender and sexuality are also intersectional and there is a stereotypical hypersexualization of Asian American women and desexualization of Asian American men (Wong & Santa Ana, 1999). This means that we cannot talk about one facet of identity without accounting for the ways in which other identities intersect.
Religion There are a broad array of religious identities within the South Asian community.
These religions include Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, Sikhism, Jainism, Zoroastrianism and Christianity (Kurien, 1999). For some religion and culture are virtually indistinguishable as religion is a mode of transmission of culture in the lives of many
South Asians (Kurien, 1999).
South Asian religious and philosophical writings and their pronouncements of the self are indicators of a culture deeply at odds with Western culture (Holland, Lachicotte,
Skinner, & Cain, 1998, p. 21). This is due to the value given to the collective in South
Asian cultures (Holland, Lachicotte, Skinner, & Cain, 1998). Shweder and Bourne (1984) identify two ideal types of self: a “Western” concept, which is autonomous, acontextual and independent; and a non-Western concept that is context-dependent, concrete, and socially defined.
30 Although religion is central for most South Asian students prior to college, college is thought to have a secularizing effect on students (Berger, 1973; Pascarella &
Terenzini, 1991). The majority of studies on college students and their religious identity report that students tend to experience a decrease in religion activity in college (Astin,
1993b; Bowen, 1997). However, in Lee’s (2002) study, she found there was an increase in religious activity for the majority of her participants in college. Lee (2002) reported that the small percentage of students who experience a decrease in religious activity were marked by religious questioning and doubt.
In addition to the identity tensions that South Asian Americans face, South Asian international students have the added stress of trying to understand American culture and adjust to a new country, when they arrive at college. The next section will attempt to understand the experiences of Asian, specifically South Asian, international college students and their identity development.
International Student Identity Colleges and universities are attracting students from a broad variety of races, ethnicities, religions, socio-economic backgrounds, and geographical locations, including international students6. Internationalization is taking an increasingly central role in higher
6 RSU defines an international student based on their citizenship and US visa status. If a student requires any type of visa in order to attend RSU, then they are categorized as an international student (RSU, 2018b).
International students make up approximately 10% of the undergraduate student population at RSU (RSU,
2018b).
31 education (de Wit, 2017), with international students comprising about 5.5% of the total
United States enrollment and the majority of these students are from countries in Asia
(Institute of International Education [IIE], 2019). Internationalization brings the world together through the sharing of cultures, ideas, and research. One of the ways that higher education is becoming internationalized is through the increasing mobility of college students (de Wit, 2017). It is thought that having an internationally diverse student body adds value to colleges through educational, cultural and economic benefits
(Mamiseishvili, 2012). Many equate simply having the presence of international students on campus as the activation of internationalization, when in reality many international students remained isolated and siloed on campus (de Wit, 2017).
International students face many added challenges when studying in the United
States including adapting to American food, the climate, culture shock, discrimination, new social/cultural norms, loneliness, isolation, and a loss of identity (Tseng & Newton,
2002; Lee, 2015). In addition, international students may not be accustomed to navigating racial and ethnic conflicts as they manifest in the American socio-historical context (Kim,
2012a). Therefore, many international students reexamine their identity after moving to the United States (Jones & McEwen, 2000). Although research highlights many of these concerns, the identity development of international students is not included in many college student identity theories.
In an attempt to remedy the lack of research on international student development in the United States, Eunyoung Kim (2012a) used an ethnographic study to develop a new psychosocial identity development model for international students. The study included 22 international undergraduate students in a mid-western public research
32 university. The participants were from Austria, China, France, Japan, Korea, Mexico,
Singapore, Taiwan, and Turkey. This resulted in the creation of a new model, the
International Student Identity Model, which consists of 6 phases: pre-exposure, exposure, enclosure, emergence, integration, and internationalization.
The pre-exposure – inheriting self phase is where international students prepare to study abroad and experience the American educational system. During this time there may be conflict with parents while selecting their colleges and majors and isolation from peers. The second is the exposure- opening self phase which occurs after arrival to the
United States and international students find their heritage differs from the unfamiliar educational environment they are now in. The third phase is the enclosure – securing self phase where they lack participation in extracurricular activities and withdraw from the outside environment by not socializing with those from different backgrounds then their own. The fourth phase is emergence – disclosing self, in this phase students start to break their psychosocial closure and seek integrated identities by building trustworthiness among groups that are different than their own. In the fifth phase, integration- internalizing self, students overcome challenges, resolve identity conflicts and reconstruct their identities successfully. The final phase is internationalization – globalizing self, this is the most aware state of an international students’ identity where they develop a system of beliefs and behaviors that respects all diverse groups in a university environment and values difference in a university environment. This is the most mature and final phase of the model, however, none of E. Kim’s (2012) participants reached this final phase.
Ideally, international students will be fully developed in multiple aspects including
33 ethnicity, race, gender, nationality, culture, religion, sexual orientation, moral values, and social class.
The model is presented in a linear fashion and is generalized to apply to all international students as it was based on students from a variety of countries. The model acknowledges the importance of international students developing and valuing multiple aspects of their identity. The identity literature on international students is extremely limited and although E.Kim’s (2012) model is groundbreaking it still views identity from as stages as opposed to a constantly fluid process. This study paves the way for future research and studies on international student development. However, although students from China, Japan, Singapore, and Taiwan are represented there are no students from
South Asian countries included in the formation of the model, therefore it may not reflect the experiences and development of South Asian international students. The absence of
South Asian students in this model is particularly problematic because India led the way in terms of sending students to United States colleges in 2018-2019, surpassed only by
China (Institute of International Education [IIE], 2019).
South Asian International Student Demographics. According to the Institute of
International Education (2019) India, Nepal, Bangladesh, and Pakistan made the list of top 25 origins of international students in the United States. Together these four countries
South Asian countries comprise 21.1% of the total international students studying in the
United States (IIE, 2019). There is a total of 21.97% international students from South
Asia as a whole (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Maldives, and Bhutan)
(IIE, 2019). Considering the sizable population of South Asian international students
34 currently studying in the United States, it is important that their identity development be explored.
Through this literature review thus far, it is clear that a new study is needed to explore the identity development of students from South Asian descent. A future study should reflect the unique characteristics of South Asian students and keep in mind the collectivistic orientation, familial influences, stereotype threat, and racial/ethnic identity of these populations (Huang, 1997; Kodama et al., 2001; Kodama et al., 2002); while accounting for the variety of experiences in the South Asian population and the tensions they may encounter studying at a western university in the United States. It should be aware of the role of cultural contexts for South Asian students which includes understanding their interdependent relationships with their families (Kodama &
Maramba, 2017). South Asian identities are complex, and therefore, a new study would need to use/adapt a theoretical framework that embraces complexity and the multiplicities at play in identity. The next section will discuss the potential influences of college on identity development.
College & Identity
College is an arena of social interaction where students come into contact with a multitude of actors and through these interactions and other social influences the identities of individuals are partially constituted (Kaufman & Feldman, 2004, p.464).
How we come to know and see ourselves in relation to others depends on our meaning- making structures, which are a combination of what we have control over and elements that have control over us (Kegan, 1994; Magolda, 2009). In the process of meaning
35 making students learn to negotiate their identity, purposes, values, and feelings that may have been “uncritically assimilated from others” (Mezirow, 2000, p.8). The context, in this case college, plays a role in the salience of social identities among students (Abes,
Jones, McEwen, 2007).
College provides an environment for students to learn and grow inside and outside of the classroom. Astin’s (1993a) Input- Environment- Output (IEO) model described students as coming in with certain inputs or characteristics that are then shaped by the college environment, which includes programs, policies, faculty, peers and educational experiences and produces certain outputs or characteristics of students after exposure to the environment. These outcomes can be either cognitive or non-cognitive, which identity would be categorized as, and the consideration of both is important. Astin (1993a) described the psychological outcomes as relating to the internal states or traits of the individual and include self-concept. In summary, the IEO model assesses “the impact of various environmental experiences by determining whether students grow or change differently under varying environmental conditions” (Astin, 1993a, p. 7).
Astin (1993a) identified 192 environmental measures that explore five major categories: institutional characteristics, curricular characteristics, faculty environment, student environment and individual involvement. The five broad categories that contain the 192 environmental measures will be used as the foundation for the portion of the interview protocol around RSU context. Pascarella and Terenzini’s (1991) study reviewed around 3,000 studies and found that college has strong effects on students.
36 Contextual Influences The context also includes family background, sociocultural conditions, and current life experiences. This context then influences the salience of certain social identities and changing the context could lead to shifting in the salience of the social identities. This will help to answer the study’s research questions about how the differing environments from home to a college campus influences South Asian students’ identity.
The context changes for all college students, but international students also face a changing national context. Many domestic students are moving a drivable distance away from home, whereas international students could be moving half way across the world.
Although the context shifts from home to college it continues to fluctuate within the college environment depending on what spaces the student is in. Brofenbrenner (1979) describes identity development as an interactive process between an individual and their environment. Consequently, the environment influences identity development and expressed identities simultaneously influence the environment (Torres, Jones, & Renn,
2009). It is also important to recognize the influence of a person’s group membership with the context (Torres, Jones, & Renn, 2009). It is not enough to recognize that individuals possess multiple identities which interact with each other; multiple identities must be connected back to the larger structures they are embedded in (Torres, Jones, &
Renn, 2009).
For many Asians, the cultural context and self are inseparable (Pizzolato et al.,
2008). In their study of psychosocial issues for Asian American students, Kodama et al.
(2001) noted that traditional Asian values may play a role in the development and college experience for Asian American students. The following studies highlight some Asian
37 values that influence students: interdependence with the family (Huang, 1997), maintaining interpersonal harmony (Uba, 1994), emotional restraint (Hongo, 1995; Tang,
1997; Uba, 1994), an academic/economic based definition of success (Hune & Chan,
1997), collectivism, respect for elders, and deference to authority. The level of influence these values may or may not have on Asian American students depends on a plethora of environmental and contextual factors including immigration experiences, generational status, geographical location, and acculturation (Kodama et al., 2001). The next section will discuss the current state of the field in terms of student development/identity theories.
State of the Field
This section will provide a brief historical review of student identity and development. It will discuss the evolution of identity theories within the fields of higher education and student affairs. Finally, the section will describe in detail the RMMDI, which is thought to be one of the more advanced identity theories present in higher education and student affair literature.
College Student Identity/Student Development Theories The study of identity emerged in the field of higher education and student affairs based off the evolution of psychosocial theories (Jones & Abes, 2013). Mayhew,
Rockenbach, Bowman, Seifert, Wolniak, Pascarella, and Terenzini (2016) described psychosocial development as change in the “self system.” Inkeles first coined the term
“self system” in 1966, and the term refers to research involving identity formation and the development of multiple social identities. Inkeles (1966) also recognized that
38 relational systems - how individuals interact with other people and institutions - played a role in personal development.
Erik Erikson’s (1959) work served as the foundation for many psychosocial development theories. His psychosocial theory includes eight stages that span the lifetime and during each stage a person experiences a crisis which affects personality development. The term crisis is used to describe the internal conflicts that occur at each stage. The fifth stage of Erikson’s theory, identity vs identity confusion, is particularly important for traditional age undergraduate students. During this stage a person is questioning who they are and searching for personal identity (Erikson, 1959). This stage is viewed as an essential developmental phase for college-aged students since it usually occurs during emerging adulthood and therefore it serves as the basis for many college student development theories (Marcia, 1966; Chickering & Reisser, 1993; Mayhew et al.,
2016).
James Marcia (1966) expanded on Erikson’s work by developing an identity status theory, which is composed of four identity statuses: identity diffusion, identity foreclosure, identity moratorium, and identity achievement. The stages are centered around the idea of crises and commitments; crisis refers to the period in which they are choosing among meaningful alternatives, and commitment refers to the level of personal investment they exhibit (Marcia, 1966). Diffusion begins with the adolescent not having a sense of choices, in identity foreclosure they tend to conform to the expectations of others regarding their future (Marcia, 1966). Then in identity moratorium the adolescent is in crisis and exploring commitments and choices, and in the final stage of identity achievement the adolescent has undergone an identity crisis and has made a commitment
39 to a chosen sense of identity (Marcia, 1966). In the final identity achievement stage, the participants maintained a more realistic level of aspiration and their self-esteem was less vulnerable to negative information. This final stage is represented as a destination to strive for, whereas in this dissertation, identity will not be viewed as something that can be achieved as it is in flux and participants are viewed as being a part of an everlasting process of becoming. Nonetheless, Marcia’s (1966) theory aids the understanding of identity development by highlighting the idea that one’s sense of identity is shaped by choices and commitments in relation to social interactions throughout their life span. This theory also serves as a foundational theory for student development theory.
While the above theories are focused on identity at-large, Arthur Chickering
(1969) developed what is often times referred to as the first student development theory, based on the identity vs identity confusion stage of Erikson’s work (Torres, Jones, &
Renn, 2009). The theory was later refined by Chickering and Reisser (1993). It focused on the overall identity development of traditional age college students and creates seven vectors that contribute to psychosocial change. These seven vectors represent core challenges students encounter, and include decision making, relationships, and beliefs, all of which play a role in the complex process of identity formation. Mayhew et al. (2016) described the vectors as presenting a holistic view of student development by combining cognitive and affective elements as well as individuation and community with others (p.
161).
Inkeles (1966) and Erikson’s (1959) work serve as roots for many branches of student development theory. Marcia (1966) and Chickering (1969; Chickering & Reisser,
1993) were some of the first college student development theories and paved the way for
40 many others. Marcia’s (1966) model presents in a linear, static, finite, manner with four stages. While Chickering (1969) expressed that the vectors should be “expressed more appropriately by a spiral or by steps rather than a straight line,” (p.8) his theory is also presented in a linear fashion where a student progresses from one stage to the next whereas now identity is thought to be more multidimensional and complex. Although
Chickering’s (1969) theory served as one of the foundational studies for the study of college student identity, it is insufficient for exploring contemporary identity due to its staged and homogeneous nature. Also, their research and findings were based primarily on the experiences of white males (Chickering, 1969), which is insufficient, inaccurate, and potentially damaging for the identity development and success of students from marginalized backgrounds (Gilligan, 1993).
Since the 1960’s, many more student development theorists emerged, which focused on different aspects of identity including gender (Josselson, 1987), sexual orientation (Cass, 1979), and race/ethnicity (Phinney, 1989; Cross, 1991; Helms, 1995;
Sue & Sue, 2013). Phinney’s (1989), Cross’ (1991), Helms’ (1995), and Sue and Sue’s
(1999) models are similar in that identity formation is thought to progress from unexamined or negatively perceived, to an exploration, to some form of identity achievement. These models do not account for the multiple identities students may possess and how these identities are influenced by the college campus environment, which this dissertation aims to do. Also, many of the above models also consider independence to be a sign of maturing identity. However, Kodama and Maramba (2017) recommended that educators be aware of biases that favor independent decision making
41 in identity development, since many Asian students’ have interdependent relationships with their families.
These models were developed to understand minority populations in the United
States; therefore, applying them to immigrant and international students may be problematic (Fries-Britt, Mwangi, & Peralta, 2014). Fries-Britt, Mwangi, and Peralta
(2014) explained that foreign-born students of color arrive in the United States with racial and cultural ideologies specific to their home countries, which can be different from the issues of race in the United States. Their study addressed the question of how foreign- born students of color perceive and respond to racialized experiences and their racial minority status in the United States. The findings of their study show that traditional
United States based frameworks on racial identity development do not fully capture the perceptions of foreign-born students of color (Fries-Britt, Mwangi, & Peralta, 2014). The models do not account for the lack of knowledge foreign born students may have regarding racial identity in the United States. Also, contrary to traditional racial/ethnic identity models (Phinney, 1993; Sue & Sue, 1999), the participants did not internalize and idealize whiteness, rather they felt disconnected from race in the United States.
Having a deeper understanding of how foreign-born students make meaning of racialization in the United States will give institutional actors a more holistic insight into the growth and development of international students of color (Fries-Britt, Mwangi, &
Peralta, 2014).
Similar to other college students, South Asian students come to college and encounter experiences and a new environment that influences their identity development.
The studies presented in this section provide the foundations of student development
42 theory from which the field continues to build upon. These studies do not explicitly explore the influence of the environment on identity, nor do they account for the multiple identities a student can hold and their relative salience at different points of life – both of which this dissertation hopes to reveal. The next section discusses the Reconceptualized
Model of Multiple Dimensions of Identity (RMMDI), which is sought to be one of the more advanced identity theories present in higher education.
History of RMMDI The RMMDI is built off of the MMDI (see figure 2), which uses the works of
Reynolds and Pope (1991) and Deaux (1993) and is based on the results of Jones (1997) grounded theory research with women college students.
MMDI. The MMDI is a holistic model of development that examines the relationship among students’ personal and socially constructed identities. The MMDI accounts for internal and external influences on identity. The creation of the MMDI was based on ten women and their life stories. Two of the participants were South Asian, one was from Sri Lanka and the other from India and both moved from their home countries to the United States at a young age. One of the participants was born and raised in
Uganda and described dealing with a “color thing” in the United States where she always felt like a minority. These three participants all discussed parts of their identity in relation to cultural and familial expectations (Jones, 1997; Jones & McEwen, 2000; Jones &
Abes, 2013). One of the South Asian woman described feeling as though she was living in two worlds by trying to negotiate her upbringing as an “American woman” and the traditional cultural norms held by her parents (Jones, 1997).
43 Although the MMDI considers family background in the context of the model, this means that it only impacts the salience of the social identities and that the core is unaffected by family. This structuring of the model takes a Eurocentric/individualistic approach by only including personal attributes, personal characteristics, and personal identity in the core of the model (Jones & McEwen, 2000). In many Asian and South
Asian cultures, however, there is a more collectivistic orientation where family takes precedent over the individual (Yeh & Huang, 1996; Kodama et al., 2002; Sue & Sue,
2013), consequently, this model would need to be adapted for South Asian students.
RMMDI. The RMMDI takes the MMDI and applies it to ten lesbian women. The results led Jones, Abes, and McEwen (2007) to add a meaning making filter and create the RMMDI. The MMDI was later reconceptualized to include a meaning making filter and account for systems of privilege and oppression and termed the RMMDI. The
RMMDI includes a “dynamic construction of identity and the influence of changing contexts on the relative salience of multiple identity dimensions, such as race, sexual orientation, culture, and social class” (Jones, Abes & McEwen, 2007, p.3). This reconceptualized MMDI is abbreviated RMMDI. Jones and McEwen (2000) based their model on three veins of scholarship: student development theories that focused on identity; the emphasis on underrepresented social identities, and the socially constructed nature of identity.
Kodama et al. (2001) stated that Asian American identity issues are partially created by the tension caused between external and internal definition, wanting to define themselves and the identity that is forced upon them by others. They discuss identity for
Asian American students to be very contextual, strongly influenced by others, and
44 varying in being more “Asian” or more “American” depending on the situation. The
MMDI and RMMDI address these tensions by accounting for both internal and external influences on identity development, which Asian Americans tend to struggle to negotiate
(Kodama et al., 2001). The models also consider multidimensional identities, which would help to break the prevalent monolithic narrative of South Asian identity (Ruzicka,
2011).
The RMMDI acknowledges the fluidity of identity in shifting contexts while aiming to understand an individual’s identity. The model also considers privileged and oppressed identities as multiple and intersecting. Examining identity through privilege, difference and oppression “illuminates the influence of contextual factors that both shape and press, or push and pull on, multiple dimensions of identity, and contributes to an understanding of identity development as a dynamic, evolving process continually shaped by these many contexts” (Jones & Abes, 2013, p. 86). The RMMDI depict multiple layers of identity through three key components: the core, multiple social identities and larger contextual influences.
45
Figure 2 -1: Model of Multiple Dimensions of Identity (Jones & McEwen, 2004). The Core. The core serves as the center of the model and includes personal attributes, personal characteristics, and personal identity. Jones and McEwen (2000) characterize personal attributes and characteristics as including intelligent, compassionate, responsible, and independent and other attributes that our less visible to an outsider’s eye. The core is thought to represent the “inner self” and that a student is negotiating between their core and the context, or external influences. However, the core is perceived to be less susceptible to outside influences. Jones and Abes (2013) described the core as “impenetrable and protected from outside influence,” where they have “the most agency and experienced the most stability,” and cannot “be labeled by others or taken away from them” (p.82). Contrary to this, Markus and Kitayama (1991) discussed
46 the intertwined nature of Asian families in students’ self-concept and as a result there may not be a sense of independent self. Due to this, parents and families of Asian
American students may not be considered external influences (Kodama & Maramba,
2017).
Multiple Social Identities. The MMDI also allows for the consideration of social identities, which are represented by intersecting circles around the core of the model.
Social identities are defined as “socially constructed and requires attending to social systems and structures of inequality and privilege” (Jones & Abes, 2013, p. 83).
Examples of social identities include race, gender, sexual orientation, culture, religion, and social class. Interestingly, many of the participants in Deaux’s (1993) study, which served as a foundation from which the MMDI was built, moved away from social roles, such as daughter or friend, in the social identities and considered them as personal identities, which shows the intersection of personal and social identities. These social identities are fluid and have varying levels of importance in any given context. Within the realm of the model, the more salient an identity is, the closer the dot appears to the core
(see figure 2). This means that social identities that are closer to the core are more integrated with the core sense of self (Torres, Jones, & Renn, 2009). Identities are constructed and expressed according to what values, norms and expectation are more or less salient (Abes, Jones, & McEwen, 2007). The salience of these social identities is also contingent on the contextual influences. This study will examine how these social identities shift in the college environment for South Asian students.
Contextual Influences. The core and social identities are situated within a particular context, which exerts external forces on the salience of certain social identities.
47 The context also includes family background, sociocultural conditions, and current life experiences. This context then influences the salience of certain social identities and changing the context could lead to shifting in the salience of the social identities. This will help to answer the study’s research questions about how the differing environments from home to a college campus influences South Asian students’ identity. The context changes for all college students, but international students also face a changing national context. Many domestic students are moving a drivable distance away from home, whereas international students could be moving half way across the world. Although the context shifts from home to college it continues to fluctuate within the college environment depending on what spaces the student is in. In this dissertation, the environment during the college years focuses particularly on the college campus environment given the rural nature of the location of RSU.
48
Figure 3 -1: Reconceptualized Model of Multiple Dimensions of Identity (Abes, Jones & McEwen, 2007). Meaning Making Filter. The Reconceptualized Model of Multiple Dimensions of Identity, which was proposed by Abes, Jones, and McEwen (2007) adds in an element of meaning-making by adding a filter in between the context and the social identities/core of the MMDI. The RMMDI resulted from Abes and Jones’ (2004) study, which draws on interviews with 10 lesbian women. In their study, Abes and Jones (2004) found that the content of their identities depended on their meaning-making structures. The RMMDI considers the relationship between identity salience, meaning-making processes, and social context. A student’s lived experience is not solely grounded in one social identity but in the way in which their identities intersect (Jones, 1997), which the RMMDI acknowledges. The model emphasizes the importance of context in the meaning-making
49 process and raises questions of how power and privilege operate in individuals’ lives.
Majority and minority identities interact and individuals possess both privileged and oppressed identities, depending on the context (Torres, Jones, & Renn, 2009). The more practitioners understand how student make meaning of their identities, the better they are able to promote student learning and development (Torres, Jones & Renn, 2009, p. 578).
The next section will explore some of the limitations of the RMMDI.
Limitations of the RMMDI Jones and Abes (2013) remind their audience that models are representations of complex phenomena and cannot capture the full array of themes. While using the
RMMDI it is important to keep in mind the complexity of the construction of identity and sense of self and that it is not possible for all representations and themes to be captured by a single model, even one as fluid and inclusive as the RMMDI.
Although the RMMDI considers family background in the context of the model, this means that it only impacts the salience of the social identities and that the core is unaffected by family. This structuring of the model takes a Eurocentric/individualistic approach by only including personal attributes, personal characteristics, and personal identity in the core of the model (Jones & McEwen, 2000). In many Asian and South
Asian cultures, however, there is a more collectivistic orientation where family takes precedent over the individual (Yeh & Huang, 1996; Kodama et al., 2002; Sue & Sue,
2013), consequently, this study provides insights into how identity is constructed for
South Asian students.
Although this dissertation aims to explore the multiple identities that South Asian students hold and how the salience of these identities shifts during college, I chose not to
50 use it as the theoretical framework for my dissertation due to the following reasons. First, the limitations of the core, which were discussed above. The core is individualistic and does not allow for outside influences, which runs counter to the collectivistic and family focused orientation present in much of the literature on Asian and specifically South
Asian individuals. Second, the use of narrative inquiry allows for the participants to tell their stories in their own words and forcing their stories into the components of a more rigid framework like the RMMDI could cause the erasure of some of these stories.
However, using some of the identity terminology from the RMMDI allows for the exploration of students’ other identities in addition to their race. For these reasons, this dissertation will borrow some of the identity terminology from the RMMDI, but employ
DesiCrit as the theoretical lens for analyzing the data in this study.
Theoretical Framework
Theoretical Lens: Desi Critical Race Theory I used a Desi Critical Race Theory (DesiCrit) perspective to analyze the experiences of undergraduate South Asian students. Harpalani (2013), recently coined the term DesiCrit based on Critical Race Theory (CRT). Derrick Bell is often times referred to as the father of CRT. It began as a movement in the law field and has since been used in a large spectrum of fields and disciplines including education. It is used to examine the relationship between race and power and to desilence marginalized people (Ladson-
Billings, 1995). CRT is unique in that it aims to not only understand social situations, but to change them and to transform societies for the better by focusing on race and power
(Delgado & Stefancic, 2001).
51 Solorzano & Yosso (2002) described how CRT can inform a critical race methodology in education, which can be used as a tool to counter deficit storytelling. A critical race approach allows space for research centered around the experiences and knowledge of people of color. Their stories will serve as counternarratives to the dominant or master narratives of the institution. This form of storytelling allows for students to name their realities and serves as a pathway to building knowledge (Delgado
& Stefancic, 2001).
Initially, CRT focused on analyzing racial inequities through a Black and white relationship. Other groups were silenced by this binary discourse, as a result, CRT scholarship began expanding in an effort to understand the way other groups “experience, respond to, and resist racism and other forms of oppression” (Yosso, 2005, p.72). In an attempt to better understand the racialized experiences of South Asian Americans,
Harpalani (2013) coined the term DesiCrit; which draws from Critical Race Theory
(CRT), and focuses specifically on South Asian American racialization and discusses their racially ambiguous nature in the United States.
One of the main goals of DesiCrit is to theorize the racial ambiguity of South
Asian Americans. The theory does this through three primary concepts 1) formal and informal racialization, 2) defining both “claims to” and “ascriptions of” racial status, and
3) highlighting the role of “racial microclimes” (Harpalani, 2013). In the first concept formal racialization refers to official racial classification schemes created by a source of authority like a government. Formal racialization provided many exclusive privileges for those designated as “white” prior to the Civil Rights movement (Harpalani, 2013).
Whereas informal racialization is based on situational characterizations, like physical
52 features, social meanings, and racialized symbols. Informal racialization includes the performative aspects of race, including hairstyles, aesthetic choices, language choice, and accent (Harpalani, 2013). The second concept refers to individuals having the ability to claim racial statuses or be ascribed with them by others (Harpalani, 2013). Assimilation is challenged through the ascriptions of “otherness” which could include religion, culture, or language to negate claims to whiteness (Harpalani, 2013, p.121). The third concept of
“racial microclimes” highlights the importance of local environments, social dynamics, and political circumstances that affect racialization processes. The local microclime is important for understanding how discrimination operates, and what interventions would disrupt it (Harpalani, 2013).
Harpalani (2015) described the multiple intersections of identities and how South
Asian Americans are caught in between their own identity and how other Americans perceive them. This causes South Asians and South Asian Americans to have to negotiate this tension between socialization and identity development (Harpalani, 2013). The construction of religious identity, language, familial expectations, and transnational identity play major roles in how South Asians come to know themselves (Harpalani,
2013) and could contribute to their sense of self.
Predominantly white institutions (PWIs), like RSU, tout that they provide global and diverse learning environments in their mission statements. Many PWIs symbolically value diversity and work to construct representations of itself as open, diverse, and tolerant. However, the racial/ethnic student perspective has consistently reflected that fostering cultural and racial diversity is not a high priority at predominantly white institutions (PWIs) like RSU. This research study highlights stories from South Asian
53 students as a way to understand their college experiences and ways institutions can work to better serve this often times invisible population of students. To effect change, the unheard voices of South Asian students need to be recorded by a method that does not cause further cultural erasure and allows for their individual experiences to be expressed and valued, like narrative interviews, that will allow for administrators to hear these stories and work to counter institutionalized, oppressive power structures.
Kodama et al. (2001) stated that Asian American identity issues are partially created by the tension caused between external and internal definition, wanting to define themselves and the identity that is forced upon them by others. The authors discuss identity for Asian American students to be very contextual, strongly influenced by others, and varying in being more “Asian” or more “American” depending on the situation.
DesiCrit addresses these tensions by accounting for both internal and external influences on identity, which Asian Americans tend to struggle to negotiate (Kodama et al., 2001).
Using a CRT approach emphasizes the importance of hearing the voices of those who are usually invisible or missing from conversations and helps to break the prevalent monolithic narrative of South Asian identity (Ruzicka, 2011).
Summary of Literature Review & Next Steps
In this chapter, literature was presented on college student identity and more specifically Asian American, South Asian American, and international identity and student development. Through the literature review, it can be seen that a limited number of studies that focus specifically on South Asian student identities exist. This review sets
54 the stage for my study by highlighting the foundational contributions in college student development theories and the need for more studies on South Asian college students.
DesiCrit provides a lens to view South Asian students’ racialization in the context of the United States. Narrative inquiry helps to understand how participants made meaning of their identities (Jones, Abes, & McEwen, 2007, p. 103). The purpose of using narrative inquiry is to understand the wholeness of the human experience through the form of stories (Clandinin & Connelly, 2000). Narrative inquiry is consistent with the belief that identity and stories are intertwined (Chase, 1995). Chapter 3 explores how narrative inquiry highlights the stories of the participants and is an appropriate methodology for exploring South Asian identity.
55 Chapter 3: Methodology
This chapter provides an overview of the methodological tradition and theoretical framework used in this study. I will discuss the setting of the study, the selection of participants, the data collection process and the data analysis for this study. The last section will consider the ethics, and trustworthiness of this study.
Research Questions
The following question guides this research: How do undergraduate South Asian students negotiate their identities as college students?
The sub questions are:
• How do South Asian students relate to and describe their multiple identities as
they understood them prior to coming to college?
• How do South Asian students relate to and describe their multiple identities
during college?
Overview of Tradition & Theoretical Framework
Qualitative Research Methods I employed a naturalistic paradigm in my approach to this study. Naturalistic inquiry focuses on how people behave in natural settings and suggests that realities cannot be understood in isolation from their environments (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).
Qualitative methods, specifically interviews, were utilized to analyze South Asian students’ identity development during their undergraduate college years. When researching a topic as personal as identity, it is beneficial to hear experiences directly from the participants, which is what led to this research design (Atkinson, 1998). In-depth interviews helped gain first-hand perspectives from individuals and in narrative inquiry
56 the life experiences of participants are often structured as stories (Bhattacharya, 2017).
The next sections will further discuss the methodological approach of narrative inquiry.
Narrative Inquiry This qualitative study is guided by narrative inquiry. Clandinin and Connelly
(2000) described narratives as a way of understanding experiences or people’s lived stories. Abes, Jones and McEwen (2007) cited Clandinin and Connelly (2000) while explaining that the purpose of narrative inquiry is to understand the wholeness of human experience through stories. This approach assumes that humans lead storied lives and connect with one another through stories. These lived stories and the telling and retelling of these stories educate the self and others. Narrative inquiry considers life as it is experienced here and now as well as how life is experienced on a continuum (Clandinin
& Connelly, 2000, p.19). This is key in thinking about identity because it is in constant flux over an individual’s life (Jones & Abes, 2013). In order to fully understand how college shapes South Asian students, it is necessary to understand how they perceived their identities prior to arriving at college in order to see how these identities have shifted since coming to college.
Narrative inquiry is closely associated with Dewey’s theory of experience
(Clandinin & Connelly, 2000, p.50). Dewey pioneered the use of narrative inquiry in educational research. He described experience as personal and social; individuals cannot be understood only as individuals as they are always in relation, always in a social context (Clandinin & Connelly, 2000). This helps to account for the changing social context that occurs as a student enters the college environment.
57 Narrative inquiry collects participants’ stories to understand how they interpret their experiences with the world, of specific events, or the world in general
(Bhattacharya, 2017, p. 93). Bhattacharya (2017) describes narrative inquiry as a framework that allows researchers to explore, discover, understand and construct stories based on their participants’ storied lives (p.93). Identity links the past, the present, and the social world into a narrative that embodies change and continuity (Josselson, 1996, p.29). I chose narrative inquiry because people’s stories carry their truths and help us to see how they perceive and engage with the world (Atkinson, 2007). Narrative inquiry allows the students’ voices to take center stage and drive the study while providing a space for students to tell their stories. This methodological approach is a good fit for identity studies because stories offer glimpses into inner selves (Riessman, 2002).
Although this dissertation was originally going to use a specific form of narrative inquiry: life stories, many of the interviews ended up being shorter than expected and does not do justice to the life story methodology. Due to this, the general narrative inquiry approach was used to analyze the data. However, elements of the life story approach are seen in the collection of the data, specifically in the open-ended nature of the questions in the interview protocol, which allowed for students to recall the most important experiences and identities throughout their life. It also helped highlight the most important influences, experiences, and lessons in a person’s life, which reveals people’s identity; and the study of identity can be considered an investigation into the stories of one’s life (Jones & Abes, 2013, p.5). Stories reveal and shape identity because they are told, revised, and retold throughout life in a way that reveals ourselves to others
(Lieblich et al., 1998).
58 Narrative inquiry was the best choice for this dissertation because it paints a picture of participants’ lives and allows for the unheard voices of South Asian students to be recorded by a method that allows for individual experiences to be expressed and valued. Cultural erasure occurs when they are forced to remove their traditions in order to adopt to Western society (Kahn, 1998). The methodology does not explicitly state parameters on how many participants to select. I interviewed 21 participants and interviewed each of them for a total of one to two and a half hours. I aimed to get representation from a variety of categories i.e. women and men, international and domestic students, language, religion, sexual orientation, and national origin. I was able to achieve a diverse representation in most of these categories, except for sexual orientation and national origin. These interviews provided insights into the participants’ lives and experiences prior to college and during their college years and allowed me to compare participants’ perceptions of their identity prior to college and during their college years. The primary goal was to understand how South Asian students negotiated their identities prior to and within college.
Theoretical Framework: DesiCrit The narrative methodology complements DesiCrit by highlighting the most important events, experiences, and influences in a life, which then play a role in shaping a person’s identity and sense of self. The narrative interview also allows the interviews to be structured in such a way that we can gain insights into how the changing environments prior to and into college influence the salience of different identities. Stories allow the participants to tell their story in their own words and through this researchers and participants can trace patterns in the shifting of identity over the course of their life. In
59 order to allow the participants to tell their story in their own terms, DesiCrit was employed primarily in the later stages of data analysis to provide a critical lens to the findings of this study. Although DesiCrit was used as the lens through which the findings were analyzed, the data collection and interview protocol were also informed by the research questions for this study, parts of the RMMDI (Abes, Jones, and McEwen, 2007),
Atkinson’s (1998) life story interview protocol, Astin’s (1993a) IEO measures, and
Ruzicka’s (2011) study. This will be described in more depth in the data collection section of this chapter.
Setting & Participants
Site Location This study will be conducted at the main campus of Rural State University (RSU), which is located in a rural area in the north. It is a large nationally ranked R1 university with numerous campuses dispersed geographically throughout the state (RSU, 2019). The demographics of the campus are very similar to other large, primarily white, R1 universities.
According to the RSU fact book, which does not disaggregate its Asian data or countries of origin for international students, in the fall of 2019 there were 2,554 Asian students and 5,024 international students, constituting 6.3 percent and 12.4 percent of the total enrollment respectively, enrolled as undergraduates on the main campus (RSU,
2019). Graduation rates for Asian American students and international students at main campus are below the overall main campus rates. The four-year graduation rates overall are 69.5 percent, compared to only 63.5 percent for Asian American students and 63.5 percent for international students (RSU, 2019). This site was also picked for its large
60 representation of international students especially those from Asian countries with China,
South Korea, and India being the top three countries of origin for their large international student population. In the 2018-2019 academic year, RSU had 9,396 international students, making it one of the top 15 universities with the most international students in the United States (IIE, 2019).
RSU prides itself on being a diverse land-grant institution with a wealth of majors and educational opportunities for students both inside and outside the classroom. Since the university is located in a small town, the majority of involvement opportunities for students occur on campus. In addition to events and services offered by offices on campus, students can choose from over 1,000 student run organizations. These organizations range from philanthropy, sports related clubs, to ethnic and religious organizations.
Sampling Method I employed a purposive sampling method, which tends to be the sampling method of choice in the naturalistic paradigm (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Naturalistic studies tend to use purposive sampling as it allows for a full array of realities to be uncovered
(Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Since my research is focused on South Asian undergraduate students and their college experiences, it was necessary to ensure that the students I interviewed met certain criteria. The criteria for this study included the following: participants had to self-identify as South Asian and have ancestral roots in a South Asian country: India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Maldives, or Bhutan (Accapadi,
2012); be traditionally aged 18-24 years old, and have completed at least a year at RSU.
The participant sample consisted of a mix of students: those defined by the university as
61 international students from South Asian countries, and students defined by the university as Asian American students (or domestic South Asian students) who have ancestral roots in South Asia.
Students were recruited (see recruitment script in Appendix A) through email listservs (ie. the cultural center, the LGBTQ center, and the diversity resource center on campus), South Asian related organizations (I contacted the officers of six South Asian or international student related organizations and asked them to forward information about my study to their members), word of mouth, and the Office for Global Programs. In conjunction these recruitment methods, snowball sampling was used. Snowball sampling uses the social capital of participants as a means to recruit more participants (Noy, 2008).
Once a student participated in the study, they were asked to identify other potential participants that would be interested in participating in the study. (Participants who were identified through snowball sampling will be highlighted in the background of participants section of chapter 4.) Using both of these approaches to recruit participants helped to ensure that the students sampled fit the criteria of the study, had a variety of experiences and provided a heterogenous set of voices. Upon completion of the interview the student was compensated for their time with a 20 dollar gift card.
Data Collection, Interview Protocol & Analysis
Data Collection The data source for this study was narrative interviews. Some of the students who expressed interest in the study took the initiative to email me first after seeing my study in their listservs. Some of the other students’ contact information was received from the officers of some of the South Asian organizations, colleagues in Global Programs, or
62 colleagues who knew of South Asian students in their classes, or participants who had already completed the study. I contacted the individuals who showed interest in participating in the study by email and inquired about their background and willingness to participate further in my research. If they agreed to participate in my research, I arranged a date, time, and location for us to meet. Although a total of 45 potential participants were contacted, only 21 participants responded to the emails and scheduled a date and time for the interview and showed up to the interview. One interview took place at a local coffee shop but due to the level of background noise, I scheduled the other 20 interviews in private study rooms in the main library on campus. Prior to beginning the interview, I explained the purpose of my study and reviewed the IRB consent guidelines, and the confidentiality precautions.
The interview protocol included many open-ended questions so the length of the interview depended on the participants’ answers. There were no time constraints set on the interviews and interviews ranged from one to two and half hours. The guiding interview questions were informed by Atkinson’s (1998) suggestions for life story interviews in conjunction with DesiCrit, the RMMDI, Astin’s (1993a) environmental measures, Ruzicka’s (2011) study, and my research questions. The interview protocol is described in more depth in the next section and a copy of the protocol can be found in
Appendix B. The goal of these semi-structured interviews with undergraduate South
Asian students was to better understand how South Asian students define and navigate their identity before coming to college and during their college experiences. Based on the first research sub-question, the first half of the interviews asked the students to describe their childhood, their racial/ethnic background, immigration stories, K-12 experiences,
63 family and friends. Based on the second research sub-question the second half of the interviews asked about the participants’ identity in college and what factors played a part in influencing their identities in college.
The interviews were completed from September to November of fall 2019. After the interviews were completed, transcribed, and analyzed, I employed a form of member- checking by sharing a summary of the data to the participant. The summary of the data included direct quotations and paraphrased words I used in my dissertation from each participant’s interview. This gave participants the opportunity to clarify or expand on areas discussed during their original interviews.
Interview Protocol The interview protocol was created based on the research questions and literature including parts of DesiCrit, Abes, Jones, and McEwen’s (2007) RMMDI, Atkinson’s
(1998) life story interview protocol, Ruzicka’s (2011) study, Astin’s (1993a) IEO measures, and the research questions. The first half of the interview focused on pre- college experiences and the second half of the interview focused on their college experiences and how their identity has evolved. This organization of questions is based on the research questions for this study.
The first half of the interview included the questions in part A and B of the protocol. Part A of the interview asked general demographic questions about the student.
The questions in part B of the interview protocol retrospectively discussed the student’s experiences prior to college. The questions involved the topics of family, parents, relationships, school, immigration, and left room to explore other influential childhood experiences. These topics were chosen to attempt to get to the root of the contextual
64 influences that could shape the participant’s identities, and how they made meaning of their identity. The questions in section B were organized by social identities and context.
The social identities portion allows the students to describe what identities are most salient to them, while focusing on their race, gender, religion, and sexual orientation, and social class since those were the topics most discussed in my pilot interviews. The context section asks about the student’s family, where they spent their childhood, and where they went to school.
The second part of the interview included parts C, D, E, F, and G of the protocol.
Part C of the interview explored the student’s college experiences including what they were involved in, their major and their friends with the goal being to attempt to understand how college has influenced their identities. The social identity section is very similar to the questions in part B to allow for comparison of their social identities prior to and during college. The context section of part C is also based on the five broad categories of Astin’s IEO (1993a) measures, RSU context, and general college life.
Question v is based on the literature that says family is especially central in Asian students’ lives. Question t is to understand why the student picked RSU. Question u is asked to understand how they chose their major and who if anyone else played a part in that decision. Question w and x are asked to learn how the student describes or perceives the RSU context. Question y is an open question asked to understand how the student generally feels supported or unsupported by the university. Questions z and aa are based on Astin’s (1993a) college environment measures (composed of institutional characteristics, curricular characteristics, faculty environment, student environment and individual involvement).
65 Part D of the interview asks about their racial identity, group identities, and South
Asian communities. Part E asked the participants to reflect on their overall college experiences and what they learned about themselves. Part F discussed how they described the evolution of their identities. Questions qq and rr were also informed by Ruzicka’s
(2011) interview protocol. Part G gives them the opportunity to discuss anything else they feel is relevant to their identity today and thanks them for their time.
Data Analysis The interviews from each participant were transcribed verbatim. I transcribed the first three interviews and the other eighteen were outsourced to Rev.com. I transcribed the first three interviews to save money and because I had more time in between interviews when I began the interview process. The data analysis process primarily followed Riessman’s (2008) and Clandinin and Connelly’s (2000) suggestions for narrative analysis. As suggested by Clandinin and Connelly (2000), the content of the data collected guided the data analysis process.
First, I engaged in open coding of each story by reading them line by line looking for particular people, environments, and experiences that shaped the student’s identity.
This follows Clandinin & Connelly’s (2000) approach to let the data guide the process, while heeding Butina’s (2015) advice to consolidate the narrative data based on the research questions. I used NVivo 12, a qualitative software, to help with the process of organizing and coding all of the transcribed data. After all of the interviews were coded once, I aggregated the codes in a codebook and recoded some of the earlier interviews to reflect a similar coding scheme. Once the codes were set, I looked for overarching thematic categories that encompassed the majority of the codes (Riessman, 2008). Five
66 overarching categories were identified that were either focused on the major influences on students’ identities (family, friends, and college) and/or on the social identities students discussed (race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, and nationality). In addition to encompassing the majority of the data, these five overarching categories were created because they answered the studies research questions and explained the racialization of the participants in accordance with DesiCrit. DesiCrit describes the racialization of South
Asians as being influenced by others (ie. friends, family, and general “others” outside of the racialized group), and by the “microclime” (ie. home, school, and the college environment).
Once the overarching themes were identified, I extracted language and quotations from the participants along these themes. I looked for similarities, differences, interactions, connections, meanings and patterns across the stories of the participants. I then compared the identities and tensions that were discussed by each participant to see if there were similarities or differences between international and domestic students or between men and women within each of the five categories. These five categories provided the organization for the results in chapter four. Once the data was organized I then reanalyzed it using a DesiCrit as an analytical lens and looked for instances where formal and informal racialization occurred, times where students claimed a racial status or when a racial status was ascribed to them, and how the “microclime” influenced their identity negotiations.
67 Ethics, Trustworthiness, Pilot Study & Limitations
Ethics Before any data collection began, I obtained approval from RSU’s Institutional
Review Board (IRB) to conduct research. Several precautions were taken to insure the confidentiality of the participants. Only the primary researcher had access to the names of the participants and kept a digitally locked master list of names and pseudonyms. All transcriptions, data analysis, and reports will use pseudonyms for the participants. Any identifiable information released by the students was removed or replaced with a pseudonym. I explained the purpose of the study and walked through the IRB consent guidelines with each participant who agreed to an interview. I also conducted a pilot study in my HIED 588 qualitative methods II course, which heightened reflexivity and provided direct feedback on my proposed methods.
Pilot Study During my HIED 588 qualitative methods II course, I explored different methodological approaches to study South Asian identity. Life stories aligned most closely with my research questions and how I envisioned conducting this study. Through this pilot study I was able to conduct two 75-minute life story interviews, one with a fourth year Indian-American student at RSU and the other with a third year Bangladeshi international student also at RSU. Through these interviews I found the following themes: migration stories, parental influences, belonging/exclusion to community, wanting to “fit-in”, differing racial identity terms, racism, media representations of South
Asians, religion, language barriers, college involvement, colonialism, nationalism,
68 identity labels, and the influence of other’s perceptions of who they should be or how they should behave.
Although this was a small pilot study, it provided me with useful knowledge, practice, and themes to be mindful of as I proceeded with this dissertation study. I realized from this data that none of the existing identity models were able to fully explain the experiences and identity negotiations of these two participants. I liked the richness of the data I was able to obtain by keeping the interview protocol as broad as possible. This allowed the participant to share what they felt were the most important parts of their identity and what experiences and influences impacted their identity. I slightly adjusted my interview protocol based on the responses I received from these two undergraduate
South Asian students.
Trustworthiness Trustworthiness is an essential part of qualitative studies as it ensures validation standards and credibility for the study and its findings. Following Creswell and Poth’s
(2018) validations strategies and guidelines I engaged in member checking, and researcher reflexivity. Member checking ensures that the participants validate the accuracy of the researcher’s data and analysis. Reflexivity allows the researcher to position their self in relation to their writings.
Member Checking. Member checking allowed the participants to ensure that the information and data used in the analysis accurately portrayed their story. The interviews were recorded and then transcribed verbatim and listened to many times to ensure accuracy. After the transcripts were analyzed and the data was coded, the results section of the dissertation was written. The researcher then went through the results chapter and
69 pulled out all of the direct quotes and paraphrased data used for each participant. The researcher created 21 Word documents, one for each participant with this summarized data. These were emailed to the participants and they were able to review them, elaborate in necessary areas, and provide any clarifications. The majority of participants who responded said they were fine with the way their data was presented. However, two participants gave specific feedback, one changed the way some of the quotes were worded, and the other extended on the intended message of one of their quotes. These changes are reflected in their data presented in the next chapter.
Researcher Reflexivity. As a Desi/South Asian woman doing this work, there are certain things I expected students to discuss as factors influencing their identity prior to college, including family expectations, religion, and cultural expectations.
All four of my grandparents were born in India and immigrated later in life to
Canada and England. My mom was born in India and moved to England with her parents when she was 7, but continually traveled back to India, even starting college there prior to finishing college in Canada after she met my dad. My dad was born in Canada and lived there most of his life until our entire family moved to the United States in 1996, when I was 7 years old. Prior to moving to the United States, I attended a bilingual
French and English Catholic school. I remember sitting out during mass and not understanding why I was singled out. I later realized that my family was Hindu and opted me out of mass. Since then, I intentionally attended only secular institutions.
I would define my experiences as being similar to those of second-generation students in the United States, although by the standard definition I may not be considered second-generation. I remember struggling with language when we first moved to the
70 United States as I transitioned from French to English in school and much of my English was informed by the British/Canadian spellings and on top of that my mom used the occasional Telugu (our mother tongue) words. I grew up trying to balance the fine line of embracing my Indian roots and heritage, while also assimilating to white American culture. My Ammamma (maternal grandmother), in England, would always warn us not to become too “Americanized.” (Interestingly, my Ammamma has a great sense of nationalism for England, although she grew up in India and witnessed the effects of
British Imperialism. For some reason she also had a positive perception of British and
Canadian influences on our upbringing, but negative ones of American influences. I think this impacted a lot of my views as well and I was always prouder to be Canadian than
American). But I also wanted to fit in with my new American friends and did not want to be too Desi. I almost led two separate lives—to the point of asking my mom not to make
Indian food when my American friends came over to our house. I saved my “Desiness” for family gatherings with the other two South Asian families in the sub-division of our neighborhood.
College became a time where I was able to reconcile these two identities and make friends with other South Asian students through the Indian Student Association. I realized that I could be proud of being a South Asian Canadian/American and embrace all parts of my identity. What partially led to this specific study is this fear that many South
Asians have of being called a “FOB”—Fresh off the Boat—a term used to describe those who just immigrated and were not accustomed to American life; or an “ABCD”—an
American Born Confused Desi—as I have personally been categorized. This term
“ABCD” signifies a type of assimilation that may involve cultural erasure.
71 When I began my career in student affairs, I noticed that many South Asian students did not have specialized services or administrators who knew how to support them. My academic experiences also showed me that discussions of diversity within higher education were also very Black and white focused. On the occasion that Asian
Americans would be discussed, the studies were primarily focused on East Asian populations. My personal experiences, as well as my professional, and academic experiences, led me to want to better understand how South Asian students navigate their multiple identities through their college experiences. This study is the result of that desire to fill the gap in the literature, and to provide culturally-relevant language and data to support South Asian students as they negotiate their complex and multiple identities during college. My positionality as a South Asian researcher helped to develop an immediate rapport with my participants. This was evident in how open some the participants were when sharing their stories and the occasional use of “we” including me in their statements about South Asians. Interviewing other South Asian students and hearing their stories was my favorite part of this dissertation process. It was a privilege to hear their stories and I hope that I was able to honor them through this research.
Summary of Methodology
Narrative inquiry with elements was the methodological approach used to help answer this study’s research questions. Twenty-one South Asian students were interviewed for this study. The data collected from these interviews is thematically presented in chapter four and the data is further analyzed using DesiCrit as a lens.
72 Chapter 4: Presentation of Findings
This chapter begins by restating the research questions and purpose of this dissertation, followed by an abridged overview of the data analysis that led to the five primary themes presented in the sub-sections. At the end of the chapter the findings are further analyzed through the lens of DesiCrit.
The following question guided this research: How do undergraduate South Asian students negotiate their identities as college students? To further analyze this topic, the following sub-questions were asked:
• How do South Asian students describe and relate to their multiple identities as
they understood them prior to coming to college?
• How do South Asian students describe and relate to their multiple identities
during college?
The purpose of this dissertation study was to explore the ways in which South
Asian undergraduate students relate to and describe their multiple identities prior to and during their college experience at RSU. This dissertation employed a qualitative research design consisting of semi-structured interviews with 21 South Asian participants that ranged from one to two and a half hours in duration. The voices and stories of the participants provided in-depth data on the lived experiences of South Asian students.
These participants were identified through email listservs (the recruitment script can be found in Appendix A), word of mouth, and snowball sampling. Once a student was identified for the study, we agreed upon a date and time that worked for both the researcher and the student. The interviews occurred in private study rooms in the main library on campus. Before the interview began, the researcher obtained verbal consent
73 and provided an abridged overview of the study. The interview protocol (which can be found in Appendix B) was used to guide the interview. The interviews were recorded and then transcribed verbatim, some by the researcher and the rest by Rev.com. As part of the member checking process, each of the 21 participants were emailed a Word document that contained direct quotations and paraphrased data that were used in this chapter. The participants were asked to review them and elaborate or provide clarifications, if necessary. These changes are reflected in the quotes and stories presented in this chapter.
The data analysis was driven by narrative inquiry and began with open coding to stay as close to the data as possible while answering the study’s research questions
(Butina, 2015; Clandinin & Connelly, 2000). Therefore, I used open coding in my initial analysis to allow more themes to emerge as using only deductive coding guided by
DesiCrit would have all centered all themes around only the students’ racial identities.
Once preliminary codes emerged and the codebook was solidified, the second round of coding was conducted using these codes. Once the codes were set, five overarching thematic categories that encompassed the majority of the codes were identified and the data was organized accordingly (Riessman, 2008). The five overarching themes that were identified answer the study’s research questions by either focusing on the major influences on students’ identities and/or the social identities students discussed prior to and during college. DesiCrit was then used as an analytical lens to understand how students were being racialized and the power dynamics involved in their racialization.
This led to the critical perspectives presented at the end of this chapter.
The five major themes that arose through the analysis of the data were: 1)
Influence of family and friends on identity; 2) Centrality of race, ethnicity, and religion in
74 defining self; 3) Salience of gender and sexual orientation; 4) Nationality on campus; and
5) College influence on identity. The first theme focuses on the influence of the participants’ family and friends in shaping their identities and how participants see themselves. The first theme was conceptualized and organized based on the two research sub-questions and split the participants’ descriptions and relationships with friends and family prior to college and during college. The second and third themes examined how participants described their social identities prior to and during college and were conceptualized using DesiCrit and the research questions’ interest in the multiple identities of participants. The fourth theme looked at how nationality plays a part in how international and domestic South Asian students see themselves on the college campus.
The fourth theme also addresses the main research question and the second research sub- question and explores how nationality plays a role in the participants’ identity in college.
The fifth theme also addresses the main research question and the second research sub- question by focusing on how the participants described the culture of their college campus and how they felt that college has impacted their identities. The first three themes include participants’ identity negotiations prior to and during college to allow for the fluidity and changing nature of their identities to be seen. The last two themes focus solely on their identity negotiations and experiences within college given the study’s interest in understanding how college influences South Asian identities.
Background of Participants
Table 1-1 illustrates a summary of each participant including their gender, their nationality, the mother tongue of their family, their religious affiliations, and their year
75 and major at RSU. The mother tongue category refers to the native language of their families, though not all participants may speak the language themselves. Twelve of the participants are women and nine are men. Eleven of the participants were categorized by the researcher as international students, and 10 were categorized as domestic students.
The international students all spent their childhood and K-12 years outside of the United
States. All of the South Asian Americans were second generation, meaning all of their parents spent their formative childhood years in India or Pakistan. Divya’s lived experiences do not fit the boundaries of being categorized as an international or domestic student since she was born in the United States and spent about half of her childhood in the US and half in India. For the purposes of this study, I categorized her in the same way that RSU does, as a domestic student since she was born in the United States, but I recognize her experiences blur these boundaries.
The participants represented a range of years, majors, languages, and religions.
Besides Divya, who was a global international studies major, and three business majors, the rest of the participants had STEM related majors. The participants were asked what mother tongue or first language their family spoke which is often a reflection of which parts of the Indian sub-continent their families and/or ancestors are from. Some of the participants talked about their parents’ careers which ranged from mechanics to business men and women to stay at home parents. The majority of participants discussed having regular interactions with family outside of their nuclear family as well. Many international students talked about living in joint families with their parents, aunts, uncles, and grandparents.
76 All of the participants in this study were residential students and lived away from
their families on or near campus. It is also important to note that since part of the
recruitment method for participants was snowball sampling, some of the participants
knew each other prior to the study which could influence findings relate to who their peer
groups are in college. (Aditya recommended Raj and Rohan. Rohan recommended Priya.
Sanjay recommended Ramesh. Ramesh recommended Deepak. Neha recommended
Arushi. Arushi recommended Avani). Brief narratives or vignettes of each of the
participants’ backgrounds can be found in Appendix C.
Table 1- 1 Participant demographics.
Theme One: Influence of Family & Friends on Identity
There were many influences in the lives of the participants including the family
they grew up with and the depth of their friendships. Throughout childhood and into
77 college the most significant relationships students had were with their family and their friends. However, many participants felt that they had to negotiate or compartmentalize their identities depending on the people they were around. This theme begins by discussing familial relationships and their influence on students’ identities in childhood and through college. The family sections are described first by international students and then by domestic students. Each of these sections has a sub-section on how the separation from their families in college influenced their relationship with their families and their identities. The last half of this theme discusses the students’ friendships prior to and during college. Family and friends are presented in the same theme as they were the primary external influences on students’ identities.
International Students and Their Familial Relationships It was common for many of the international participants to live in joint families where extended family live in the same house as them. Ajay explained that he lived in a house with ten of his family members including his mother, father, siblings, grandparents, and uncle. This living structure was common for international participants and led many to discuss the importance and influence of extended family in shaping who they are/were in their childhood years. Jay is the only international student who grew up as an only child with no siblings and just his mother and father in the household.
Most of the international participants reported being very close to their families when they were young and this relationship being strengthened moving into college.
Participants discussed being able to be open with their parents about most aspects of their lives. For example, Rani described her mom and sister as her best friends and talked
78 about how growing up her mom was her role model because she worked at a clinic and took care of everything at home.
Pallavi explained that “parenting was the only thing that really shaped [her growing up]” and she was impressed by the way her dad would handle situations where
Pallavi or her sister “screwed up.” Although Pallavi has a close relationship with her parents and grandparents that she lived with she explained that her parents were very strict and did not let her go places with her friends. Pallavi talked about how although she hates math and science, her father told her she had to do something STEM related especially if she wanted to come to the United States for college. So Pallavi picked a
STEM related major that did not require pure math or science courses. Since coming to college Pallavi looked back on these experiences and described herself as being very
“compliant” when she lived at home and since coming to college has become more intentional about thinking through her decisions. Pallavi said “those decisions were always my parents’ decisions earlier. And now I've started to take a stand for things.”
Similar to Pallavi’s parents, Abhi’s parents put restrictions on what he could do after high school. Abhi recounted how much he loved sports and playing soccer but his parents asked “what if you put everything you have into sports and something happens to you physically?” He said they did not want him to take that kind of risk and he could not talk back to them so he applied to college in the United States. Abhi talked about the struggle of balancing his desires with those of his parents:
Sometimes I feel like because my parents have made such a big investment into
me. That, like, I should be doing things more to like, cater towards them. But
that's not who I am. Obviously, in some ways that is, but in many ways, our
79 opinions about different things may vary. So in the flow, I might be doing
whatever I want. And I'll be like if they knew about this, would they be
disappointed? Obviously, they would, for somethings, and then that kind of makes
you realize, okay, I think it strengthens my own perspective about myself. Or it
weakens it and that way I change. – Abhi
In his comments, Abhi expresses his desire to please his parents and attempts to negotiate this desire. Abhi was very reflective about his life and his decisions and said that he is always open to changing his actions. He also talked about how he was lucky to have parents who were pretty open-minded and who provide him with emotional and financial support. This feeling of wanting to please their parents, displayed by Pallavi and Abhi could be due to what Kodama and colleagues (2002) described as deference to authority and desire to place the needs of their family above the self.
Similar to Pallavi and Abhi, Sanjay expressed being grateful for how much his parents sacrificed for him and wanted to give back to them whenever possible. Sanjay went to a boarding school an eight-hour drive from his parents, so when Sanjay went home he knew that he only had limited time with his parents. He realized their value and loved spending time with them:
Whenever I used to go home, there was this difference between me and my
brother. I would help my mom and my dad for everything. If they needed
anything or maybe just... because my mom doesn't drive, she would ask me if I
could drive her, sometimes go with her shopping or do something. My brother he
says, I don't care, take a bus, take whatever you want, just go yourself, I don't
80 have time. But even if I didn't have time, I made sure that I went with her. These
small things I think, make a big difference. – Sanjay
Sanjay really values his parents and how much they do for him and does everything he can to give back to them. Being separated from his parents, due to boarding school, for a large portion of his childhood strengthened his relationship with them. Sanjay’s brother has a different approach to their mom than Sanjay and their story shows how even within the same family two brothers are different individuals.
All of the international students reported that money was not something they had to think about growing up, except for Deepak. Deepak explained that he lived in a one- bedroom apartment with his mom, dad, and uncle. His mom and dad slept on the couch and his uncle and he slept on the ground with water coolers. This type of cooler required putting ice or cool water on one side of the machine and it blew towards you as a cheap form of air conditioner. He said that things started to get better once his dad’s business expanded and they moved into a bigger apartment. He reflected on his childhood:
I feel like the less you get, the more adjusting or adaptable you get to situations
and I'm really happy with the situation I'm in right now because if I count on my
bad situation in 2004, coming to RSU would have been far out of my reach, right.
It makes me appreciate everything my parents have given me. – Deepak
Deepak said having fewer financial resources made him more appreciative of everything his parents did for him. All of the international students in this study reflected on their parents providing well for them. However, the ways in which parents provided for their children looked different from family to family.
81 Overall the international students felt close with their parents and families growing up and many reported feeling a sense of gratitude towards their parents. When it came to attending college, a couple of the participants talked about negotiating their own desires with those of their parents and felt obligated to take their parents’ advice for things like choosing majors. Similar to Sanjay’s relationship with his family getting stronger after leaving home for boarding school, after going to college, most of the international students remained close with their families.
Separation from Family in College. Many of the international students talked about how attending college half-way around the world from their parents strengthened their relationships with their parents. However, for two of the international participants, going to college meant they engaged in new behaviors that they were not sure their parents would approve of.
Deepak talked about how hard it was when his parents dropped him off at RSU and he was on his own for the first time:
Yeah, so they came here to see me off and when they were leaving, I felt kind of
lost when I was going back the elevator, going back into my room all alone. I was
like, "Okay, what am I going to do?" All my life, I had my parents doing things
for me. Back in India, I'm going to say I was too much dependent on them. And at
that time, I used to say, "I want my own freedom. I need my own space." When I
got my own space, I didn't want that space. You see? So I call my parents every
day, every night before I go to bed, I call them. It's morning in India. So we talk
for a half-hour, then I go to bed and that's how it is. But, yeah, so during the first
part of the semester, like freshman year I was pretty lost. – Deepak
82 Deepak longed for the freedom from his parents, but once he was separated from them, he did not know what to do and started calling them every day. For Rani, her family plays a central role in her life, even when she is half-way across the world from them. Rani took the everyday phone calls a step further and talked to her family three to four times a day. Rani has always been close to her family but feels especially close to her mom now that she is in college:
They have been really supportive. Like, I am so glad I have a family like that.
They have been always supportive… And my mom, like we literally talk like
three, four times a day… my mom wakes me up every day. I just cannot wake up
by myself. So my mom wakes me up and she's like always hyping up because I
don't pick up her call, and I would definitely get late for the class if she did not
call to wake me up. And then I talk to my mom and dad before they go to sleep.
When they wake up, they call me. And then when I go to sleep, I call them. So it's
literally like four times a day. – Rani
Deepak and Rani express a high level of interdependence with family, which is something that is common for some Asian students (Kodama & Maramba, 2017). This is another way in which collectivism plays out in some Asian families (Kodama et al.,
2002). While an increased level of interdependence on family can be expected from
Asian students, Rani is almost too dependent on her Mom. Rani is a young adult and should probably be able to wake up for class by herself. This level of constant interaction with her mom may limit Rani’s ability to fully develop as an independent adult while in college. The development of independence is an assumed result of attending a college in
83 the United States, however often runs counter to the many the values of interdependence present in some Asian families (Kodama et al, 2002).
Charu appreciates the amount of emotional support that her family continues to give her in college. She says:
We [Charu and her mom] talk about everything. Even here [at RSU], when I don't
go to party, she's like, "You should go party every Friday, Saturday, or you will
get depressed." I'm like, "Wow. You're the first parent who will say that." –
Charu
Charu was even surprised by her mom telling her to make sure that she maintains a social life and not focus solely on studying. Charu’s mom is encouraging her to maintain a healthy, balanced, and holistic lifestyle. The holistic development of students is important for their success and can lead to positive developmental outcomes (Evans et al., 2009;
Museus et al., 2016; Poon, 2013).
Charu’s mother is providing emotional support, something that Ajay also described but in a different way. Ajay also talked about how coming to RSU made his relationship with his family even stronger: “Going abroad, and coming here has made that relationship much stronger because now it's not just geographical, and presence. It's all about communicating.” Ajay said even when he changed his major in college his parents did not question why he was doing that and just said "make sure whatever you're doing is resulting in making you happy." Unlike Pallavi and Abhi’s parents, who discussed what their college major should be with them prior to college, Ajay’s parents did not exert influence over his choice in major in college. This allowed Ajay to make decisions based solely on his needs, without having to negotiate the desires of his family.
84 The emotional support that students received from their parents came in different forms.
Charu and Ajay’s parents emotionally supported them by explicitly stating that they do not want them to get depressed or that they care about their happiness. Conversely,
Pallavi and Abhi’s parents are supporting them by giving them advice the parents believe is in the best interests of their children.
Nisha and Rishika both talked about how there are certain things that they do not feel comfortable sharing with their family since coming to college. Although Rishika also talked about being pretty open with and close to her parents, she said when it involves dating and boys “I don't tell my parents, because I mean in some way they're still orthodox.” Nisha also said:
Something as simple as drinking, for example for the longest time my family did
not know… I guess just being okay with the fact that your parents are not going to
be okay with everything you do, as long as you are okay with it, it's fine. – Nisha
Although many international participants felt comfortable being open with their parents even since coming to college, there were still boundaries on what some participants felt comfortable sharing with their parents and some topics were still off- limits in many families. One of these topics included questioning religious identity, which will be discussed in theme two. DesiCrit reminds us that there are constant
“tensions between the traditional cultural practices and those of the dominant culture”
(Harpalani, 2013, p. 106). There is an evident tension between wanting to have the experience of college parties and those of the traditional ideals that prohibit this behavior that then limits what students tell their parents. However, this type of parent-student
85 relationship is something that is also probably typical of all college students and not just
South Asian students.
Domestic Students and Their Familial Relationships All but one of the ten domestic students grew up living only with their nuclear families, which consisted of their mother, father, and at least one sibling. Raj was the exception and grew up as an only child. Most of the international students interviewed reported feeling close to their families, whereas about half of the domestic students felt disconnected from one or both of their parents. Priya and Pooja reported only feeling close to their dads, and Raj and Aditya did not feel close to either of their parents.
One of the domestic participants who expressed feeling close to their family,
Sidra, reflected on how her father was a mechanic supporting a family of five. She said she knows mechanics do not make much, but growing up her dad would never tell them if they were “strapped for money.” She said her parents are not helping her with college tuition but that they are paying for her living expenses, and to Sidra this is more than she can ask of them. She said,
My parents are a big reason that I have the drive that I do. The reason I'm trying
to graduate early is because my parents are a lot older than me. I'm the youngest,
and my parents were pretty ... Not old when they had my brother, but they were
older. Seven years later they had me, and so my dad basically, he can't retire until
I graduate. I'm trying to speed that process up, because I know I'm going to have
to take a gap year for Physician’s Assistant school regardless. I don't have clinical
hours yet. – Sidra
86 Sidra continued by explaining how her dad did so much for her and her family. Sidra feels an obligation to financially give back to her parents, which is one of the reasons why she strives to be a Physician’s Assistant. Sidra explained that peers talk about the need to be passionate about their career choice but she is not compelled by “dreams and stuff”:
I think about it more as my parents get older, because they did so much for us,
you know? God forbid I don't pay them back with half of what they did for us,
because everything I do nowadays is literally just for parents. Just because I don't
want to disappoint them, you know… I don't want what they did for us to be
pointless. Dad probably came here to give us a better life, and I'm going to use
that to the fullest. – Sidra
Sidra was explicit about her obligation and desire to make her immigrant parents proud since they sacrificed so much to give her the life she has. Sidra’s responsibility to her parents is what drives most of her decisions. She recognizes the sacrifices they made as immigrants to give her the life she has and wants first and foremost to be able to give back to them.
Rohan talked about how he has a good relationship with his parents where he can be open with them about most things. Rohan talked about how his parents came to the
United States for college so they “had an idea of American culture just like the ideals of
Western cultures and stuff like that.” His parents’ knowledge of American culture helped to reduce the generational and cultural gaps that many second generation South Asian
Americans face with their immigrant parents. Roy (1998) described “generation gaps” to be more prominent between immigrant parents and their children since parents often do
87 not understand the negotiations their children make growing up in American culture.
However, in Rohan’s case his parents attending college in the United States probably led them to have a better understanding of experiences that Rohan may have growing up in the United States.
Similar to Rohan’s rationale that having parents who understood American culture made it easier to connect with them, Priya felt that was the reason she was closer to her dad. Priya explained:
I love both of my parents but my dad, I feel like his Americanism, we connect
more and we have the same sense of humor whereas my mom doesn't get that
humor. She doesn't get it. My dad keeps up with American news and stuff
whereas my mom doesn't really know so we always have that disconnect. And
we're just very different people. Since coming to college, I wish I were closer to
my family as I was when I was living with them permanently. I do talk to them
every day, sometimes I'll forget but I am not as close with them. My brother, I've
just never been close with because we are six years apart. – Priya
Priya expressed wishing to be closer to her whole family and that the differences between her and her mom having been raised in two different countries made it hard to connect with her. To Priya, Americanism meant that her Dad was more aware of contemporary
American news and culture. This allowed for Priya and her Dad to have more in common, which made it easier for them to be close.
Priya also recalls feeling trapped in high school because her parents did not let her do everything her white friends could do, like going out late or having sleepovers. She said her parents begged her aunts and uncles from Illinois and India to move to their same
88 neighborhood. In high school two other sets of aunts and uncles moved into her house which meant there were three families temporarily in her house:
I don't even know how to describe it. It's so suffocating. I regret it now but I was
really mean to them because I was like... nobody had my room but still my one
aunt she's the loudest person I know so her voice always rung through the house
and I was like shut up. I was such a horrible teen. I just really felt like I was in
violation of my rights. My privileged rights. – Priya
Priya said it is nice to have family nearby most of the time, now that everyone is in their own home. She talked about a previous boyfriend that no one knew about and how hard it was to hang out with him; for example, when they drove through the neighborhood she made him bend down in the car so she wouldn’t get caught by all of her family who lived in the neighborhood.
Aditya also felt constrained by his strict parents growing up. Aditya explained that as the oldest child his immigrant parents were very protective of him so he was not allowed to hang out with any of his friends outside of school. He is not close to his parents and said “I barely know anything about my parents. I've seen one picture of my mom when she was younger. They don't tell me anything.” Aditya felt resentment towards his parents growing up, which is also reflected in the next section when he talks about his lack of friendships, which he blames on his parents.
Pooja also talked about resenting her mom growing up. She described being closer to her Dad, who started working in New York and only came home to
Pennsylvania on the weekends. Pooja talked about how hard this was for her:
89 I mean I was ... I wouldn't say suicidal at one point, I just definitely struggled a
lot…And then also my dad [being away was hard]. I was never very close to my
mom. I found out this summer actually, because it was a big thing with my sister
this summer, but my mom always never gave me attention because she always
just saw that I could handle things myself. Then sometimes when I did need her
she would just be like, "Oh, she's fine." She would just give me tough love
because she knew that I would be fine. But at certain times when I did need her, I
would just be mad at her. I was never really close to her. And my dad would baby
me in those situations. I was just always closer to him. – Pooja
She explained that it was hard for her mom to work full time and give proper attention to both her and her sister. Pooja said her older sister always needed more attention because she would be in and out of principals’ offices and would tell extravagant lies for attention.
Overall the domestic students had more complicated relationships with their parents than the international students who all felt close to their parents. This could be due to the fact that being second generation immigrants, the domestic students in this study grew up in different countries than their immigrant parents, which made it hard for some of the students to connect with their parents. The parents of these participants were first generation, meaning they were born in South Asia and immigrated to the United
States later in life, whereas their children are second generation and were born in the
United States (Kodama et al., 2001). This means the students and their parents have different levels of acculturation and have had to negotiate their identities in different ways (Andreouli, 2003). Since their parents immigrated later in life they do not have
90 first-hand experience of what it is like for their children to be constantly negotiating their identities between what is accepted in their family and at their American schools. This makes students feel like their parents do not understand them and contributes to the complicated relationships some domestic students felt with their parents. The separation from their parents as they entered college caused some domestic students to feel a further divide from their parents.
Separation from Family in College. Many of the domestic students felt their time in college caused there to be identity incongruence between who they were becoming and who their parents thought they were. This incongruence was contrary to many of the international students who felt closer to their parents in college. Six of the ten domestic participants felt their relationships with their parents were not as strong since coming to college.
Raj felt conflicted between who he is since coming to college and who his family thinks he is and responded:
My family doesn't know who I am at all. Yeah. See, my cousins were really raised
in India, with the exception of three of them. And my cousins are all like brothers
and sisters to me. They kind of know the stupid stuff I do. But, in terms of my
parents, my aunts, and uncles, no. Every time they ask me, are you dating anyone
else? Just nope. I just don't want them to know, and I don't care for them [to
know]. – Raj
Since coming to college, Raj said he does not even call his parents once a week because he gets annoyed by them asking, “how are your grades?” Although he said he always felt supported by his parents, especially financially, he preferred being by himself
91 at RSU. This separation between home and college was important to him so he does not visit home often.
Aditya talked about struggling prior to college. He said:
I thought I was always out of my depth for everything. I didn't really ask for help,
because I feel like one of the things, whenever you grow up in an Indian family,
you have to do everything on your own. And it's not bad to ask for help, but it's
looked down on... and you’re like “I don't know how to do this.” My parents are
like “just go Google it” and I'm like “that's not how it works.” – Aditya
Aditya’s remarks that he had to do everything on his own growing up runs counter to the way many international students and some domestic described their parents as supportive. Aditya was frustrated with his parents’ approach and mentioned that his parents “always had one way of thinking” that they imposed on him. Since coming to college, Aditya can be independent and be who he wants to be. His time in college also allowed him to realize that it is okay to be lost and that it is okay to ask for help, even though he was raised to think otherwise. Aditya talked about feeling free since coming to college and now the only time he really speaks to his parents is when they call and say
"you're spending too much money." He continued:
It's gotten to the point where I'm here [at RSU], it means I'm on my own and I'm
okay with that. I prefer that. Whenever I was back home, they're always watching
over my shoulder, which is painful. – Aditya
Priya also felt like her parents were watching and judging her every action when she lived at home. Priya felt more like herself since coming to college:
92 I just feel like coming here [to RSU] and being able to do whatever I want was
just something that shaped me into more of who I am. When you're at home and
you are forced to be like what your parents want you to be because they give you
everything, you're not yourself. And you're coming here and being able to drink
and go out and party and talk to boys, it's like you find yourself kind of and what
you like and what you don't like. At home you kind of have to suppress it in a
way. – Priya
Priya felt that she owes her parents because they “give you everything” and what she means by this is not just financial support but love, guidance, and the many sacrifices that come with immigration to the United States. Because of this she acts one way at home and behaves the way they want while suppressing her own desires to keep her parents happy. Priya said that she has a better sense of who she is now that she has been able to experience things without having a “glass eye” on her at all times. She describes being on her own at college as “liberating.” DesiCrit illustrates tensions, such as this, that
South Asian Americans often have to navigate between their traditional parental expectations and those of dominant American culture they are living in (Harpalani,
2013), such as a PWI.
Sidra felt similar to Priya and also feels the need to suppress parts of herself around her parents. Sidra wishes she could be honest with her parents about who she is in college. She says that she feels conflicted about her identity all the time since coming to college, especially with her parents. Sidra explained:
To somebody else, what I'm doing now, it's not even bad. I don't drink, I don't
smoke, I don't do anything like that. My idea of a good time is game night, all I do
93 is study. But I think if it were up to my parents, I'd definitely be more religious,
you know. I wouldn't have the friends I do. I think my views of the world would
be a lot different, just because again they are very religious, so a lot of things that
I do they think of, I guess as sinful. If I thought that what I was doing was bad, I
wouldn't be doing it. I kind of go to the whole, what they don't know won't hurt
them kind of thing. Because to anybody else, it's just me being a college student.
It's me being a very mild, PG college student. But to them, it's on a different scale,
and in order for me to keep my sanity, and them to keep their sanity, I kind of just
kind of have to break it apart. I'm one person at home. Personality-wise, I'm the
same. But what they ... And it's kind of sad, because they don't know their kids,
you know? – Sidra
Sidra wishes she could tell her parents everything, but she says that she does not want to hurt or upset them if she is doing something they do not agree with. She wishes it were different but said there is no point fighting with them because “they are not going to change.” She does not necessarily want them to change but wishes they were more accepting of her and acknowledged that after a certain age kids need to make their own decisions. Sidra wishes her parents were more open to knowing and accepting the full version of herself, however, throughout her interview she repeatedly speaks about her parents with gratitude and a sense of indebtedness for everything they have done for her.
Although Sidra is not participating in behaviors that may be deemed unacceptable to others, she still feels the need to hide some of her identity from her family because of the dissonance between the expectations of her parents and the societal influences of being in college at a PWI.
94 Pooja dreamed about getting out of her parents’ house growing up and said that she is a lot more present now and is “living the good life” in college. Pooja enjoyed having “more freedom than being in an Indian household” when she went to college.
However, even in college her parents track her whereabouts through her cell phone and were trying to do her apartment application for her. Pooja discussed setting boundaries with her parents and told them that she could handle it and if she makes a mistake then she will learn from it. Pooja described having to negotiate the control her parents want to have over her and wanting to experience freedom away from their influence. When asked about parts of her identity she feels she has to compartmentalize, she replied that she is pretty open with her parents, but “obviously there's some few things that my parents can't know about me, like I drink or about my boyfriend.” Sexuality is something that is not explored in the families that many of these students grew up in. Her story illustrates the negotiation between campus culture where exploring sexuality is normal and her home culture by only including portions of her campus life to those at home.
Overall, for domestic students college was a time where students could figure out who they wanted to be and how they wanted to behave without the direct influence of their parents. Although international students also described their parents influencing their lives into their college years, they did not seem to mind it and spoke positively about it. However, some domestic students wanted there to be boundaries between their parents’ influence over their identities and behaviors. Many of the participants were aware of the expectations of their families and in an attempt to not disappoint their parents, students reported acting differently or suppressing parts of their identity to align with their parents’ expectations of them. In all of these stories, the students are making
95 decisions on how to negotiate their identities based on internal influences and external influences, such as family (Kodama et al., 2002).
International Students and Friendships International Students’ Childhood Friends. The majority of international students did not elaborate on their friendships in childhood. Many discussed how moving homes as children impacted their friendships. Some of their friendships were based on shared interests. Rani, for example, said that girls were not into sports and because she played track, basketball, badminton and lawn tennis, most of her friends were boys.
Sanjay described his friends as being his family since he went to boarding school with them and spent as much time with them as family members:
I ate with them, we had bunk beds, so I would sleep with them. We shared all our
family experiences, family personal things, because we were the only ones
together. – Sanjay
Boarding school provided the opportunity for Sanjay to make close and deep friendships unlike Abhi, who had a transient population at his school. Abhi talked about the difficulties of attending an international school in relation to making friends since the people who tend to enroll in international schools move frequently:
And in India, starting middle school, I realized every year, I would have like two
or three friends who I would call my best friends. But then they would move
away. So then new year, new friends, and the same thing would happen. But then
coming into high school, like, I realized, the people start to stay because families
don't want to move when their kids are in high school. So you have longer lasting
friendships. – Abhi
96 Attending an international school meant that his peers and their families were constantly moving and Abhi did not have any long-term friendships until high school.
Nisha and Jay also mentioned how moving as a child impacted their friendships.
Both of their fathers had transferrable jobs, which meant they moved around places. They both talked about meeting lots of new people and Nisha mentioned that as social media emerged she could stay in touch with people she had met. Nisha also mentioned being friends with a mix of people growing up and then when her family moved to another city there was a “different dynamic all together.” This relocation meant her friend groups changed throughout childhood.
Pallavi described her friends as being very simple and a fluid group of people.
She explained that she did not have a lot of friends and was never allowed to go out and party. Rather, Pallavi and her friends enjoyed going to the mall, watching movies, and getting food together. Even though the importance of friendship is evident, the international student stories were limited about how exactly their friendships influenced their identities prior to college. It seemed although family was a bigger external influence on international students’ identities than friends. Many of the international students attributed their difficulty in making friendships to their families moving frequently.
However, the international students did not talk about their race being a barrier to making friendships in their childhood like some of the domestic students. In the next section, international students discuss times when they had to compartmentalize parts of their identity from their friends and family.
Compartmentalizing Identity. A couple of the international participants talked about how they felt the need to compartmentalize their “Americanness” from their
97 childhood friends since going to college in the United States. Sanjay said he had to compartmentalize parts of his identity at times depending on who is watching. He was especially conscious of not acting “too Americanized” when he returned to his friends in
India. Sanjay expresses this delicate balance between his Indian roots and being careful not to act “too American.”
Pallavi reported feeling conflicted between who she has become since coming to college and when she first went back to India. She said she really had to think about the way she behaves at RSU versus in India because now she has experienced things that her family and friends back home have not. She explained:
If I go back with even the slightest of pride that “Oh, I am from somewhere else
now.” That's really going to be bad for my reputation and my friendships, people
are not going to appreciate that. – Pallavi
Like Sanjay, Pallavi does not want to act “too American” in the fear that others will see this as a separation from Indian roots and heritage. Being too American could also be construed by their friends in India as if the participants are better than them now that they have studied in the United States. This could also be connected to the view that whiteness is better than non-whiteness. This ideology is a result of the lasting effects of colonialism in the minds of South Asians, which Prakash (1992) described as powerful forces in shaping their identities. As such, Pallavi is mindful of how she comes across when she is back in India and acts humble and does not brag about studying in the United
States. Studying in the United States is viewed as a privilege in India and by being afforded this opportunity, Indian students do not want to be perceived as being better than their peers who stayed in India. Pallavi continues:
98 So, I had to be extra mindful of the way I am with my peers from back home.
Like I cannot be all sassy with them that, “Oh, I know you are from here. I went
to the US like.” That sort of behavior. Even if it's not a big deal for me anymore,
if I'm studying here or not, if I showed the lightest of hints of such a behavior, of
being proud of this in a bad way, then they're not going to like it. They probably
will feel offended… When I go to India with my mom, dad, and my friends, I
have to make sure that I don't portray, “Oh I’m better than you all.” You have to
really watch your actions, and your words and the way you're behaving with
them, because they don't deserve this sassy attitude. – Pallavi
She compartmentalizes and changes the way she negotiates parts of her identity depending on who she is around:
And especially the way I am with Indians, the way I am around white people, the
way I am with people who are Brown but not Indians, the way I am with family
here [in the United States], versus family in India versus friends in India. I have
seven different personalities for each one of them. – Pallavi
The compartmentalization of identity is dependent upon who Pallavi is with, but she recognizes that her college friends are the only ones with whom she can be her true self.
Based on Kodama and others (2002), Pallavi is experiencing polarizing pulls from both her Indian influences and her American university influence that seemingly both complement and contradict her identities. This is also supported by Yeh & Huang’s
(1996) study that suggested that Asian identities are strongly influenced by others.
International Students’ College Friends. For most of the international students, their college friendships are more important than those of childhood and often included
99 other international students. Prior to college, international student stories conveyed the frequency of moving and the lack of deep and meaningful friendships. Pallavi described her college friends as being “literally like family.” She explained that she had a group of ten friends, a mix of men and women, from India at RSU and they lived together from freshman year until now. Pallavi said she felt really lucky to have found such great friends who all get along and that there is “no animosity between anyone, it’s beautiful.”
Jay also talked about forming deep friendships with other international students from
India and Dubai. Jay said they have lived together for three years and enjoyed the
“bonding and friendship.”
For the most part, all of the international students had other international students as their closest friends and talked about having other South Asian friendships. Rishika talked about being friends with other international students from India; Ajay described his friends as his biggest support system at RSU; Charu described her friends as being her family at RSU. Rani was the only international student who reported not having any close
Indian friends at RSU; her best friends are her international orientation leaders and are from Yemen. There is no single way in which friendships influenced identity for international students but it is evident that for international students having a close group of friends at RSU was essential since they were so far away from home.
Besides Rani, all of the international students reported having close South Asian friends who were also international students. This is aligned with research, which shows that students in college tend to have more feelings of closeness with their same-ethnic group peers compare to those of different ethnicities (Thelamour, George Mwangi, &
Ezeofor; 2019). This could also be due to the ways international South Asian students
100 become informally racialized (Harpalani, 2013) on the college campus. This type of racialization based sometimes on their accents could make them feel excluded from the rest of the population and lead to friendships primarily with other international students.
The informal racialization based on having an accent is discussed further in the fourth theme on nationality as well as through the lens of DesiCrit at the end of this chapter. In the next section, domestic students also express having close friendships with primarily other South Asian students in college.
Domestic Students and Their Friendships Domestic Students’ Childhood Friends. In comparison to the international students, the domestic students seemed to struggle more with creating friendships during childhood in the United States. Many expressed the desire of wanting to fit in and the struggles of being one of the only people of color; this impacted their friendships and caused some to look for friendships outside of the school environment. Some also experienced a little resentment towards their parents for being over protective and causing them to miss opportunities to create friendships, like Aditya:
I didn't really have [any friends]... so my parents were very protective when I was
in high school. I would have my friends at school, most of them guys and stuff.
Because of the way our classes were at school, you'd basically only be friends
with the people in your classes. There was a group of us who always in our AP
classes and everyone would only take the AP classes, so we would only know
each other and we wouldn't know anyone else below those classes. – Aditya
Aditya’s only friends were those he had classes with at school and since he was not allowed to spend time with friends outside of school he did not develop deep
101 friendships in his childhood years. He explained that the only people he saw outside of school were his family friends’ Indian children.
Divya primarily talked about friendships during the first half of her childhood in the United States:
In my neighborhood, I was the only Brown person and some people didn’t want
to hang out with me because I looked different. But there was this girl that lived
across the street and she and her friends were so welcoming and accepting.
Without even having to ask, they looked past what I looked like and were
willingly embracing my identity and my culture. But not that many people are like
that. And so, I was always looked at differently because even in my elementary
school there were only a handful of us of color so we definitely stood out. – Divya
Being the only person of color meant it was harder to make friends at school.
Similarly, Avani talked about being the only Brown person in her friend group. Due to this, Avani sometimes felt the need to close off parts of her identity when she was with her white friends. When Avani was with her white friends she felt the need to assimilate and suppress parts of her Indian identity that made her feel different, for example language and food. She struggled to find words to explain it further by saying “I have to kind of, I don't know. I'm not embarrassed of it, but I feel like it's just weird.” She goes on to say that others say she is “white-washed” and not Indian enough which leaves her in a state of fluid identity. Using a DesiCrit lens, Avani is showing her lack of agency in claiming a racial status and, at the same time, being ascribed to another by external influences. This concept of whiteness within the South Asian community will be explored more in depth at the end of chapter four.
102 Some of the participants met their closest friends outside of school. Arushi and
Pooja both talked about meeting most of their close friends through their participation in
Bollywood dance. Sidra said she and her family spent time with the local Pakistani community regularly. While she had Pakistani friends through this community, they were never the same age as her. Sidra felt alienated in her early childhood but then had a pretty good mix of friends in high school who were all very understanding of each other. Sidra described this group of friends as misfits, “we knew we were a weird group. We were all losers too, we were all ugly.” Sidra said she was known “as the smart Brown girl” which was acceptable to her because she was unable to fit into the normed look and behavior of other students in her predominately white high school. Sidra’s story is an example of the monolithic lens of the model minority myth (Harpalani, 2013), which excluded her other identities. Sidra’s academic performance allowed for her peer group to accept her only in this one way and probably influenced her to think of herself only as a “smart Brown girl” and think negatively of her other identities.
Many reported high school as the time where they were able to solidify friendships. Neha and Priya’s friend groups shifted throughout childhood and it was not until high school where they both discussed making good friends who they still talk to now. Raj grew up in Canada, California, and New Jersey. He did not have many friends growing up because his family moved around so much and he was only able to keep in touch with one or two of them. Raj explained that most of his friends were from high school and they are like family to him. He said that moving so much as a kid taught him how to talk to people and make friends which made it easier to make friends later in life.
Overall many of the domestic students struggled to make friends in school during their
103 childhood years potentially because many discussed being the only Brown students in their schools. College was a time where many domestic students were able to find close friendships through the South Asian community.
Domestic Students’ College Friends. The majority of domestic students met their close college friends through their involvement with “Browntown.” Browntown is a term that a couple of participants used to describe other Brown people at RSU and is further discussed in the fifth theme. Rohan described having Indian friends since coming to college. He met many of his close friends through his involvement with the South
Asian Society (SAS) on campus and they encouraged him to get in touch with his Indian side of his identity. Neha also talked about meeting a lot of her close friends through SAS and hanging out with them at socials, and events. Arushi and Pooja talked about most of their friends being from Browntown. Pooja said that her group of friends is nice, supportive, and understand the whole “strict-parent thing.” Kodama et al. (2002) discussed how having friends of the same race can reduce the amount of negotiations students need to make. Of course, negotiations still exist even with same race friends as each South Asian family is different and may have varying values and expectations of their children.
Priya said she has a couple of Brown friends but described the majority of her friends at RSU as being “very white.” Sidra said she would never tell her parents because they would not approve, but the majority of her friends in college are guys. Sidra and
Divya both described their friends as racially diverse. Divya prides herself on having friends from all walks of life and different friend groups but explained that she had to talk differently depending on who she was around. Divya explained that the way she talks to
104 her Indian friends in comparison to her white American friends differs in the types of slang and colloquial phrases that she uses. Having friends of different races and nationalities meant that Divya had to negotiate which parts of her identity to show in a given situation. Overall domestic students spoke more positively about their friendships in college than throughout their childhood. This could be due to the fact that for the majority of domestic students they found other Brown students to be friends with in college, many of which did not have other Brown friends in their primary and secondary school experiences.
Summary Family and friends played varying roles for international and domestic students and their identity from childhood into college. Family was especially central to the way students negotiated their identity. International students expressed feeling closer to their parents throughout childhood and felt even closer during college, whereas half of the domestic students said they did not feel close to one or more of their parents in childhood and some talked about feeling distant from their parents in college. Both groups of students talked about having to negotiate parts of their identity to please their parents.
Friendships also played a role in both international and domestic students’ lives.
International students discussed having difficulty creating friendships in early childhood due to their families moving, whereas domestic students had difficulty creating friendships due to oftentimes being the only Brown student in their class. This also led to domestic students to face racist comments often made by their “friends” in childhood, which will be discussed further in the next theme. However, both groups talked about having close, same race/ethnicity friendships in college, except for Rani. For both
105 international and domestic students, intraracial friendships in college provided an alternative space for connection on their predominantly white campus (Thelamour,
George Mwangi, & Ezeofor; 2019). The next theme will delve deeper into the race, ethnicity, and religious identities of the participants.
Theme Two: Centrality of Race, Ethnicity, and Religion in Defining Self
As DesiCrit theory suggests, the centrality of race and the intersection with other identities is evident in the majority of participants’ stories. This theme explores how participants thought about and discussed the salience of their racial and religious identities at two different points in time; first during their childhood years and second during their college years. Under this larger and more general umbrella of race/ethnicity, the experiences of international and domestic students are reported separately because they varied depending on the country the participants grew up in. Being in the racial majority, most international students did not think about race until they left their home countries for college. Whereas domestic students, who grew up in the racial minority, had to think about their race their whole lives. These sections on the centrality of race and ethnicity for international and domestic students are followed by sub-sections that include all participants’ stories. These sub-sections focus on dating in relation to their race, labels or terms used to describe themselves or that others have used to describe them, personal narratives related to the model minority myth, and experiences with racism.
Centrality of Race & Ethnicity International Students & Race. Every international student interviewed, who grew up in their home countries, expressed not thinking about their race prior to college.
106 When describing their childhood experiences in school most reported having positive experiences and did not mention race as being a topic that they thought about. These participants immediately went from being in the racial majority to being in the racial minority when they arrived at RSU. This meant coming to the United States for college was the first time many international students thought about their race. Ajay explained “I think it [race] wasn't important to me, because everyone was the same race” as he reflected on his childhood growing up in India. However, in response to how salient race was in college, he said his views “100 percent changed:”
I was never exposed to a lot of races when I was in high school and back home
because it was all basically [the same]. There were definitely different religions
and different backgrounds and cultures, but race was not like, way apparent. But
here, since it's a global campus, and everyone from the world is here, I think I'm
very like, open, and welcoming to all races, and cultures now. – Ajay
For the majority of international students, like Ajay, coming to the United States for college was the first time that they experienced being surrounded by many different races of students. However, suddenly being in the racial minority caused burdens that international students were facing for the first time. This is similar to Fries-Britt, George
Mwangi, and Peralta’s (2014), model on how international students learn about race in the United States. In this model, the international students have an unexamined (United
States based) racial identity in their home country that is challenged by American racism when they move to the United States (Fries-Britt, George Mwangi, & Peralta; 2014).
Pallavi explained how after coming to the United States for college, she knew she was different, and because she was not white people looked at her differently and judged her.
107 Pallavi commented on how when you are a person of color in the United States you are not only responsible for how others perceive you but how they perceive your entire race:
I always had that feeling that, whatever I do, my actions can be associated with
my color. Like if I screw up, if I'm seen smoking a cigarette outside, if I'm seen,
like doing whatever, being mean to someone for whatever reason, or if I get into
an argument with someone, it's going to directly affect their understanding of my
color. They are going to associate it with all Indians. – Pallavi
People of color in the United States often get stereotyped and tokenized as being representations of their entire racial group (Kanter, 1977). This responsibility for acting on behalf of not only herself but her entire race is burdensome and puts undue pressure on underrepresented students. Pallavi’s concern is explicitly stated in the above story that her actions will be associated with all Indians. According to DesiCrit, this is another example of how South Asian students become informally racialized, based on their skin color, in the United States. Although DesiCrit was written for South Asian Americans, parts are applicable to international South Asian students while they are in the United
States.
Some of the international students also brought up issues of racial discrimination they faced for the first time since coming to college. Rishika explained that since coming to the United States she noticed times when a white person had to choose between a white person and a Brown person for an opportunity. She stated that “even if the Brown person was more deserving, the white would have been chosen because they’re white.”
Rishika continued:
108 At first, I thought there's all this racial discrimination and all. I used to hear about
it a lot but I was like, probably it's just very rare and it doesn't take place. We
don't need to do that in this generation. As I've come to college, I've really seen
that happen. So that was pretty shocking…I've seen some people actually get
discriminated towards just because they're a different color. And that's pretty sad.
– Rishika
Rishika’s comments highlight her hope about racial equity in the United States; she thought racial discrimination was something past generations dealt with, not current ones. The narratives of Rishika and Pallavi yield sub-themes of discrimination and racism that will be discussed in depth later in this section. International students had a significant change in the way they thought about race prior to coming to college in the United States with their experiences after attending. This change in the salience of race was more significant for international students than for domestic students who were made aware of their race at a younger age prior to college.
Domestic Students & Race. In comparison to the experiences of international students, the majority of domestic students felt their race was a salient part of their identity through childhood and into their college experience. Some central themes discussed were the differences in values of their South Asian families, a lack of understanding from their non-South Asian friends about these values, a desire to “fit in” with others by acting white, and the feelings of being ashamed of their culture.
Neha discussed the struggle of growing up with non-Indian friends and how they did not always understand certain aspects of Indian culture or familial expectations. She commented:
109 I feel like Indian people have different values compared to people that are not
Indian… My friends don't understand when I just can't go out of the house… I
have to stay home with my family. There are just certain things that they don't get.
I'm just so used to it. I don't even think about it. – Neha
Neha’s mom explained that until she buys her own home, she will have to live with the house rules. Some of these values that Neha allude to are in opposition to the Western values of individualism and independence (Kodama et al., 2002). Oftentimes the familial expectations and influences are stronger for South Asian students and they have to negotiate the expectations of their family with those of the dominant culture (Kodama et al., 2002). Neha expressed how frustrating it was that her non-South Asian friends do not understand the expectations of her family. Neha's story illustrates how difficult it can be for students to constantly have to reconcile these two forces.
There were a couple of students who talked about being “white-washed” by acting or dressing white. DesiCrit refers to this whitening of South Asians as a way to deal with their racial ambiguity in the United States (Harpalani, 2013). Some of these assertions were self-imposed and some were put upon participants by others. Arushi discussed growing up in a predominantly white town where the popular reality show,
“Housewives” is filmed. She said, “All my friends make fun of me for it. They're like,
‘Oh, so that's why you're so white-washed.’” When talking about what it was like growing up there Arushi said “it actually was just very different because I was surrounded by all these people who essentially just weren't Brown.” She mentioned intentionally joining Bollywood dance because it helped her “stay connected with India,
110 the culture, the race and everything.” For many domestic students finding a balance between trying to assimilate while keeping their racial and cultural roots was challenging.
Aditya talked about how he purposely dresses white and has a white haircut:
My dad, has been recently like, “Shave your beard.” Because he's like, “You look
Muslim.” And I'm like, “That's not true.” And I say, “Dad, I have a white
haircut.” I was like, “I have this haircut. I dress this way, so that people don't
mistake me for that…” I think in that sense, a lot of people don't view me as
Indian, they view me as white, because I don't really align myself with our
culture, but I made myself seem that way. I don't make myself seem traditionally
Indian. I'm not wearing traditional clothes or anything. So, in that sense, I seem
very white. I feel like it's made it easier to talk to people in that sense, because
they're less on guard in a way. – Aditya
Aditya’s conversation with his dad about his haircut and not wanting to be mistaken as a Muslim has elements of Islamophobia. The history of Hindus and Muslims in the South Asian sub-continent and the perception of Muslims as dangerous in the
United States has led to tensions within the community that are still present today. Aditya consciously made efforts to fit in with his white peers by dressing like them, talking like them, and getting what he deemed as a “white haircut.” He talked about how since others viewed him as being essentially white it allowed him to have more open communications with his non-South Asian peers. This idea of needing to act or dress “white” to be able to interact openly or fit in with non-South Asians is prevalent in the participants’ stories.
This phenomenon of wanting to be white could be due to the idea that white is equated with being American (Devos & Banaji, 2005). Unfortunately, this mindset often led to
111 participants giving up portions of their racial and ethnic identities or feeling ashamed of these parts of their identity that they deem as making them less American. These students find themselves in a delicate balance between maintaining pride in their heritage while trying to belong to a white American school or college campus.
Shame vs. Pride in Domestic Students. Some of the South Asian American students talked about feelings of being ashamed or embarrassed about their race or ethnicity. This can be attributed to their desire to “fit-in” with their predominantly white
American friends in childhood or their predominantly white college campus. This desire to “fit-in” during their K-12 schooling was complicated by their South Asian names, by their skin color, and their cultural differences.
Divya described the struggles of growing up as one of the few students of color in her elementary school and how she would get frustrated that no one took the time to learn how to pronounce her name correctly:
My name is a really big part of me. But, some people ask like if it's such a
struggle or if you could, would you change your name if you could do it all over
again? No! I love my name. What do you mean? – Divya
She was outraged that someone would suggest that the solution to others not learning to say her name was for her to switch her own name. Sidra had a similar experience growing up in a primarily white neighborhood and school. Sidra explained that as the only student of color in her white class she wanted to fit in and belong but it was difficult:
I hated that thing where it was like, "Let's go around in a circle and say our
names!" I still kind of hate it to this day, just because I'm so traumatized by it.
112 And people were like, Emily, Michael, John. I'm like, [Sidra]. And they were like,
"What?" And I'm like, [Sidra]. And they were like, "Oh, okay." And then I never
got called on. – Sidra
Sidra said she just wanted to fit-in so badly especially in elementary school and hated that even her name made her stand out. For Sidra, her story conveys a sense of hurt because her South Asian-sounding name excluded her from the system to which she tried so hard to belong. This form of informal racialization ascribed Sidra to a racial status that she was unable to control and will be discussed further at the end of the chapter.
Likewise, Arushi also talked about her South Asian name:
[My name] would spark up conversations because [everyone else] had these basic,
easy to pronounce names… I would always be that one student, my teacher's like,
“Wait, sorry. How do you say your name?” – Arushi
These incidents where students feel singled out because of their names can cause them to have negative views of their racialized identity. The pronunciation of non-Western names can have a deep impact on the way children see themselves and their culture (Kohli &
Solózano, 2012).
This desire to fit in carried into the college experience for some. Avani recounted a time when she heard someone on campus speaking in Hindi really loudly:
I was just like "Oh gosh." It's not embarrassing, but a little bit. Because then what
do people think about... Because then people see us and they're like, "Oh yeah.
You're like that too." – Avani
Avani also talked about her diverse set of friendships in comparison to how some
Indians are friends with only other Indians and said “I wasn't embarrassed or weird about
113 it, but I was just like, I don't want to only be friends with Indian people.” She put a lot of value on what non-South Asians thought of her and when asked if she felt the need to compartmentalize parts of her identity she said “sometimes with my white friends I’m not embarrassed of [my culture], but I feel like it’s just weird.” Avani seemed to be struggling with maintaining her South Asian identity and not wanting to be “othered” based on the languages she speaks or the race of her friends. Like many of the other participants, Avani struggled to balance being proud of her race and culture while still fitting in with non-South Asians.
Sidra also went through a time where she felt ashamed of parts of her racial and ethnic identity, but she also talks about how she worked through her shame and now feels proud of her ethnicity:
I was super ashamed when I was younger, of being Brown and being Muslim and
everything. I hate thinking back to this one thing… During the Halloween parties
or Christmas parties, parents would bring in snacks… and watch the costume
parade and stuff. I remember wanting my parents there, but also not kind of
wanting my parents there, just because they were the different ones. My mom
doesn't speak English. My dad, he knows English, and he learned English at his
age, which now I give him props for. English is such a fricking hard language.
But back then, he had an accent and stuff, and I just wanted to fit in, be one of the
white kids, you know? Yeah, I was super ashamed when I was younger. As I got
older, it's something that I ... I used that shame back then to make up for it now. I
think because I was raised the way I was with my parents, I think it's made me
who I am today, which I'm very proud of who I am today. – Sidra
114 Sidra’s perspective of her culture shifted as she got older and was able to reflect on some of her childhood experiences. Kim’s (1981) model helps explain why Sidra had stronger influences from her peers in the school environment. Kim’s model defines the second stage or “white identification stage” as a time where racial prejudice is prevalent and the
South Asian child wants to distance themselves from their Asian heritage. Now, Sidra describes feeling proud of her father, displaying the fourth stage or the “redirection stage” of Kim’s (1981) model in which there is a return to and a reconnection with and pride of
Asian heritage. Although Sidra’s story reflects elements of these stages, it is important to note that her identity development is not linear and reflected constant identity negotiations.
For a lot of participants, the most important thing was to assimilate with their peers. Rohan reflected on ways his race played out in his childhood:
I always could define myself as like a white Indian or something like that. And all
my friends, whatever they did, I did…People gave me a hard time for not eating
meat… So I guess maybe it wasn't a positive relationship I had with my culture in
the beginning, just because like I was getting bullied for it. You know what I
mean? And then I was just like, just stay normal, don't bring any attention to
yourself and stuff like that. As in with Indian culture and stuff like that, I was
really ignorant to the fact that I knew nothing about Indian culture. My parents
taught me something like I eat Indian food and stuff like that, but I didn't know
anything about like different religions and different sects of Indians. And when I
got into college, that was like a real eye-opening experience for me for sure. –
Rohan
115 Rohan continued to talk about how after coming to college his race became much more salient:
In high school, I really tried to stay with the status quo and stuff like that. College,
I really kind of threw that out the window. Especially with my freshman year in
the books, my parents were like, “What happened to you man?” Not in a bad way,
but they were just like, “Man. Who are you? You really kind of just went 180 on
it, honestly.” I think I really do think about it [his race and culture] a lot more. I
think it's really important to be aware of your culture, religion, values, and stuff
like that and like really take pride in it… and accept that it's a part of you and
embrace it. – Rohan
Similar to Sidra, Rohan went from just wanting to fit-in with his non-South Asian peers to being proud of his culture, religion, and race. During his childhood, Rohan almost tried to write off anything that was Indian about him. He talked about being around a lot of white people and having a very “normal life” and an American upbringing. Rohan said to himself as a child “just stay normal” and normal meant not
Indian to him at that time. College was the game-changer in terms of how Sidra and
Rohan saw themselves and how they became more connected to their racial and ethnic identity. For some participants, their racial identity became a central component when thinking about dating.
Dating. Some of the participants talked about the complexities of dating in relation to their race. The stories highlighted in this section include worries about interracial dating, finding someone of the same race, and feeling pressure from their parents to marry someone who spoke the same language. Aditya reflected on how he
116 became more aware of his race when he thought about dating, even if his potential partner would also be South Asian:
Even Indian girls are kind of “oh, I want to date a white person.” “I want a white
boy.” So it's interesting… The whole dating thing made me be like, and I've
always been really cautious about it, because I'm just like, “Oh, this girl's not
going to want to talk to me because I'm Indian, or she's not going to be interested
in me because I'm Indian.” – Aditya
It is interesting that even in Aditya’s comments on dating it is heavily embedded in the idea that whiteness is desirable. He does not compare to other racialized groups of
Americans like Black Americans or LatinX Americans. Contrary to Aditya’s beliefs that being a South Asian man deters others from wanting to date him, Neha reflected on the reasons why she wanted to date a fellow South Asian person:
I didn't really think that much about being with someone who's Indian. I don't
have a preference, but now I do look for Indian people because I do want to have
an Indian husband I guess. Before I didn't really care as much, but now I guess
being in SAS [South Asian Society], being on an Indian dance team, and just
talking to my mom about it. My mom was always like, “You can watch Indian
movies with them. You can go to the temple with them. Do you think someone
who's not [Indian] would do that?” – Neha
For Neha, her college experiences and conversations with her family forced her to reconsider her preferences in who she chooses to date. She used to be open to dating and potentially marrying someone from any background but now realizes that she actually would like to date someone who is also Indian so that they can do culturally related
117 things together. Neha’s mother is essentializing all Indians as the same and in doing so, mitigates the challenges of living in this constant state of tension trying to balance the internal and external influences being an Indian living in the United States. For example, not all Indians are interested in watching Indian movies or other heritage-related activities, as there are some Indian Americans who may not have a close relationship with their ethnic roots. Also, not all Indians are Hindu or religious and may not attend temple.
However, for some families marrying a fellow Indian is not enough; Indian parents want their kids to marry someone who is from the same region of India. Each region of India has its own language, varying cultures, and varying food. Many Indian families prefer for their children to marry someone from the same region as language is an important cultural factor. Rohan spoke of the struggle with his current girlfriend who is Gujarati but he is not; he has never met her parents because they only want her to date and marry a fellow Gujarati. The difficulties of dating were present in many of the participants’ stories and were often an aspect of their lives that they felt the need to hide from their parents.
Labels and Racialized Identity Terms. When asked how they racially or ethnically identify Priya danced around which terms to use and said “I’m Indian
American. Specifically, I’m Gujarati. Yeah, South Asian. If I’m asked to identify on some form or if it’s broader then I’d say Asian”. Some of the domestic students chose to include their nationality as Americans in how to identify themselves racially or ethnically. Some use Asian American or Indian American, whereas others just used the broader term of Asian or Brown. When referencing others who are also South Asian the
118 term Brown or Browntown was used quite often and a couple of participants also used the term Desi in reference to “Desi culture.” The challenges with using labels are that they can be in reference to race, ethnicity, nationality or culture. Different labels are also used by domestic students, international students, those within the South Asian community, and those who may not be a part of the community but create racial categorizations. These categories are not always congruent with how individuals feel about themselves.
Neha had never thought about what racial category she fit into until she was filling out her SATs and selected Asian:
I had to check a box. I think that's the one time I thought about it. My sister, I
think she put Pacific Islander and Native American. The Native American option
because it's also Native Indian or something so she checked that off. She didn't
know. – Neha
She talked about the confusion of selecting a box that may not be the terms you use to describe yourself. Growing up many participants, especially the international students had never used the term Asian to describe themselves. The category of Asian is a politicized term that is commonly used in the United States as a way of formally racializing South Asians. But confusion often arises when South Asians are forced to check a box when they have never self- identified as one of those options before.
Some other terms that were used in the South Asian community to categorize
South Asians were third culture kids, FOBs (Fresh Off the Boat), and ABCDs (American
Born Confused Desi). The term FOB tends to be used to describe international South
Asian students, whereas ABCD tends to be used to describe South Asian American
119 students. Abhi, who grew up abroad, moved around as a child and went to an international school, where he identified as a third culture kid:
Everybody in the school was a third culture kid, because you have people from all
these different cultures and all these different countries, who don't really identify
as where they're from, because they're always surrounded by different
environments and different cultures. Yeah, it's like this huge kind of like mess.
But it kind of creates like its own culture, in a way. So it's quite interesting,
because I have friends from, the local schools in India, and the way they interact
with each other. And the kind of stuff they do, like their activities, it's like a
subculture, from the school. So you can tell, that's majorly from where you're
from and who you interact with. – Abhi
Abhi grew up in international schools in Cyprus and India. Being raised partially in a place that is not his parents’ homeland, along with peers at school who were all from different countries and backgrounds, led him to label himself and his peers as third culture kids. Attending an international school with peers from countries all over the world, being a third culture kid was a common label that his peers also identified with.
Rohan said that he was scared to get involved with the South Asian Society in college because he thought everybody would be “FOB-y” and that he feels bad for saying that because his parents are from India. FOB, is a prevalent term used to describe immigrants from foreign nations who have not assimilated to their new country in terms of accent, customs, or traditions.
Deepak talked about hearing the term ABCD, an acronym for American Born
Confused Desi:
120 So there was a term called ABCD or something. So I heard about it. I did not
know that. I was pretty fooled by it when I came, “He doesn't know anything,”
and all that… my roommate he speaks Hindi and he judges other Indians who live
in America who don’t speak Hindi. “They are Indian and they cannot speak
Hindi? What's with that?” I'm like, “What's with you?” To be honest, I don't
expect every Indian to speak Hindi because India is a big place and it has so many
languages so why do you expect one person to speak only Hindi? – Deepak
As a domestic student, Rohan said he was initially scared of international people in SAS being too “FOB-like.” In all actuality, he found many shared experiences and interests with students in SAS and later dismissed the label of “FOB.” Similarly, Deepak is an international student appalled by the usage of the term ABCD. The participants did not describe either of these terms during the interviews as being used by those outside of the South Asian community. Instead, they were used as labels and identities to categorize international and domestic South Asians within the community.
Model Minority Myth. Another label often used with South Asians is this idea of the model minority, something enmeshed in the narrative of Asians in the United States.
In discussing the salience of their race in their lives there were many instances where the model minority myth could be seen as internalized and perpetuated. Elements of the model minority myth could be seen in comments like Priya: “obviously, I went to Kumon
[an educational enrichment program] and I was super good at math. I was the typical
Brown child.” Her comment assumes that all Brown people are good at math and must do supplemental academically related activities. The model minority myth was further perpetuated by individuals outside the South Asian community. Arushi talked about how
121 most people just assume all Indians are extremely intelligent and socially awkward because they just work all the time. A couple of participants were annoyed by these stereotypes and narratives. Avani explained “they assume how like we're all pre-meds and stuff. That's still a thing. I don't know why.”
Sidra, Sanjay, and Deepak, all talked about instances where others assumed they were smart and took advantage of them. Sidra said:
I was very fortunate to not have had a terrible high school experience. It was
okay. I was known as the smart Brown girl, I was like, "I'll take it. If the jocks
want to cheat off of me, that's fine.” – Sidra
Sidra spoke about this experience as if she should count herself lucky to not have been bullied or made fun of more during her childhood in the United States. She seemed laissez-faire about the fact that others saw her as smart and was fine with them cheating off of her or using her for their own gain. In a way, Sidra was ascribing to the notion of the model minority myth but now has internalized this idea as if her entire identity was only academically-oriented.
At RSU, Sanjay recalled studying with a group of white women to prepare for a recent economics exam:
They expect me to be very smart which obviously I'm not so smart. I am decent,
I'm good, I can understand what the other person is saying. I'm not so smart to be
a genius. They think in that way and I enjoy living up to their expectations
sometimes… But if they think I'm smart and if I can solve a problem and show
them, I would just- I'm living up to that expectation. Why not? It's a good thing.
It's not bad. – Sanjay
122 Deepak also had a similar experience and talked about a time when he went to an extra chemistry session that was supposed to be run by a Teaching Assistant who had forgotten about the session:
I knew my materials. So I was talking to the girl beside me and she was asking me
how to do that and I started discussing and I told her... Suddenly, I get everyone's
notice. "So you know your stuff. So do you want to do it on the board and teach
us?" And to be honest, I never felt much more alive. – Deepak
Sanjay and Deepak, who are both international students, enjoyed the attention that came along with being deemed as smart. However, others were essentializing their identities to just their academic prowess. These participants were only given attention because their peers were benefitting from their intelligence. In these instances, without consciously realizing it, they negotiated parts of their identity to fit into the mold of the model minority as was expected by their peers.
Many participants also discussed how their families put academic pressure on them. Abhi commented that Indians may differ on political views and other things but they all expect their kids to do well in school. Rani talked about the immense pressure put on her by her parents to do well in school and how she bombed her first semester in college. She said “I didn't get a good GPA. I'm like, ‘Oh my God. Kill me someone.’”
For some of the participants like Rani, these parental expectations made her feel like getting good grades was the only thing that mattered. The importance of education for
South Asian families could be attributed to the fact that without an education many were not allowed to immigrate to the United States prior to the Immigration Act of 1965, which means that only a certain higher class of South Asians were allowed to immigrate
123 to the United States. Many immigrants found their success in the United States because of their education and have instilled the value of education in their children. This extreme parental pressure compounded by the model minority myth causes those who do not fit this mold to feel like failures or that there is no value to any of their other identities.
Nevertheless, being perceived as the model minority did not protect South Asian students from experiencing racism.
Racism. The interview protocol did not explicitly ask about experiences with racism. Yet, when asked about times when their race was salient, oftentimes it was in instances when racism was experienced. Most of these experiences with racism came from domestic students and occurred during their childhood years but both domestic and international students have experiences with racism in college.
The levels of racism discussed ranged from microaggressions, like an RSU nurse asking Pallavi how she can speak English so fluently, to people directly telling Avani to
“go back to your country” the day after the 2016 election. For Rohan, one of his significant childhood experiences made him cynical and led him to change his perspective about his own racial identity. During seventh grade in gym class on 9/11, someone came up to him and implied he was a terrorist:
It made me feel really different. That was the first time I really just saw myself as
different than everyone else. And it was nothing I did. It was just that someone
came up to me and said, "Go back to Al-Qaeda," because of the color of my skin.
So I think that was one thing where I really started to understand that like, I'm
different from other people because of my skin and I'm not going to let it define
124 me but it is something that's present. And that was pretty intense. I still remember
everything about that. – Rohan
Rohan pinpoints this experience as a turning point in his life that forced him to think about his race and that he was not the same as his white friends. He went on to say that he was born in the United States and was as American as the next person. It was a moment where he realized that it did not matter how American or white he dressed or behaved because his skin color made others perceive him as a foreigner or as a terrorist.
South Asians experienced racism, racial profiling, and hate crimes especially after the
9/11 terror attacks (Bhatia & Ram, 2009; Harpalani, 2013). Color-based racism in
America is described in DesiCrit as an informal avenue of racialization and Rohan’s story highlights the psychological harm it can do to others.
Sidra reflected on her experiences growing up as one of the only Brown and
Muslim students in her school. Sidra talked about how in second grade two of her friends asked her “Are you going to blow us up?” She reflected on this comment:
This is the first time in my life where something like this had happened to me. I
was like, "What are you talking about?" And they were like, "Well you know,
stuff on the news,” or something about they heard something. I was like, "No,
why would you think that?" Just thinking back, I was in second grade. You're
seven or eight years old. I was just like, "What?" I don't know, I forget how it
happened because it was so long ago, but yeah. I mean, it gets easier as you grow
up… and that same year I was on the bus, and somebody lightly shoved me, and
they were like, "Where's Osama?" And I was like, "What?" I didn't even know
who Osama bin Laden was at that age. – Sidra
125 Sidra likened her experience to Hasan Minhaj’s Homecoming King stand-up comedy special where he said that when you come to America you pay this thing “the
American dream tax: you’re gonna endure some racism, and if it doesn’t cost you your life, hey, you lucked out” (Caputo & Hartman, 2017). In his stand-up show, Hasan goes on to say that many of the first-generation immigrants just pay this tax but he was born here, and like many others, has the “audacity of equality!” Sidra, unfortunately, said she just had to learn to deal with racism and with people who have different mindsets. She wants to be a Physician’s Assistant and will have to treat everybody and said, “if I can’t learn to deal with it, then I’m not going to survive in my field.” Sidra has accepted that racism is embedded so deeply in society that she is numb to the damage it can cause.
Sidra’s experience of being labeled as a terrorist is an example of the perpetual foreigner myth; Wu (2002) states that only whites can be American leaving South Asian
Americans, like Sidra, to be denied an American status.
Divya talked about how as a child growing up in America she did not fully understand when people were saying racist or discriminatory things towards her but that her mom later told her that once someone commented that Divya’s arms were super hairy. Divya commented, “things like that happened a lot because my school was mainly white and people were ignorant.” She said that even at RSU a high-level administrator said that her English was really good and asked her where she was from. She said,
I was really shocked and taken aback and I just didn’t know how to answer. I was
like I was born in the United States and even when I lived in India everyone
speaks English there and my schooling was all in English. Like English is the
only language that I read, write, and speak. – Divya
126 Divya was shocked by this incident and highlights the ignorance of the comment especially from a college administrator. An assumption was made by the administrator that Divya was not an American student based solely on her physical characteristics and perpetuates the idea that you have to be white to be an American (Devos & Banaji, 2005).
In a similar story, Raj talked about a night when he was walking back to his residence hall at RSU after a party one night:
This guy, probably drunk, said go back to where you came from. That kind of
stuck with me. I didn’t really respond because it wasn’t worth it. So, I just kept
walking; but it’s just something you remember. – Raj
Although racism is never justified, Raj tried to make sense of the racist event by giving the guy the benefit of the doubt and saying that he was probably drunk. However, this is another example of the perpetual foreigner myth, which states that Asian
Americans will always be viewed as foreigners or the “other,” and are not viewed as
Americans (Wu, 2002).
Deepak, an international student, talked about how in his first couple of days in the United States he spent some time in New York City with his parents who were about to drop him off at college. He said he was exploring NYC by himself one night:
I'm in Times Square. I wanted to look at it and then I see four people surrounding
me and saying racist shit on me and I'm like, "Okay." I didn't tell that to my
parents. I came back, I was pretty nervous. That's what happened but after I came
back here, I had my guards on, which explains why I didn't want to make friends.
I was scared. Scared and all that. I felt like everything's a hostile nature for me. –
Deepak
127 He talked about how even though nothing like this has happened to him at RSU, this being one of his first experiences in the United States made him apprehensive and he kept to himself when he first arrived on campus. These encounters with racism forced students to reconsider their racialized identity and how they are perceived by others and treated unjustly in the United States due to the color of their skin. Kodama et al. (2002) explain that racism from U.S. society is one of the main external domains that exert influence on Asian American students’ development. These racist incidents forced participants to negotiate parts of their identity, and struggle to find their place in the
American landscape.
Am I Religious? Religious identity was one of the few topics discussed by all 21 participants. For some South Asian students religion is so intertwined with their race, ethnicity, and culture that they were hard to separate. For example, Divya, who described herself as
“culturally Hindu.” The transmission of culture for many South Asians is through religion (Kurien, 1999), which makes it a substantial component of cultural identity. This becomes problematic for students when South Asian religious writings are sometimes in conflict with Western culture (Holland et al., 1998). Abhi provides a rationale for religion being common amongst South Asians saying, “because [the Indian subcontinent] is traditional, like everybody has some sort of contact with religion. It's just a degree and variability about how much contact.”
There were many different religions represented in the participants’ stories including Hinduism, Sikhism, Islam, and Christianity. A large part of India practices
Hinduism, whereas those who practice Islam, Sikhism, and Christianity are in the
128 religious minority (Majumdar, 2018). Nineteen of the twenty-one participants in this study identified at least partially with Hinduism, while one student identifying as only
Muslim and one student identified only as Sikh. The majority of students interviewed expressed that their parents or grandparents were more religious than they were. Many of the participants had to navigate and negotiate their religious identity based on wanting to please and obey their parents in childhood. Now that the participants are in college, away from the influence of their parents, many of them reflected on their religious identity and hesitated to claim a particular religion. This could also be attributed to RSU being public institution and functioning as a secular entity, as this likely leads to a decrease in religious activity (Astin, 1993b; Bowen, 1997) and removes religion as an influential cultural component within the context of the RSU campus.
Some of the participants felt as though religion was forced upon them because their families were religious. Pallavi reflected on how growing up she followed whatever her family did or said in regards to religion:
If there was a festival, I am supposed to do whatever was asked. Like, I didn't
even question it, until very later when I started questioning it and talking about it.
That's when I realized that there is no point actually discussing this with them.
Like they didn't want to talk about it. Every single argument that they didn't have
an answer for, they would just be like, "Oh, some things are the way they are and
you just have to follow them." I'm like, "Okay." So yeah, that's one thing I
understood, just comply. Just for that respect. Like you shouldn't really argue
about things if they have these strong beliefs for certain things, and there's no
129 harm like following it. So I don't follow anything here at all. Like dietary habits or
like, praying and all of that. I don't do it. Not at all. – Pallavi
Pallavi talked about being religious as a child more as a way to appease her family, but she felt that she could not question any parts of the religion or why they were pujas (prayer rituals). Eventually, she realized it was just easier to comply and do what was requested of her. This is an example of how deference and respect for elders in Asian cultures (Kodama et al., 2002) sometimes diminishes a student’s ability to question personal religious views. Lee’s (2002) study on religious activity in college students noted that a decrease in religious activity is often due to questioning and doubt.
In addition to family playing a major influence on the religious identities of the participants in childhood, school also provided a religious influence for two international students. Although Ajay’s parents are both Hindu and Sanjay’s are Hindu and Sikh, Ajay and Sanjay both attended Christian K-12 schools in India. Sanjay explained:
My school was actually a Christian school. We used to sing hymns every
morning. I know all hymns by heart because I've been singing them for 11 years.
We had a hymnbook and assembly. We had to start the assembly with singing.
Pretty much, I know a lot about the Bible and Christianity. Whereas my parents at
home, we are mixed up like Hinduism and Sikhism... Pretty much for me
personally, it's not a particular religion that I focus on. For me, I feel like there is
one divine being... and all religions are the same. – Sanjay
Being exposed to a multitude of religions throughout his childhood led Sanjay to see the commonality amongst all religions. This shaped his worldview on religion and his personal beliefs that there is one divine being. Ajay talked about how he “went to a
130 Christian school, because that comes from the idea that all private schools are Christian, and all good schools are private [in India].” This mindset may reflect traces of British colonization, in the sense that Christian missionary education was (and continues to be) used as a tool for socialization into racial hierarchies that privilege whiteness and are
Euro-centric (Turpin, 2017). This socialization in faith-based educational settings, although distinct from personal religious identity, influenced the way these students viewed religion as a process of negotiation as opposed to an inherited identity from their parents.
The salience of participants’ religious identity decreased significantly from childhood to college. All twenty-one participants talked about the role of religion in their childhood, yet only two participants identified religion as playing a central role in their lives as college students. Charu, who is one of these two students and identifies as Sikh, recounted:
I mostly grew up with my grandparents, and my parents both had a huge impact
on my upbringing, especially my grandfather had a huge impact on where I am
today, culturally and religion wise. He used to take me to the Gurdwara [Sikh
place of worship] and teach me how to pray and the importance of all those things
in life. He was the one who had the most impact on my spiritual life, I would
say… He's taught me so many stories about religion and what not. I have been
very connected to it. We cannot cut our hair or men cannot shave their beard. We
take that very seriously. I never cut my hair. I'm never planning to do that because
my parents would get totally angry. – Charu
131 Charu expressed how much her grandfather influenced her religious identity growing up and that these experiences were foundational to her strong religious identity.
She follows many of the Sikh beliefs including not cutting her hair. As a practicing Sikh,
Charu was in the religious minority as a child growing up in India and continues to be in the religious minority in college in the United States. Continuing religious practices in college can be difficult for many students especially when they are a part of minoritized religions on their campus. When Charu talked about religion in college she expressed that there should be a Gurdwara in the spiritual center at RSU. She observed there are churches in walking distance all around RSU, but that it is hard to get from RSU’s campus to a Gurdwara.
Although only two participants discussed being actively religious in college, most of the participants were hesitant to completely write off religion as a central part of their identity in college because it was so foundational in their childhood. Some of the participants expressed their conflicted thoughts about religion. Abhi said, “I think on paper, like, I have to say, I'm Hindu. But I'm not Hindu, though.” He questions, however, if some of the foundational values that he embodies stem from Hinduism. Sidra had a similar response saying that being Muslim is part of her identity that she cannot separate but that overall she questions religion:
My family is Muslim, so I was raised Muslim, and it is part of my identity. I will
never say I'm not a Muslim, just because I can't separate myself from that. But I
don't feel that connection. I don't like it when they tell me to pray, because I'm
just like, “What's the point of praying if I'm not doing it for the right reasons?” I
don't do it like my mom does. My mom, she'll pray all day every day if she could.
132 But I don't. They're very cultural, no boys, nothing like that. I'm just like, I go to
[RSU] for God's sake. I go to college, I'm 20 years old… To me, religion is like
fandoms, you know? Like Marvel fandom, Harry Potter, sports fandoms. It's just,
it's something that people connect to, and it's something that people are interested
in, and I just don't. I'm a huge Potterhead, I love Harry Potter. But why do I like
Harry Potter? I just do, I don't know why. I just do. I think that's the same for
religion. I think religion connects to people in different ways, and it just never did
with me. But my parents don't know that, and I'd never have the heart to tell them.
– Sidra
The interconnections of culture and religion could be one of the reasons Sidra cannot separate her religion from the rest of her identity. Sidra’s family in many ways has influenced the way religion is intertwined with her identity, yet she does not consider herself religious. Her situation again highlights the work of Kodama and others (2002) that the external and internal influences are often at conflict. The negotiation of identity that Sidra manages is to find something similar that she enjoys and cannot explain, like the fandom of Harry Potter, as a way to understand how her parents may feel about Islam.
Similar to Sidra, other South Asian students know the importance of religion to their families and know that questioning their own religious beliefs may hurt their parents so they do not have open conversations about religion with their parents. This is why college can be a time to question faith and religious identities because there is a choice about which religious practices to follow without their parental influences. This choice around their religious activity could also be due to the students not wanting to become racialized
133 based on practicing a minoritized religion in college. This will be further discussed through the lens of DesiCrit at the end of the chapter.
Summary For international students, the salience of their race increased since coming to college since they went from being in the racial majority to the racial minority. For the majority of domestic students, race remained a salient identity from childhood into college. For the majority of both international and domestic students, their religious activity decreased in salience from childhood into college, however many students still identified in some capacity with a certain religion. The next theme will continue discussing the social identities of the participants and focus on their gender and sexual orientation.
Theme Three: Salience of Gender and Sexual Orientation
This theme explores how South Asian students discussed their gender identity and how salient gender has been in their lives. The data is organized based on the gender of the participants as international and domestic participants of the same gender had some overlap in their responses. The second part of this theme examines how sexual orientation is discussed and thought about in South Asian families.
Gender Salience All of the participants identified as gender conforming men and women. Only one of the nine men in the study, Aditya, indicated thinking about the salience of gender in his own life, whereas most of the women had thought about their gender at some point in their lives or throughout their whole lives. This was true of both international and
134 domestic participants, so this section is split by the gender of the participants as opposed to their nationality like in previous sections. Women noted their gendered experiences during different stages of their lives and often in relation to inequities in the classroom and general safety concerns. Many women also compared the way they were treated in comparison to their brothers growing up. The next two sections regarding gender are split between responses from the participants who identify as men and those who identify as women.
Perspectives on Gender from Participants Identifying as Men. Many of the men had never reflected on how gender was salient in their own lives. Gender conforming men in both South Asia and in the United States are amongst the more privileged gender (Lester & Harris III, 2015; McIntosh, 2018) and because of this many have not thought critically about their gender and the role it plays in their lives. Although the majority of men had not thought about their own gendered identity, a couple had thought about how gender plays out in society in general since coming to college, while two participants said they had never thought about gender in their childhood or since coming to college.
Aditya was the only participant who mentioned his own gender identity and discussed how South Asian men are expected to limit the show of emotions. He talked about having to compartmentalize his masculinity and his more emotional side, which only his ex-girlfriend saw. He explained:
That's one of the more male-centered ideologies, of kind of hiding your feelings.
So, I feel like that's even more of a pressure when you're an Indian guy, because
not even your parents want to talk about feelings. So, in that sense, you have to
135 be, not masculine, but you have to pretend there's no problems. Like you're
always stress free. But with my ex, I could've been like, “oh, you're just bothering
me.” Or like, “this is what's going on and I'm not feeling good about it.” – Aditya
The combination of being South Asian and a man caused Aditya to repress his feelings from the majority of people in his life. However, when he came to college and began the relationship with his now ex-girlfriend, Aditya’s deviation from gendered behaviors may have been due to his college experience (see Ibrahim, Ohnishi, & Sandhu, 1997) which allowed for him to explore his feelings in a way that he had never been able to do before.
College served as a catalyst for two of the men in the study to think about gender identity, often for the first time. Rohan talked about how he mindlessly subscribed to
“male ideals” and gender norms without questioning until he enrolled in a sex and health class in college that made him more aware of the gender binary and gender as a social construct. He likened gender to a belief system and now realizes gender is not as rigid as he once thought.
Other men spoke generally about the rhetoric for what it means to be a man versus a woman in the United States and in India. Ajay expressed being aware that gender biases exist, but not thinking about his gender “the way it needs to be thought about.” Although Deepak did not think about his own gendered experiences, he reflected on how gender biases play out in India and said, “I feel like the women in India…have to achieve much more than the men to be equated to the men.”
Sanjay’s sentiments expanded on this as he explained that historically women were not treated well in India:
136 [If you were a man], you won't do any work at home or you won't go to the
kitchen, they had this mentality. I feel with the newer generation, it's actually
changing even in India. – Sanjay
It was apparent he believed the perceptions of gender roles were changing in India and that distinct gender roles were lessening in each new generation. He thinks that in his generation there will not be any significant gender differences or expectations. These gender roles that Sanjay describes have been embedded in South Asian communities for countless generations, so it is unlikely that significant gender differences will fully dissipate immediately. However, there is a slow shift from patriarchal to egalitarian gender roles, especially in immigrant South Asian families (Ibrahim, Ohnishi, & Sandhu,
1997). Contrary to the experiences of many men, women thought about their own gender in many different contexts.
Participants’ Perspectives on Gender from Participants Identifying as
Women. The majority of women thought about their gender identity in relation to safety, classroom inequities, and differences in the way they were treated in comparison to their male siblings. When asked about times in their lives when their gender was salient, three out of five of the international women students discussed the safety concerns that were associated with growing up in Delhi as a woman. Safety is a big concern for women in
Delhi (Viswanath & Mehrotra, 2007). Charu described Delhi as the “rape capital of
India” and explained how women have to use extra caution to stay safe, especially being out at night. Pallavi and Rani, who also grew up in Delhi, shared similar sentiments about the lack of safety and the need to return home by 7pm because it was too dangerous for
137 them to be out late at night. They both said that since coming to the United States and going to RSU they feel much safer. Rani explained:
When I came here [RSU], I was kind of like... so I was brought up with the
mentality that you’re a girl, you need to take care of yourself more. And not hang
out until like 11:00 PM at night. No. That’s a no, no, especially in Delhi…But
when I came here [RSU], the environment was so safe. And I used to hang out
with my friends and go out with my male friends even. Hang out until 3:00 AM at
night… I go out for walks at like 2:00 AM. I feel safe. – Rani
General safety concerns were not addressed in childhood by any other international or domestic women students. Relative to growing up in Delhi, RSU’s campus felt relatively safe for Pallavi, Rani, and Charu. However, safety for women on campus in the United
States is still an overall concern (Kelly & Torres, 2006).
Two women, Nisha and Pooja, discussed the lack of women represented in their computer and engineering courses. Nisha said she really noticed the gender differences in her computer class in the eleventh grade where she was the only woman in her computer class. She explained that these gender discrepancies continued into her engineering courses at RSU:
The ratio is way off. I would probably be the one out of three or five girls in the
class… But I'm aware of the fact that there are less girls in engineering. – Nisha
These gender differences are seen among many majors in colleges across the United
States. As referenced in chapter two, women are particularly underrepresented in science and engineering courses (Lester & Harris III, 2015). Neither of these students expanded
138 on how being in a woman in their courses impacted them personally but Pooja said she has heard sexist comments made by men.
Sidra recounted being on the receiving end of sexist comments from a teacher in middle school. Her woodshop class was making piggy banks and her male teacher checked hers and said:
“Oh, this is pretty good,” and I was like, “Thanks.” And he was like, “For a girl,”
and I was like, “Whoa.” My teacher said that, and I just kind of laughed it off,
because I was like, “Oh, haha.” And then I thought about it later on and I was
like, that was pretty messed up. – Sidra
Sidra’s confusion during this situation was evident and feeling caught off guard, she was not able to respond in a self-affirming way. These types of comments are demoralizing and perpetuate the notion that certain trades and majors are gender specific.
Women are often in the minority in science and engineering (Lester & Harris III, 2015) and woodshop conveys a similar notion that only men can succeed in this type of class.
Many of the gendered experiences discussed by women involved the differential treatment they received in comparison to their brothers. Five out of the 12 women interviewed talked about ways in which they were treated differently than their brothers by their parents growing up. Avani said her parents believe “girls should be this way and boys should be this way.” When it came to cleaning Avani would complain that her brother didn’t have to do it and her mom would respond, “you’re the girl.” Avani tried to fight these gender expectations but was met with the same gendered comments and resistance. The other four women with brothers experienced frustration when their brothers were allowed to go to sleepovers, hang out with friends, get jobs, or travel
139 outside of the country while these participants as women were not allowed to do the same. When Arushi questioned her parents about these behaviors, she was given the same answer, “oh, it’s different for him” with no explanation as to why. “There are definitely unspoken gender rules,” Arushi concluded. These unspoken gender rules, although they may not have been explicitly talked about in the participants’ families, have been around for generations in Asian communities (Cheung, 1997). In many South Asian communities, a binary lens has been used to discuss gender roles and sexual orientation.
Sexual Orientation Sexual orientation was not a particularly salient identity for any of the 21 participants, though this could be because they all identified as heterosexual, which is a more privileged identity. Although the lack of diversity in sexual orientation in this sample led to limited data, sexual orientation is still an important identity for many South
Asian students. Sexual orientation was also a taboo subject for both international and domestic students in this study. Some of the participants looked noticeably uncomfortable at the mention of the topic of sexual orientation and when asked if it was a salient identity in their lives, they responded abruptly with a no or deflected with humor by laughing at the question.
Although the majority of participants did not talk about their sexual orientation with their families, a couple mentioned trying to talk to their parents about the LGBTQ community. Two participants discussed having positive conversations with their parents about friends who were gay or about sexual orientation in general. Rani said she was grateful about the open-minded nature of her parents. Other participants, like Pallavi and
140 Priya recalled having frustrating conversations with their parents about the LGBTQ community. Pallavi said:
My dad has a very different ideology compared to mine…Whether or not things
are unnatural or not, he would not think, that certain groups are naturally okay or
whatever. So yeah. We did have a number of discussions on that. Arguments.
Fights. Yeah, they were bad. – Pallavi
When one of Priya’s South Asian friends came out as being a lesbian, Priya’s mom warned Priya “you better not be like that. If you're ever like that don't even speak to us ever again.” Priya said she would hope if she really were gay that her mom would not actually cut her off. There was a common thread of homophobia present in the interactions with many of the participants’ parents. However, the younger generation of participants seemed to be more open-minded. Sanjay said “I’ve talked about it [sexual orientation] with my friends. I definitely like women, but if someone has a preference for liking men too, I don’t have a problem with that.”
Some of the participants talked about being more aware and conscious of the
LGBTQ community in college. Sidra specifically talked about using her heterosexual privilege to advocate for the LGBTQ community since coming to college:
A lot of my friends came out in college, whether they were not straight or whether
they were trans or whatever they were, you know? But yeah, I think to me ... I
think that's something that I am privileged for. I don't have a lot of privileges. I'm
a Muslim woman of color. I have nothing going for me [in terms of privileged
identities]. But I think being straight, that's something I try to use when I can, you
know. To people who can't use that, try to bring them up…Being the different kid.
141 I know how it feels in other peoples' shoes, whether it's race, ethnicity, religion or
sexuality, I know how it feels to be the odd one out. – Sidra
This motivates Sidra to want to be an advocate for the LGBTQ community.
Sidra’s experience of being the “odd one out” for most of her life made her more empathetic towards others who feel excluded or are treated unfairly due to a minoritized identity.
Summary Many South Asian students found the need to behave according to the gendered expectations of their families and society. Gender was a more salient identity for females than for males, during childhood and college. College seemed to encourage some men to think about the ways gender plays out in society. Sexual orientation was not salient for participants as they all reported being heterosexual and did not think about their own sexual orientation. The next section will explore how nationality plays a role in differentiating international and domestic South Asian students.
Theme Four: Nationality on Campus
The fourth theme explores how international students describe domestic students and vice versa. Although non-South Asians tend to view immigrant and American-born populations as one, South Asians in the United States are often aware of the differences
(Harpalani, 2013). This theme highlights how nationality plays a part in how each of these groups are perceived on campus by South Asians and non-South Asians. This theme also discusses how domestic students balance their racial and national identities as
South Asian Americans.
142 International & Domestic South Asians Students on Campus Participants were asked about their experiences being South Asian on campus and if they felt these experiences varied depending on if they were an international student or if they were a domestic student. The responses are separated by international student participants and those from the domestic student participants. There were some topics that both groups talked about, like there being a partial shared identity among all South
Asians and how the presence of an accent made international students stand out.
International Students’ Views. This section only highlights international participants’ responses. The majority of the 11 international students felt that domestic and international South Asians were different in certain ways and treated differently at times. However, Ramesh and Charu felt there was also a partially shared identity between
South Asians and South Asian Americans. Ramesh highlighted the importance of the environment in which one was raised. He believes at the foundational level, most South
Asians have shared values but differ because of the countries they grew up in. Charu expanded on this idea:
There is a shared identity of course because we are coming from the same place.
We've experienced the same culture and the food especially. That's the most
important thing to bond upon. It's like always cooking together, going together to
Indian places and stuff like that. Yeah, there is shared identity, shared struggles,
and everything. – Charu
Charu expressed that South Asians share parts of their identities, yet within the
South Asian diaspora there are seven countries all with their own unique cultures, foods, and languages. Even within India there are many states each with their own languages
143 and differing customs. Some participants focused more on the shared experiences amongst domestic and international South Asians while others focused on what made international South Asian students different from South Asian American students at RSU.
For example, both Deepak and Ajay talked about the presence of what Americans would perceive as a foreign accent. Ajay mentioned:
South Asian students that were born here [the United States] have a much easier
time making friends, and actually going up to people and talking about stuff... I
think South Asians who grew up in their specific countries, I think the biggest
problem for them is getting out of their comfort zone, and being afraid of talking
to people, because of how they talk. I think that’s the problem with a lot of
international students. – Ajay
This challenge that Ajay described is exactly how Deepak described his apprehensions:
I didn't want to talk to people. There were a lot of things going in my mind.
“What if they judge on my English?” “What if I don't do good? What if they feel
like…” all the negative things. But you see, you have to push through the
boundaries. You need to push your uncomfortable boundary as far as you can so
that you can get everything out of yourself. The more uncomfortable you get, the
more you can grow out of it, right? – Deepak
As an international student at RSU, Deepak was scared others would judge him on his English when he came to RSU, but like Ajay, also realized that you have to push yourself out of your comfort zone to grow. This fear is supported by research that shows that the presence of an accent can cause individuals to become “othered” as they try to assimilate in the United States (Harpalani, 2013).
144 Abhi categorized domestic South Asian students into two groups: those who are either “basically white” or those who grew up heavily influenced by South Asian family and friends that helped preserve their culture. Abhi stated the preservation of culture caused some of the Indian Americans he knew to “be even more traditional than some of the Indians back in India.” Rishika shared similar sentiments as Abhi when describing domestic South Asian students:
They [Indian Americans] want to show that they’re more Indian than the Indians.
And honestly, Indians don't care about showing how Indian they are. We have
Indian written all over us, so we don't want to show anyone. But then, some of my
American-Indian friends would like literally come up and they're like, “oh my
God, I want to be in India. I want to go to India.” I'm just like, why do you want
to portray being more Indian than [me]? You're an American-Indian... I've lived
my entire life in India. – Rishika
Rishika made an observation about the level of Indianness embodied and who gets to be “more Indian.” This highlights the struggle many South Asian Americans face in wanting to still stay connected to their roots while living in the United States and in the process take on a performative display of their racial and cultural roots. This phenomenon is described by DesiCrit as a performative display of race and contributes to informal racialization (Harpalani, 2013). This performative display of race is explained further through the lens of DesiCrit at the end of the chapter.
Domestic Students’ Views. This section only highlights the domestic participants’ responses to the ways international and domestic South Asian students were viewed on campus. Some of the responses from the domestic students mirrored those of
145 the international students in the previous section. Raj described a sense of commonality shared between international and domestic South Asians saying, “there's always this weird connection, like my own kin.” But as Neha explains, there is an assumption, based on physical attributes, that all South Asian students are international.
Yet the differences between these two student groups is pronounced. For example, five of the ten domestic students also discussed the presence of an accent in international students and how that difference caused the two groups to be perceived differently on campus. Priya explained:
There is a difference when you don't have an accent or you do. What I've seen
which is kind of disgusting, is in one of my classes the professor called on this
one guy and he had a British accent and all the girls are like, ooh and awing, but
when it's an Indian accent... they laugh at it. – Priya
Pooja expanded on Priya’s observations about South Asians who have an accent:
I feel so bad because I feel like people hear me talk and don't hear an accent and
so they think that they can talk to me. But if someone else in the class has an
accent, they're just like, “Oh. He's an immigrant. He's foreign.” – Pooja
Priya and Pooja’s comments allude to the idea that international students with accents get written off by many domestic students as being “foreigners.” Pooja explained that she’s also seen “Indian [Americans] do it to other Indians.” Raj and Avani described the two communities as the FOB (Fresh Off the Boat) community and those who are not FOBs, almost as a way to distance themselves from international South Asian students. This could be because domestic South Asian Americans have tried most of their lives to be seen as American and feel that associating with international students will cause those
146 outside of the South Asian community to also view them as foreign. The domestic students want to be seen as American and to not suffer under the perpetual foreigner myth (Wu, 2002).
Neha, Aditya, Sidra, and Divya mentioned that everyone just assumes they are foreign or international students since they are Brown, which is reflective of the perpetual foreigner myth. The myth assumes that only white people can be American and because of this many Asian Americans tend to be “othered” and deemed un-American (Wu,
2002). Aditya explained:
If you're Indian or Asian or whatever, everyone assumes that you're international.
But once you speak and they hear that you can speak English properly, they're
kind of like, “Okay, cool. You’re basically white.” So that's how it works…. Like
I said, I'm pretty much viewed as a white person, the way I dress, talk, act. It's
very white or what people assume is white… you're not really viewed as Indian,
you're viewed as white. So in that sense, you kind of lose your identity, but even
then, it's kind of one that you've created, so it's how you feel about it. – Aditya
Sidra also said that everybody just assumes that all South Asian students, domestic and international, are under the same international umbrella until people get to know them and then assign different labels. She said people think “Oh these are the normal ones, the American ones, and then there are the Fresh Off the Boat ones.” Aditya equated not having an accent to being viewed as white and how getting put into this white category causes erasure of his own South Asian identity. Sidra also associated normal with meaning American. These ideas of whiteness, normalness, and Americanness being equated with each other also came up in the second theme on race, ethnicity, and religion.
147 The next section delves deeper into the struggle that many South Asians, especially South
Asian Americans expressed, of wanting to be viewed as both South Asian and American.
Balancing American & South Asian Identities Many of the participants, especially those who grew up in the United States struggled to balance their American and South Asian identities and at times felt as though they were not enough of one or the other. The South Asian American students were constantly negotiating their race and their nationality and how they can be both when society often deems these two identities as incompatible. Sidra described feeling like a foreigner both when she is back in Pakistan and when she is in the United States, even though she grew up there. Sidra voiced a common concern of immigrants feeling like a foreigner in both lands – their homeland and the land that they immigrated to.
Rohan reflected on times when he did not feel American enough or South Asian enough. To begin, Rohan talked about not feeling American enough when he was told to go back to Al-Qaida:
It was a really shitty feeling because I was born in Rhode Island, you know what I
mean? I mean, I lived in New Jersey and in Pennsylvania, so I was as American
as these people. I've grown up with these people for so long and they kind of just
like threw all that out the window just because the color of my skin. – Rohan
This racist incident caused Rohan to realize that even though he is American, his skin color causes him to be othered and deemed as un-American. When Rohan got to college and became friends with other South Asian American students, they told him he was not Indian enough, which he stated was just a joke. He reflected on his Indian identity as well:
148 Realistically I was not Indian enough. I was suppressing it for a long time. And
college definitely allowed me to like really just be proud of that and like really
allow myself to explore Indian culture and stuff like that and be proud about it. –
Rohan
For Rohan, college was a time when he was able to reconcile and feel comfortable with both his American and South Asian identities through his involvement in a South Asian organization. College, specifically his involvement in Browntown, provided what
DesiCrit deems a “racial microclime” (Harpalani, 2013) where Rohan felt comfortable bringing his multiple identities and further exploring his South Asian roots.
Language was identified as one of the major things that made South Asian
Americans feel like they were not South Asian enough. Three domestic students discussed experiences where they were told their lack of knowledge of Hindi made other
South Asians question their ethnicity. Arushi recalled a friend telling her “What the fuck?
You don’t speak Hindi. Are you even Indian?” In all three of these cases it was other
South Asians that made these South Asian Americans not feel South Asian enough. In fact, Aditya said he quit the South Asian Society, a student organization on campus, because other South Asians in the organization made him feel not Indian enough.
Divya expressed struggling with being in spaces where she had to choose between her American and South Asian identities since she truly feels equally attached to both parts of her identities. She said:
When I’m in India they always say you are too American but what does that
mean? And then I’m not white American…American has a different connotation
so when you say that is it because of the way I act or is it the whiteness? – Divya
149 Divya is again connecting this notion that embedded in Americanness is whiteness and what it means to be deemed a white South Asian. Divya described her
Indian-ness as a big part of her that she embraces, but that she has never felt Indian or
American enough:
I never feel Indian enough or American enough. I really feel like I’m straddling
the boundaries between the two having grown up equally in India and
America…And I kind of wish there were others like me. I haven’t met anyone
like me who has my perspectives. I think it makes me more open-minded. But
sometimes it’s lonely not feeling like you fully belong to any group. I wanted to
embrace both as much as possible. So in some ways the experiences I had
reinforced that in me. But now I’m proud of both. If I have to identify as
something I say Indian-American. I feel like I live in the dash in-between both
Indian and American. – Divya
This concept of living in the dash seems like an appropriate metaphor to describe the experience of many South Asian Americans who are working on finding a balance between their South Asianness and their Americanness. These two identities are often at odds with one another, not because the person feels the dichotomy personally, but because others are unable to accept that “American” can be non-white.
Summary Although international and domestic South Asians are the same race, their different nationalities and certain characteristics caused each group to be treated differently on campus. Both international and domestic students felt that the presence of an accent was a major differentiating factor between the two groups of South Asians.
150 Some international students felt domestic students were whitewashed, while others thought that domestic students were too performative when it came to their race and ethnicity in efforts to prove their South Asianness. South Asian Americans struggled to balance their South Asian and American identities and, depending on the context, had to negotiate which of these identities took precedence.
Theme Five: College Influence on Identity
This theme explores how the participants described the culture at RSU through their involvement and experiences in college. Many of the participants found community amongst what they termed in their interviews as “Browntown,” which included South
Asian ethnic organizations.
RSU Culture and Involvement The participants’ perceptions of the culture of RSU was explored using questions in the interview protocol based on Astin’s (1993a) environmental measures and focused primarily on the institutional characteristics, student environment, and individual involvement as described by the participants. When asked about the culture at RSU,
Rishika and Aditya discussed the prevalence of the party culture. They both mentioned that although the party culture was big, students were also academically orientated and cared about their courses. Other aspects of the RSU culture that participants described were the school spirit, the large alumni network, and the football culture. Rishika explained the level of school spirit by claiming that, “no one loves their school as much as RSU students love their school.” While two other participants agreed with Rishika and spoke positively about the school spirit espoused by students at RSU, six participants
151 described the school spirit and football culture as being “mob-like,” “cult-like”, or “cult- y.” Ajay commented:
I still don't get the hype about football, and how it makes everyone go crazy on
weekends. It's something that brings everyone together, and it's basically a mob-
like thinking. – Ajay
Rohan explained how this mob-like mentality could be harmful to students who do not fit into the main-stream culture at RSU:
It's isolating when you have to think the same way for you to fit in with like
certain crowds and stuff like that… Like tradition has a place here at RSU, but at
the same time, we got to be cognizant of how we're transitioning. – Rohan
Rohan continued to explain how RSU is a large university, steeped in tradition, and referred to a recent incident of campus that showed how some of these traditions may not be inclusive of all students. He encouraged RSU to reflect on their traditions and how it may be negatively impacting some of its students, especially students of color.
Half of the participants, a mix of international and domestic, talked about the culture of RSU as being welcoming, friendly and diverse. The international students especially were surprised by the diversity at RSU saying it was “mad diverse” and speaking about the number of races and cultures you see in the same room. Four of the domestic participants who mentioned that RSU was diverse extended this thought by saying that although the school was diverse it was still a very white campus. Priya commented “I think it’s easy to get whitewashed because there’s so many… it’s just so white here.” Avani agreed and said RSU is “pretty diverse” but acknowledges that it would be easy just to surround yourself with other white people and then complain “it’s
152 so white here.” Although RSU is a PWI, it is a very large campus with many different sub-cultures and the majority of participants reported being able to find their niche through their involvement at RSU. Browntown is one of these sub-cultures that many
RSU students described as being their niche. These student organizations and Browntown in general create a sub “racial microclime” within the larger RSU environment where
South Asian participants felt comfortable sharing their whole selves. DesiCrit describes a
“racial microclime” as a local environment or social dynamics that affects racialization processes (Harpalani, 2013). These microclimes serve a different purpose than other generalized student engagement activities because they are a way for South Asian students to participate without being othered by the larger microclime of RSU.
RSU Browntown Culture. When discussing the culture of RSU and their involvement on campus a sub-culture that many referred to as “Browntown” emerged.
The term Browntown was used within the South Asian community to describe their involvement with other South Asian students. Pooja said, “I was very involved with
Browntown, I like to say, at [RSU].” She explained that although it was a pretty white campus she sees Brown people that she knows everywhere. Pooja talked about the comfort of having a group of people that understand her:
I kind of like it because I can step out of Browntown and there's still a lot of other
clubs I can do. And then I can step in and see all these people who understand me
and get to know me. And it's actually nice to be able to go to class and then come
back and hang out. Like Brown friends all the time. Because I always knew that
they related to me a lot more and understood having strict parents. – Pooja
153 Pooja said she enjoyed going to a big school like RSU because Browntown is large enough to have a community of people who look like her and understand cultural aspects of her. She also points out that she has friends, especially in her major, who are different races. She said that being a part of SAS and Browntown made her consider herself “a lot more Brown.”
Divya talked about enjoying the camaraderie of having other Brown people around and said it “feels so nice not being the only one for once.” Arushi shared similar sentiments about enjoying the sense of community that came from being surrounded by other Brown students in Browntown. However, Arushi also described the downside of
Browntown stating that everyone knows everyone which sometimes led to “Browntown drama.” She explained that because the South Asian community at RSU is relatively small, conflict is inevitable. Although the South Asian community is small it was still apparent the community was split amongst two different South Asian organizations, the
South Asian Society (SAS) and the Indian Culture Club (ICC).
SAS & ICC. Within Browntown there are two primary organizations the majority of participants mentioned being a part of at some point during their collegiate career.
Both groups provide a community for South Asian students and organize similar events.
Although not explicit in the organizations’ descriptions on RSU’s website, the participants described SAS as being more for domestic students and ICC as geared towards international students.
All ten of the domestic students discussed being a part of SAS at some point during their time at RSU. Rohan, Pooja, and Neha reported having positive experiences with SAS. Neha talked about how she became close to a lot of people fast through SAS.
154 Pooja described SAS as “a family away from family” saying “especially because they're
Brown – they kind of understand different things.” Rohan discussed participating in a
SAS trip at the end of his first week on campus and meeting a lot of new friends. Like many other participants, it was the first club he joined on campus. He said that he got involved early on and became the secretary for SAS so it was “one of those zero to 100 things.” Rohan continued talking about his experience in SAS:
So that's where I really got a lot of my friends who were like wait, “Wait, you
don't know this stuff.” But they were so similar to me too, just because like, they
have all gone through the same experiences. I think I was scared because I
thought a lot of things would be FOB-y and stuff like that. And I feel so bad for
saying that because my parents were from India and everything like that… But all
these people were so similar to me and everything like that, and they actually
really opened up my eyes to like a lot of different parts of the culture, like
different types of dance, like all this stuff, and I got really excited about that. –
Rohan
Rohan described his time in SAS fondly and identified it as one of the first times he became “cognizant of South Asian culture.” Subsequently, he became open to a lot more in college. He expressed gratitude in finding the South Asian community really early in his collegiate career and said he fears he may have stayed very “whitewashed” if not for the South Asian community. Rohan talked about how SAS was one of the most influential things on his identities and how supported he feels in the organization. He realized how “cool” Indian culture was and it made him proud to be a part of SAS at
RSU.
155 Five of the 11 international students reported being a part ICC at some point during college. Pallavi and Charu mentioned how ICC gets all the cell phone numbers for the incoming international Indian students and creates an RSU Desis WhatsApp group.
This is a messaging application that allows for international and group texting and allowed the group to get to know each other and ask current students questions about
RSU. Charu said the RSU Desis group made her feel welcome at RSU before she even arrived and that since you already know some people “there’s a comfort level that builds up” from being a part of this WhatsApp group. The group allowed incoming international
Indian students to ask questions to current international South Asian students about life at
RSU.
Divya discussed going to both organizations, ICC and SAS. She said:
I thought that would be an easier way to make new friends who were like me or
had similar experiences, but I realized pretty quickly that it wouldn’t be. That was
part of the reason why I chose to step away from both of the organizations. ICC
was made up of Indian students who were born and raised in India and SAS was
mostly made up of Indian-American students. While I identify as an Indian-
American, I was raised in India for half of my life. So, depending on who you ask
between the two communities my identity would change; this is something that
has become very clear to me through my teen years. I feel like in many ways it is
difficult for me to define my identity because I feel like I am coming from an
experience that is truly unique thus far in my life, because there is no way in hell I
am the only one. – Divya
156 This divide between ICC being more for international students and SAS being more domestic students makes those with mixed experiences like Divya feel like they do not belong in either organization. Rohan stated that RSU is a “weird ecosystem” where South
Asian Americans find themselves together and international South Asians find their own group together. The distinction between international and domestic South Asian students is nuanced to those who identify as such and having separate groups matters to those in the community. He explains that having the two clubs on campus, ICC and SAS, causes students to divide themselves based on their nationality. As a member of the leadership team for SAS, Rohan talked about wanting to have more events together to bring the community together. He said this year they worked on having a joint Diwali (a Hindu festival of lights) instead of two separate events and hopes that by working together closely, they will become better integrated.
Other College Involvement. The participants also reported being involved in other facets of campus in addition to the SAS and ICC organizations. The most common involvements outside of these organizations were philanthropic organizations, research on campus, organizations related to their major, or those related to their career interests.
Other types of involvement included cooking club, campus newspaper, animal shelters, dance team, sports teams, international student council, and a religious organization.
Charu explained her involvement with the International Student Council and how she has met people from twenty different countries. She attributes her growing knowledge of different cultures and challenging of stereotypes she used to hold about certain cultures to her involvement with this organization. Pallavi talked about how being a Learning Assistant for a class boosted her confidence exponentially. The experience of
157 being a Learning Assistant showed Pallavi that although she came to RSU to learn, she also had a lot to deliver and teach others.
Sidra said that RSU encourages students to get involved and that taking on leadership roles as a New Student Orientation leader, the vice-president of another organization, a Teaching Assistant for biology, and attending the Student Leadership
Conference made her more confident. Sidra said she did not want to be miserable for another four years like she was in high school so even though it was hard she became more social. Sidra said because she got involved she really enjoyed college and has
“grown more every year.”
Divya, who earlier mentioned that she did not feel like she belonged in ICC or
SAS, talked extensively about her involvement in an organization committed to facilitating international and domestic dialogues based on students’ varying social positions:
I think it has really influenced my identity. I finally feel like I have a space that is
truly my own at [RSU]. This is mostly because the organization is so diverse.
Everyone has some story and experiences that are unique to them that they can
share with others. I realized that having the struggle between my ethnicity as
Indian and nationality as American does not have to be a struggle. If anything, it
made me want to embrace my differences because it was in some ways
comforting to know that being different shouldn’t have to define me. It also
allowed me to have friends from different walks of life which is very different and
refreshing in comparison to the few friends I had that were just white from my
freshman year. I was also able to meet more Indians that felt like me, grew up
158 abroad and in the States, but are in some ways more involved with their traditions
and culture. Having friends that were more genuinely interested in learning and
understanding my culture helped me embrace and show the Indian side of my
identity. – Divya
This organization focused on dialogues, allowed Divya to bring her whole self into that space and have discussions while embracing all of her identities. She claimed that she no longer “struggles” between her ethnicity and nationality. For Divya, she has claimed her racial status through the participation in this student organization. The culture of RSU and the ways in which participants were involved on campus played a part in the way students thought about their identities.
Student Identity Shifts in College At the end of the interview, students were asked to reflect on how college impacted their identity in three different ways. The participants were asked, “Were there any college experiences that influenced your identity?” Next, they were prompted to answer, “What did you learn about yourself during your college years?” Lastly, they were asked, “How do you think college has impacted your identities or the way you see yourself?” When participants were asked to reflect on these questions and how they changed in college, most of the responses were related more to their personality attributes as opposed to being about their social identities. The most common personality characteristics that international and domestic students attributed to college included maturity, independence, confidence, and open-mindedness.
Rohan was the only student to reflect at the end of the interview on how college made him more aware of who he is and more “prideful” of his identities, especially his
159 racial and ethnic identities. Rohan said college taught him the importance of being open- minded and that people should also “be open to different values and beliefs and just let these like different experiences shape who you are and you'll become a better person because of it.”
Throughout the participants’ stories, it is evident that college had an impact on their identities. For some, college was a time where they could figure out who they wanted to be with less direct influence from their family. At times this caused identity incongruence between who the participants’ families thought they were and how the students identified resulting in the student having to negotiate their identities differently when they visited their families. This tension was caused by the dissonance between their experiences prior to and during college.
Although many students discussed their own gendered identity as remaining the same during college, some men talked about how college was a time when they thought about how gender plays a role in the larger society. Sexual orientation seemingly remained the same during college and was an identity that the majority of participants did not pay attention to. However, there was an indication that students were thinking of sexual orientation differently after having been in college. Whereas sexual orientation did not have a large change from childhood to college, religion did change significantly for many student participants. College served as a secularizing force on students’ religious identities and many students, international and domestic, described a decrease in religious activities in college. Religion is a highly intertwined cultural influence that during childhood was a major part of their identity; however, after coming to college, some
160 expressed questioning their religious identity in way that may not have happened at home with their families.
The significance of racial identity was apparent for all of the participants in college. The students’ stories reflected racialization occurring through all of the avenues
DesiCrit describes: students were formally (ie. through boxes on forms) and informally racialized (ie. through their accents, language, skin color, religion) racialized, others ascribed racial statuses to them (ie. model minority myth, perpetual foreigner myth), they claimed racial statuses (ie. claims to whiteness in order to fit-in, and claims to South
Asianness when surrounded by other South Asians). In this way college served as a
“racial microclime” for students as DesiCrit describes, creating a local environment for these types of racialization to occur. For international students, college in the United
States was the first time they were racialized in the ways described by DesiCrit, whereas for many domestic students this was a continuation of ways they had been previously racialized in childhood.
Summary Throughout their time in college, South Asian students were involved in some of the main facets of campus culture, while others avoided what many deemed to be cult- like traditions and opted for other aspects of campus life. Students talked about being involved with what they termed “Browntown” which was composed of South Asians of campus and included the two major South Asian organizations. The majority of participants were involved in at least one of these two organizations for some portion of their collegiate career and it helped some participants find their community on campus.
161 Students also found community through other involvement on campus and obtained leadership positions that increased their self-confidence.
Summary of Findings
The first theme showed the complexity of their identity negotiations with their friends and family through childhood and into college. The second and fifth themes, highlighted the significance of the “microclime” in the salience of racial identity for students. International students did not think about their racial identity when they were in their home countries, but once they came to a PWI for college their racialized identity became more salient.
The second and fourth themes, highlighted a desire for whiteness or
Americanness while keeping racial roots. Domestic students described wanting to fit-in or assimilate to the American culture and often articulated trying to achieve this by acting or dressing white. At the same time, international students talked about compartmentalizing their Americanness from their family and friends in their home countries. Also, in the second and fourth themes the performative nature of some aspects of race and religion was discussed. International students commented on the performative aspects of race they had seen in domestic students, which could be due to domestic students striving to stay connected to their racial roots. Most of the students, international and domestic, explained their religious identity as being something that their parents or grandparents valued, but was more performative and not necessarily important to the students now. Throughout all five of these themes, the participants’ racialized identity
162 was central, as DesiCrit suggests. The next part of this chapter will delve into a deeper discussion of the major findings using the DesiCrit framework.
Findings Through the Lens of DesiCrit
The data presented above was organized and analyzed in such a way to honor the methodological approach of narrative inquiry and to stay as close to the data and participants’ stories as possible while answering the study’s research questions (Butina, 2015; Clandinin & Connelly, 2000). While DesiCrit was used to support some of the analysis above, in the following section it becomes the primary framework for analysis to delve into the critical components of the participants’ narratives. In particular, the framework allows us to see how the pan-ethnic Asian umbrella erases the specificity of South Asian experiences by re-centering these narratives while accounting for power dynamics and inequities. The discussion of the findings are re-analyzed using the three main components of DesiCrit: the formal and informal modes of racialization; defining both “claims to” and “ascriptions of” racial statuses; and highlighting the role of the “racial microclimes,” or local environment, in racialization. Reexamining the findings through these three components of DesiCrit allows for a more critical lens to address the conceptual and theoretical components of this dissertation. The themes discussed earlier in this chapter are comprised of the identities and influences on their identities that the participants highlighted in their stories: 1) Influence of family & friends on identity; 2) Centrality of race, ethnicity, and religion in defining self; 3) Salience of gender and sexual orientation; 4) Nationality on campus; and 5) College influence on identity. After further examination of these themes through a DesiCrit lens, four critical perspectives emerged: 1) The performative nature of race and religion as a result of racialization; 2) Desiring whiteness while keeping racial roots; 3)
163
The college campus as a “racial microclime;” and 4) The complexity of identity negotiations with family. The discussion of the first three critical perspectives includes the identities of race, religion, and nationality prior to and during college. In alignment with Kodoma et al. (2002), in this study racial identity was foundational for the students’ overall identity and was interwoven in other facets of their identity; although for international students racial identity did not become prevalent in their lives until they left their home countries for college in the United States. The fourth critical perspective discusses the influence family played in identity negotiations and how these negotiations became complexified when students attended college. Some of the identity negotiations students faced in college were due to the dissonance between experiences prior to college and during college. The Performative Nature of Race and Religion as a Result of Racialization
In many of the participants’ stories there are times when the participants intentionally chose to, or not to, behave in certain ways due to the way they might become racialized. DesiCrit describes racialization as occurring either through formal or informal avenues (Harpalani, 2013). The ways in which formal and informal racialization occur for South Asian students influenced the ways they had to negotiate their identities. Most of the ways the students were racialized were through avenues they could not necessarily control, like their names, accents, or skin color. These forms of racialization are often put upon students by others in society and may not align with how the students see their own racialized identity. However, by performing their race and religion in a certain way they can control parts of how they become racialized by others. This critical perspective first discusses formal and informal racialization and then delves into how
164 informal racialization influences the religious and racialized identity negotiations of
South Asian students. Formal and Informal Racialization. The formal racialization of South Asians occurs through the creation and application of racial classification by a source of authority, like the government (Harpalani, 2013). The majority of racialization that was conveyed through the participants’ stories was informal, however formal racialization occurred when they discussed the boxes they have had to check on exams like the SAT. Students may check the Asian or Asian American box on a form, but for the majority of students it did not hold as much personal meaning (Kodama & Ebreo, 2009). Most students used more specific racial and ethnic identity terms like Brown, Desi, Indian,
Pakistani, or regionally based terms like Gujarati. Unlike formal racialization, informal racialization does not involve official classification categories, rather it occurs through physical identification, the performance of race, social meanings, and racialized symbols (Harpalani, 2013). Informal racialization includes behaviors that communicate racial identity or status and occurred in the participants’ stories when the participants talked about names, accents, languages, and the performative nature of race and religion. Religious Identity and Informal Racialization. Participants can control some forms of racialization. For instance, the majority chose to step away from their religion once they got to college. This was true for both domestic and international students. Religion was one of the identities where every participant spoke about the role it played in their childhood and the importance in their families, however only a couple identified themselves as being religious since coming to college. A couple of participants described themselves as more spiritual than religious but admitted to being performative when it came to religious practices with their elders. For these participants, college was a time to choose how to spend their time with less influence from their families, and for the
165 majority of participants religious activities were not how they chose to spend their time. Although college is thought to have a secularizing effect on students (Berger, 1973; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991), this may be particularly true for students who practice a minoritized religion due to fears of being racialized in a particular way. While students described this process of secularization as a choice, the DesiCrit lens encourages us to think about the ways (white) American norms of religious practice exert pressure on students to negotiate their religious identities in a way that does not draw attention to difference. This may be particularly the case for Muslim students given Islamophobic beliefs present throughout the United States. Race and Informal Racialization. Since this study had both international and domestic participants there were different levels of racialization described by each group. Both groups talked about how the presence of an identifiably non-American accent was a differentiator for the two groups, although not all international students had an accent. The presence of an accent made it harder for some international South Asian students to connect with non-South Asian students at RSU because they were categorized as being “foreigners” due to their accent. International students verbalized being confused about the performative nature of race portrayed by some of their domestic counterparts. International students explained that some domestic South Asian students tried to be “more traditional” or “more Indian” than those who grew up in India by spouting their knowledge of Bollywood movies or life in India. Although Bollywood movies provide a glimpse into some aspects of life in South Asia, it often provides a singular highly glamorized snapshot, neglecting some of the real experiences of individuals in South Asia. The actors and actresses in Bollywood films also tend to have lighter skin and is an example of how colorism plays a part in India. Although the international students discussed not thinking about race prior to college, most were lighter skinned South
166
Asians, and may have had to think more about race and colorism in India if they had darker skin. The performance of race could be due to domestic South Asian students feeling disconnected from certain aspects of their race and finding the need to prove that they, too, are South Asian. Many of the domestic students talked about trying so hard to “fit- in” with their white peers and acknowledged the paths of informal racialization that caused them to be othered. Domestic students talked about how having a South Asian name in their primarily white classes caused them to stand out and become racialized and othered. This desire to not be othered led to some participants feeling ashamed of their race and culture, especially prior to college, and wanting to hide things that could lead to informal racialization, like the fact that they spoke Hindi or wore South Asian clothes. As a result, South Asian American students felt the need to suppress parts of their identity that led to racialization when they were around non-South Asians. For some, this tension between shame and pride was reconciled through further exploration of their racial identity in college. However, as the international students highlighted, domestic students acted more South Asian around other South Asians in college. Domestic students talked about the need to balance their South Asianness with their Americanness and never feeling like they fully belong to either category. One participant described this as “living in the dash” in between South Asian and American identities and constantly having to navigate and negotiate between the two identities. This idea is similar to what other immigrant groups in the United States face. For example, in Torres’ (2009) study on Latino Americans it was found that participants had to develop bicultural competence in order to navigate both cultural contexts by maintaining tradition Latino culture and succeeding in the United States; this was difficult as many times the two cultures were in opposition to one another. The next section discusses how domestic South Asian students work to navigate their desire to be American and be seen as white
167 while also keeping their racial roots. Simultaneously, international South Asian students were concerned with not being perceived as too American after attending college in the United States. Desiring Whiteness While Keeping Racial Roots
DesiCrit recognizes that racialization is bi-directional and involves “claims to” racial status from members of the racialized group as well as “ascriptions of” racial status applied by others outside of the racialized group (Harpalani, 2013). The primary difference between claims and ascriptions is the agency of the racialized group in claiming racial status and the lack of agency in the ascription of racial status. In the stories of the participants it is evident that their racial identity is a combination of how they define and perceive themselves and how others define and perceive them. Claims to Racial Status. Claims to racial status and agency in participants’ definitions of their racial identity can be seen in their stories. A common theme throughout South Asian American stories were claims to whiteness or Americanness while striving to stay connected with their South Asianness. Some of the domestic students talked about times when others deemed them white-washed as well as ways in which they intentionally strived to be “white.” One student explained that he cut his hair a certain way and dressed in a particular way so that he can be perceived as white by others. He attributed his choice to act white as a reason people, presumably white people, are “less on guard” when interacting with him. His statement alludes to there being a reason a non-South Asian would be on guard based on his appearance. Another domestic student explained that as a child, “I just wanted to fit in, be one of the white kids.” Without knowing the historical and contemporary complexities of race as an elementary school student, this student still understood that whiteness was something valuable to attain. Domestic students aimed to be “normal” as a child and at
168 that time interpreted this to mean not South Asian, only American. The data show that another element of racial identity development is the exclusive association of normalness with whiteness and whiteness with Americanness. Harris (1993) describes whiteness as property in social relations and whiteness as a privileged status. The intersection of race and property can help to understand inequity, with whiteness being viewed as the ultimate property (Ladson-Billings, & Tate, 1995). Domestic South Asian students were striving for whiteness to be a part of this privileged status, and in the process erasing parts of their racialized identity. This phenomenon can be further analyzed using Omi and Winant’s (1994) racial formation process that describes the complexities of race as being linked to hegemonic forces that control how society is organized; in the United States, this often means that whiteness is on the top of the hierarchy. International South Asian students, on the other hand, did not strive for whiteness, but rather tried not to act too American when they went back to their home countries. The international students described not wanting their friends and families in their home countries to perceive them as becoming “too American.” This is because international students did not want those at home to think they are better than them now that they have studied in the United States. This could also be due to the colonial mindset that you have to leave India to get an elite education. It could also be related to socioeconomic status since only the wealthier students have the opportunity to study in the United States, particularly at state schools like RSU that are expensive for international students. Also, many South Asians view being too American as a bad thing because it is erasing traditional South Asian traditions, customs, and behaviors. Although in a different way both international and domestic South Asian students were negotiating their South Asian identity with the level of Americanness/whiteness they espoused. Ascriptions of Racial Status. In alignment with DesiCrit, ascriptions of otherness were used to negate claims of whiteness even though students tried to fit-in and
169 assimilate to white American culture. Based on informal racialization avenues, international and domestic South Asian students faced racism and were often deemed foreigners. Kodoma et al. (2002) described racism as playing a major role on psychosocial development and identity negotiations in Asian American college students, which was observed in participants’ stories as they described their experiences with racism. Some students experienced racism in the form of microaggressions, like students being asked how they speak English so fluently by college administrators. Other students talked about blatant racist incidents like being told to go back to their country the day after the 2016 election, being told to “go back to Al-Qaeda” on 9/11, or being asked, “where’s Osama?” All of these forms of racism reminded participants that they are not white and are not afforded the advantages of whiteness in the United States. These stories of racism challenge the overall ambiguity of South Asians in the United States because in relation to whiteness they are considered the “other.” Even though South Asian students pursue whiteness to be afforded the advantages and social status that come along with it, including avoiding racist incidents, they also aim to stay in touch with their racial and ethnic roots. This is evident in the importance domestic participants gave to finding ways to connect with other South Asians from childhood into college. In childhood, the South Asian American students joined Bollywood dance groups and had South Asian gatherings with other South Asian families. International students, on the other hand, spent their childhood surrounded by other South Asians in school, except for Abhi who went to international school with a diverse population, and did not have to intentionally seek out ways to stay connected with other South Asians until college. In college, the majority of both domestic and international participants joined ethnic organizations and found ways to connect with other South Asians. Although DesiCrit does not explicitly deem a college campus a
170
“microclime”, RSU is large enough and rural enough to be considered a “microclime” and influence how identities are experienced. The College Campus as a “Racial Microclime”
DesiCrit highlights the role “racial microclimes” play in theorizing racial ambiguity. The “racial microclime” refers to local environments, social dynamics, and political circumstances that affect racialization processes. Racialization operates on a national level and societal level, at large, but can play different roles in local environments (Harpalani, 2013), including college campuses. This critical perspective seeks to extend DesiCrit by analyzing how the college campus is a “racial microclime” for college students’ identity. International and domestic South Asian students experienced the college environment differently based on their experiences prior to college. The influence of the “racial microclime” on identity is apparent in the way international students experienced race in their home countries versus at college in the United States. The international students in this study went from being in the racial majority in their home countries to the racial minority when they came to college at a PWI in the United States. This transition caused many of the international students to think about their race, often for the first time. The international students discussed becoming more aware of discrimination, racism, and tokenism that happen to non-white people in the United States. This meant racial identity became more salient for international students in college. In contrast, the domestic students discussed being aware of their race and described race as a salient identity in their lives from a young age. The domestic students experienced being one of the only people of color in their K-12 classes in the United States. Domestic students found community amongst other students in “Browntown” and
171 for some participants college was a time where they became more deeply connected with their South Asian roots through their involvement with ethnic organizations. Although both groups of participants, international and domestic, talked about also being involved with many aspects on campus including the football culture, philanthropy, animal rights, fitness, dance teams, campus employment and sports teams, many participants sought out the South Asian Society (SAS) or the Indian Culture Club (ICC) with the hope of finding a Brown community as well. These two ethnic organizations provided a community for South Asian students where they felt connected to their culture and race and could bring their full selves and identities. Often times South Asian students are in situations where they find it necessary to compartmentalize or suppress parts of their identities. Having friends of the same race reduced the need to reconcile conflicting values between their experiences at home and around peers (Kodoma, et al., 2002). Being in community with other Brown college students reduced the amount of identity negotiations that needed to be made for the majority of students. The Complexity of Identity Negotiations with Family
This study extends DesiCrit to understand the role of families in racial socialization and students’ other identities. The influence of parents and family was a significant force for South Asian students as they negotiated their identities in terms of who they are, how they became who they are, and why they see themselves the way they do. This finding discusses the identity negotiations students made in relation to their family. Many of the participants described their parents as a great source of support, and talked about them with gratitude for all their parents have done for them. This gratitude also led to a sense of indebtedness to their parents, which caused some participants to struggle to balance their own desires and expectations with those of their parents. The stories of the participants in this dissertation study reflect many external family
172 influences on their identity. In Kodama et al.’s (2002) model the authors discuss two primary arenas of external influence for Asian American students that become a part of the identity negotiation process. Kodama and others (2002) described family/cultural influences as including deferment to authority, collectivism, guilt and shame, educational value, language, and gender roles. Family/cultural influences are evident in students’ stories; however, this dissertation complicates Kodama et al.’s (2002) model by adding to the ways in which family influences Asian students. Students discussed families providing support in ways that also accounted for students’ holistic development, including their emotional well-being. There were many instances where participants were hesitant to share certain parts of their identity or experiences with their families and talked about feeling conflicted and having to compartmentalize these aspects of their identities primarily around their parents and other family. The stories of many South Asian American students reflected the struggle of having to balance the expectations of their parents and cultures while assimilating to their American schools, friends, and culture in childhood and into college. Elements of this also appeared in the stories of international South Asian students adjusting to college in the United States and working to balance their South Asian identity and parental expectations with the demands of their new college environment. International students also talked about compartmentalizing any American mannerisms they learned in college from their friends and family back in their home countries. International and domestic participants reported keeping their drinking habits, their lack of religiousness, and relationships with significant others hidden from their family. Participants offered different rationales for hiding things about themselves from their family, including not wanting to upset their family with their choices, their family being set in their beliefs, and the desire to make their family proud. This resulted in participants suppressing parts of their identity to align with their family’s expectations of them.
173
Family also played a major part in how participants experienced their gender identity and sexual orientation. When asked about their gendered identities, many of the women participants, international and domestic, commented on how their family treated daughters differently than sons. These experiences included having a brother who was allowed more freedom, later curfews, allowed to go to sleepovers, or did not have to help around the house. From a young age many South Asians are receiving messages about what are appropriate gender behaviors and being forced to fit into these gendered norms, that, as McWilliams and Penuel (2016) state, are practiced and reproduced. There is also a cultural norm that positions heterosexuality, and non-transgender identities as normal, good, and healthy in society (McWilliams & Penuel, 2016). An overwhelming majority of the participants’ stories highlighted that these cultural norms were expected to be followed in the South Asian community. Many of the participants had learned that the subject of sexual orientation was off-limits due to their parents’ behaviors and actions. As a result, many students had never thought about their sexual orientation. Family was the first external influence students had on their identities and it continued well into their college years. Some students tried to create boundaries with their family during college, whereas others enjoyed being in constant daily communication with their family. For all of these students, family expectations influenced their behaviors and played a major role in their identity negotiations. The next chapter will offer a brief overview of the entire study, followed by a summary of the findings in each of the five themes. Chapter five will also discuss the limitations of the study and recommendations for future research, in addition to implications for theory and practice.
174 Chapter 5: Discussion & Implications
Overview of Study
The chapter begins with a brief overview of the study, followed by an overview of the findings, the limitations and recommendations for future research, and ends with implications for research and practitioners. This dissertation study aimed to better understand what influences identity among undergraduate South Asian students and how participants describe and negotiate their identities prior to and during college. This study also sought to dispel the myth of a monolithic Asian experience by providing a range of stories from South Asian students of varying backgrounds and experiences to reveal the complexity of their identities and provide a deeper understanding of the impact of their college experiences. These stories were obtained using narrative inquiry as a guide for collecting and analyzing the data. Specifically, Riessman’s (2008) thematic analysis was used to create the five overarching themes that answer the guiding research questions.
The following question guided this research: How do undergraduate South Asian students negotiate their identities as college students? To further analyze this topic, the following sub-questions were asked:
• How do South Asian students relate to and describe their multiple identities as
they understood them prior to coming to college?
• How do South Asian students relate to and describe their multiple identities
during college?
175 Overview of Findings
The findings presented in chapter four were organized through five themes: the influence of family & friends on identity, the centrality of race, ethnicity, and religion in defining self, the salience of gender and sexual orientation, nationality on campus, and the college influence on identity. These themes help to understand the negotiation of identities for South Asian students prior to and during college. DesiCrit’s three main components that contribute to the racialization of South Asians, informal and formal racialization, claims and ascriptions to racial status, and the “racial microclime,” were evident throughout the stories.
In theme one, the influence of family and friends on identity, students negotiated their identities between internal and external forces including friends and family and described how these forces acted differently from childhood into college. Prior to college, international students felt a strong sense of deference to the authority of the parents and during college the relationships with parents remained in-tact but also extend into a different type of independence. Domestic students also had complicated relationships with their parents prior to college because many of the parents are immigrants. The generational gap from parents and children growing up in different countries led to some students not feeling close to their parents. Out of the ten domestic students, six indicated that their relationships strained under the physical separation from their parents and this strain was exacerbated as students’ identities changed over time in college and the dissonance grew between who their parents thought they were and how they identified.
International students described how moving frequently prior to college impacted their ability to maintain deep friendships and found that in college their friendships, primarily
176 with other international South Asian students, provided a meaningful support system.
Domestic students felt friendships in their childhood were often strained because they were the only Brown person in their classroom or neighborhood, and they felt the need to suppress their South Asian heritage to fit in. In college, however, many seemed to reconcile the South Asian side of their identity through friendships. It is evident that over time the external influences of friends and family played a role in the identity negotiations of both international and domestic students, prior to and during college.
Theme two – the centrality of race, ethnicity, and religion in defining self – showed students changing components of their identities over time. Prior to college, most international students did not think about race. For these students, it was surprising when they came to college and for the first time experienced racism in the United States.
Domestic students, on the other hand, thought frequently about race throughout their childhood; they felt the need to fit in and for some this meant suppressing parts of their racial identity. When the domestic students came to college and found themselves to not be the only Brown person they were able to reconcile their racial identity. For both international and domestic students, there was a need to balance their ethnicity with their desire to participate in the American college-life. This often meant that students were not sharing their full experience at RSU with their parents or back home. All participants described religion as a having a role in their identities prior to college. In college, participants no longer felt that their religious identity was the same as it was in childhood, and many students indicated they were questioning these practices and beliefs. The reason for this is unclear, although the lens of DesiCrit prompts us to question if students could be avoiding the informal racialization that comes from participating in a
177 minoritized religion. Conversely, it could be that the physical separation from their families allowed for the participants to feel less obligated to participate in religious practices.
Theme three – salience of gender and sexual orientation – explored how participants felt about gender and sexual orientation. Prior to college, men did not think about their own gender and the role it plays in society. In college, some men began to think about binary gender roles, the existence of gender biases, and the reflection of gender in society. Women thought about gender differently. For most women, gender played a role prior to college that focused on safety, relationships with male siblings, and gendered academic experience. The salience of gender continued for women in college, with a heightened focus of the relationship between gender and academics, especially in engineering and computer science. Sexual orientation was not particularly salient to any student prior to college. Some participants talked about being more aware of the LGBTQ community since coming to college, but overall their own sexual orientation identity remained unchanged.
The fourth theme, nationality on campus, delves into the different experiences of international and domestic students on campus. This theme was only explored in the students’ identities since coming to college and in many ways is intertwined with students’ views on race. International and domestic students attributed the presence of an accent for international students as one of the main differentiating factors for the two groups on campus. Some international students thought domestic students were “white- washed” or not Indian enough and others thought domestic students were trying to be more Indian. Domestic students seemed to want to connect to their South Asian roots
178 while also being seen as American. DesiCrit highlights the racial ambiguity that South
Asian Americans face being a Brown person in a society that privileges whiteness, and often connects whiteness with Americanness.
The fifth theme, college influence on identity, uses DesiCrit to view college as a
“racial microclime.” While the culture of RSU is heavily influenced by the predominantly white student body, for South Asian students there are sub microclimes that exist through a Browntown culture. South Asian student organizations were a primary way that participants were involved on campus and student narratives reflected on the level of comfort and community they felt in these organizations. For some domestic students the participation in these organizations allowed for the reconciliation of their South Asian and American identities in a way they could not prior to college.
As seen through the stories of these participants, South Asian students are all complex and bring many identities and experiences to college. Many of the participants’ stories reflected that they are striving to fit in, find their community, and balance their evolving identities. There is no “one-size fits all” model that would encompass all of the stories discussed by the participants in this study. It is important to remember that while there are some similarities across similar ethnic and racial groups, each student has their own perceptions of their identities that may have been shaped by their parents, family, environment, friends etc. These stories break the monolithic narratives often told of
Asians. No two stories were alike and all of the participants had multidimensional identities, varying interests, and varying relationships with their family and their culture.
These stories expanded the “box” of who gets to be South Asian and what it means to be
South Asian.
179 Limitations & Recommendations for Future Research
The limitations and the recommendations for future research are discussed in relation to three main areas of the study: campus location, diversity in sample, and the research protocol. The participants are only from a single institution, but this was necessary so that there was some type of consistency between the type of college environment experienced by each student. Future studies in different types of higher education settings in a variety of geographic locations, and institutional types (e.g. smaller liberal arts institutions, community colleges, religiously-affiliated campuses) would provide other insights and continue to round-out the emerging scholarship on
South Asian identity development. For example, an institution in a large city in the
United States could look different from RSU as there would be more ways for students to be involved in opportunities outside of the college campus that could influence their identity. The students in this study were also all residential students, meaning that none of them lived at home with their families while commuting to campus. The identity negotiations of commuter students living at home while attending college would likely look different.
A second area of limitations is the diversity of the sample in this study. Although the participant sample for this study was diverse in many ways, there could have been more diversity in terms of some identities and communities. For example, the participants for this study primarily had ancestral roots in India – only one participant had ancestral roots in Pakistan and the other countries in the South Asian region were not represented.
This did not allow for the full diversity within the South Asian diaspora, which includes seven different countries, to be highlighted. A future study should try to have a more
180 diverse representation from South Asian countries to understand the nuances within the
Indian sub-continent. It would also be interesting to delve into the experiences of multi- racial students who identify as South Asian to understand what additional identity negotiations might occur. Additionally, all the participants shared a similar experience with gender and sexual orientation. Despite attempts to market through different listservs on campus including the Center for Sexual and Gender Diversity, all the participants in this study identified as cis-gender and heterosexual. A future study, with more diversity in gender and sexual orientation could lead to deeper insights on how these identities are negotiated in South Asian students.
The socio-economic status of students, particularly for international students, is defined by the caste system in India. Yet, caste was not explicitly brought up in the interviews. Students were asked if money was something they thought about growing up, and only one international student discussed being low-income. This means that the sample of international students is skewed and likely only represents a small, wealthy, fraction of the South Asians in India. The diversity of socioeconomic status is missing in the international student sample, which could be due to the expensive nature of RSU for out of state students. A future study with a more socioeconomically diverse population could lead to different types of identity negotiations in South Asian students.
Religion was one identity that every participant discussed having an impact on their lives prior to college and many discussed not feeling as connected to their religious identity in college. A future study should aim to have more diversity of religious identities represented so that comparisons could be made to explore see how being a
Hindu compared to being a Muslim or a Sikh may impact a student’s religious activities
181 in college. This would allow for an untangling of the nuances between particular religious groups.
A third area of limitations for this study stemmed from the guiding questions in the protocol. The questions in the protocol were framed using language from the RMMDI and asked about the participants’ identities in relation to their salience prior to and during college, as opposed to directly asking about the ways these identities were negotiated.
Although identity is a very broad topic and not every question could be asked, there were some areas where it would be interesting to delve further into the data. These include asking more pointed questions about how the students saw their family and friends influencing each of their identities, if and how they discussed race with their families and friends, how media portrayals of race influenced their own racial identity, and how their racial identity intersected with their other identities. This would have provided data on where the students are getting their notions of race. It would also have been interesting to delve deeper into the participants’ religious identities to understand how they saw the intersections of race, culture, and religion and how this was differentiated for each religious group.
Future studies could also include a final focus group with all of the participants in one room that encourages group discussions about similar topics. Some of the participants had similar experiences and some had vastly different experiences at the same institution and being able to discuss those with each other would provide even deeper insight into the lived experiences of South Asian students. It would be interesting to compare what the participants chose to share in confidence in a one-on-one setting
182 with the interviewer versus what they would have shared with a room of other South
Asian peers.
The beginning of this dissertation discussed the Black-white binary and how this dissertation work aimed to add another dimension beyond just Black and white racialized experiences. However, based on the data collected in this dissertation study, an almost
Brown-white binary emerged. In other words, most participants in this study typically referenced whiteness as American and did not speak in relation to Black America or other racialized groups in America. This could be due to the fact that half of the participants were international students coming from India where they do not have access to Black
American culture and where whiteness seems to be the more recognized and acceptable standard. Additionally, most of the domestic students in the sample referenced growing up in suburban, predominantly white communities. Domestic students’ frames of reference are likely geared towards whiteness given their proximity to whiteness as
American. Future studies should interrogate this limited reference to Black identity or other racially minoritized identities in the United States as scholars have documented
Black culture as a prevalent part of some South Asian Americans’ lives (Balaji & Nair,
2008; Harpalani, 2013).
Despite these limitations, this study still adds to the literature as it provides insights into the lived experiences of undergraduate international and domestic South
Asian students. This study also adds to the possibilities for how DesiCrit can be used to understand the experiences and identity negotiations of South Asians in the United States.
183 Implications for Theory
Using the data from this study and future research could lead to the creation of a theory of “DesiCrit on Campus.” DesiCrit, as a critical race theory, is inattentive to the multiple identities of South Asian college students. Because the original DesiCrit framing was not made with identity development in mind, in order to explore the multiple identities and negotiations of South Asian students a DesiCrit on Campus theory would need to take a more intersectional approach to understanding how racialization influences other identities.
Although DesiCrit was conceptualized to explore the racialization of South Asian
Americans in this study, DesiCrit was also expanded to include and was applicable to international South Asian students in the United States. This could be due to the fact that others, outside of the South Asian community, view all South Asians as the same due to informal racialization by skin color. For this reason, DesiCrit is applicable to all South
Asians in the United States.
Finally, DesiCrit describes a “racial microclime” as a local environment that affects racialization of South Asians. Based on this definition a college campus could be considered its own “racial microclime” that influences the racialization of South Asian students. At a large institution like RSU there are sub-cultures that could be interpreted as sub-racial microclimes. Extending DesiCrit in this way would allow the researcher to further interrogate how college influences their racial identity. Additionally, the college environment complexifies the identity negotiations South Asian students experience with their families.
184 DesiCrit was created as critical race theory to help describe the racialization process of South Asian Americans. However, this study shows that DesiCrit can be applied in a specific context and extended to any South Asian in the United States.
DesiCrit was not created for South Asian college students, specifically, but it can be applied with careful intention to the nuances found on college campuses, with regard to the racialized environments of college campuses and irrespective of nationality.
Implications for Practice
Student affairs practitioners have the challenging role of providing services that ensure all their students receive a holistic college experience that supports their multiple identities. As the student demographics shift, the approach to student services must also shift to be inclusive of all students and their ever-changing needs. Based on the findings of this study, student affairs practitioners should recognize the constant identity negotiations that South Asian students are already making prior to college and how the college environment and family influences these negotiations.
Knowing that parental influences play a role in the majority of South Asian students’ lives, practitioners should engage parents as well. This could be through parent orientations running concurrently with student orientations, and with virtual orientation options for international students’ parents who may not have accompanied their students to campus. This gives an opportunity for parents of both domestic and international students to be informed of what an American college experience will entail.
With the knowledge that South Asian students are already navigating and negotiating the complexities of their identities prior to college, student affairs
185 practitioners should be aware of how the college environment further complexifies those negotiations. Practitioners should work on creating a campus environment that encourages cohesion and inclusivity while also attending to the particular needs of each population of students. In some situations, the South Asian participants in this study had similar experiences, but the needs of individual South Asian students often varied depending on their various identities and personal experiences. Practitioners should be aware of how South Asian students’ needs vary depending on if they are an international or domestic student or have experiences that blur these lines, how they are racialized, their socioeconomic status, their religious identity, their gender and their sexual orientation. Practitioners should continue to offer ways for students to stay connected with their race, culture, and religion through student organizations and events sponsored by student affairs offices. The majority of students found community and were able to explore their multiple identities through student run organizations on campus, specifically many participants were a part of South Asian-focused student organizations. However, religious identity for many students was not maintained through college; one of the reasons for this could be the lack of appropriate prayer spaces for minoritized religious groups on campus. Student affairs practitioners should work to ensure that there are spaces for the religious needs of South Asian students, which means specific areas for
Hindus, Sikhs, and Muslims to pray.
Practitioners, especially at PWI’s, should critically analyze how whiteness is normalized at their institutions. South Asian students reported feeling the need to dress or act white to fit in at times. There were also a couple of incidents with microaggressions and racist events that participants faced on campus; one of these was by an upper level
186 administrator who asked a student “how do you speak English so well?” It is important for college administrators to recognize their biases, be culturally competent and not perpetuate inequities on campus. Student affairs practitioners, other administrators, and faculty should continually work to create a campus culture that is inclusive and safe for everyone, and where students feel comfortable bringing all of their identities. Achieving a campus culture that fosters growth and success for all students is a goal that requires continual efforts and buy-in of all university stakeholders.
187 REFERENCES
Abes, E. S., & Jones, S. R. (2004). Meaning-making capacity and the dynamics of lesbian
college students’ multiple dimensions of identity. Journal of College Student
Development, 45, 612-632.
Abes, A. S., Jones, S. R. & McEwen, M. K. (2007). Reconceptualizing the model of
multiple dimensions of identity: The role of meaning-making capacity in the
construction of multiple identities. Journal of College Student Development 48(1),
1-22.
Accapadi, M. M, (2012) Asian American Identity Consciousness. In D. Ching, & A.
Agbayani (Eds.) Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders in higher education:
Research and perspectives on identity, leadership, and success (pp. 57-94).
Washington, DC: NASPA – Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education.
Accapadi, M.M. (2017). From reflection to refraction. New Directions for Student
Services, 160, 93-101.
American Council on Education (ACE). (1937). The student personnel point of view. In
A.L. Rentz (Ed.), Student affairs a profession’s heritage (2nd ed.), 66-77.
Washington, DC: American College Personnel Association.
Andreouli, E. (2013). Identity and acculturation: The case of naturalised citizens in
Britain. Culture & Psychology, 19(2), 165-183
Anzaldúa, G. (1987). Borderlands: la frontera (Vol. 3). San Francisco, CA: Aunt Lute.
Astin, A.W. (1993a). Assessment for excellence: The philosophy and practice of
assessment and evaluation in higher education. Phoenix, AZ: Orynx.
188 Astin, A.W. (1993b). What matters in college?: Four critical years revisited. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Atkinson, R. (1998). The life story interview. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Productions.
Atkinson, R. (2007). The life story interview as a bridge in narrative inquiry. In D.J.
Clandinin (Ed.), Handbook of narrative inquiry: Mapping a methodology, (pp.
224-245). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Balaji, M., & Nair, A. (2008). Desi rap: South Asian Americans in hip hop. Lanham,
MD: Lexington Books.
Berger, P. (1973). Homeless mind. New York: Vintage Book.
Bhatia, S., & Ram, A. (2004). Culture, hybridity, and the dialogical self: Cases from the
South Asian diaspora. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 11(3), 224–240.
Bhatia, S., & Ram, A. (2009). Theorizing identity in transnational and diaspora cultures:
A critical approach to acculturation. International Journal of Intercultural
Relations, 33, 140–149.
Bhattacharya, K. (2017). Fundamentals of qualitative research: A practical guide. New
York, NY: Routledge.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature
and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bowen, H. (1997). Investment in learning: The individual and the social value of
American higher education. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Boyd, V. S., Hunt, P. F., Kandell, J. J., & Lucas, M. S. (2003). Relationship between
identity processing style and academic success in undergraduate students. Journal
of College Student Development, 44(2), 155–167.
189 Butina, M. (2015). A narrative approach to qualitative inquiry. Clinical Laboratory
Science, 28(3), 190-196.
Caputo, M., Hartman, S. (Producers), & Storer, C. (Director). (2017). Hasan Minhaj
Homecoming King. Netflix: United States.
Cass, V. (1979). Homosexual identity formation: A theoretical models. Journal of
Homosexuality, 4(3), 219-235.
Chang, R.S. (1993). Toward an Asian American legal scholarship: Critical Race Theory,
post-structuralism, and narrative space. California Law Review, 81(5), 1243-1323.
Chase, S.E. (1995). Taking narrative seriously: Consequences for method and theory in
interview studies. In R. Josselson & A. Lieblich (Eds.), Interpreting experience:
The narrative study of lives (pp.1-26). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cheng, P. S. (2011). An introduction to queer theology radical love. New York City, NY:
Seabury Books.
Cheung, K.K. (1997). Re-viewing Asian American literary studies. In K.K. Cheung
(eds.), An interethnic companion to Asian American literatures. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Chickering, A. (1969). Education and Identity. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Chickering, A.W., & Reiser, L. (1993). Education and identity (2nd Ed.). San Francisco:
Jossey- Bass.
Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (2000). Narrative inquiry: Experience and story in
qualitative research (1st ed.). San Francisco, Calif: Jossey-Bass.
190 Cowley, W.H. (1983). The nature of student personnel work. In G.L. Saddlemire and A.I.
Rentz (Eds.), Student Affairs: A Profession’s Heritage. Carbondale, IL: Southern
Illinois Press, 47-73.
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design (4th ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Cross, W.E., Jr. (1991). The psychology of Nigrescence: Revisiting the Cross model. In
J.G. Ponterrotto. J.M. Casas, L.A. Suzuki, & C.M. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of
multicultural counseling (pp. 93-122). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Davé, S. (2005). Apu’s brown voice: Cultural inflection and South Asian accents. In T.
Oren, S. Davé, L. Nishime, R.G. Lee (Eds.), East main street: Asian American
popular culture, (pp. 313-316). New York, NY: New York Universtiy Press.
Davé, S., Dhingra, P., Maira, S., Mazumdar, P., Shankar, L. D., Singh, J., & Srikanth, R.
(2000). De-Privileging Positions: Indian Americans, South Asian Americans, and
the Politics of Asian American Studies. Journal of Asian American Studies, 3(1),
67-100. de Wit, H. (2017). Global: Internationalization of higher education: Nine misconceptions.
In Mihut, G., Altbach, P. G., & de Wit, H. (Eds.). (2017). Understanding Higher
Education Internationalization: Insights from Key Global Publications.
Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Deaux, K. (1993). Reconstructing social identity. Personality and social psychology
bulletin, 19, 4-12.
Delgado, R., & Stefancic, J. (2001). Critical race theory: An introduction. New York,
NY: New York University Press.
191
Delgado, R. & Stefancic, J. (2017). Critical race theory: An introduction (3rd ed.). New
York, NY: NYU press.
Devos, T., & Banaji, M. R. (2005). American= white?. Journal of personality and social
psychology, 88(3), 447.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and Education. New York, NY: Macmillan Company.
Dill, B.T., & Zambrana, R.E. (2009). Emerging intersections: Race, class, and gender in
theory, policy, and practice. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Erikson, E. (1959). Identity and the life cycle. Psychological issues monography, 1, 1-
171.
Evans, N. J., Forney, D. S., Guido, F. M., Patton, L. D., & Renn, K. A. (2009). Student
development in college: Theory, research, and practice. San Francisco, CA: John
Wiley & Sons.
Fanon, F. (1952). Black skin, white masks. Paris, France: Editions du Seuil.
Fanon, F. (1963). The wretched of the earth. New York, NY: Grove Press.
Fries-Britt, S., Mwangi, C.A.G., & Peralta, A.M. (2014). Learning race in a U.S. context:
An emergent framework on the perceptions of race among foreign-born students
of color. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 7(1), 1-13.
Gilligan, C. (1993). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Harpalani, V. (2013). DesiCrit: Theorizing the racial ambiguity of south Asian
Americans. New York University Annual Survey of American Law, 69(1), 77-184.
192 Harpalani, V. (2015). To be white, black, or brown: South Asian Americans and the race-
color distinction. Washington University Global Studies Law Review, 14, 609-
636.
Harris, C. I. (1993). Whiteness as property. Harvard Law Review, 106(8), 1707-1791.
Helms, J.E. (1995). An update of Helms’s white and people of color racial identity
models. In J.G. Ponterrotto. J.M. Casas, L.A. Suzuki, & C.M. Alexander (Eds.),
Handbook of multicultural counseling (pp. 181-198). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Holland D., Lachicotte W. Jr., Skinner D., & Cain C. (1998). Identity and Agency in
Cultural Worlds. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Hongo, G. (1995). Under western eyes: Personal essays from Asian America. New York,
NY: Anchor Books.
Huang, L.N. (1997). Asian American adolescents. In E. Lee (Ed.), Working with Asian
Americans: A guide for clinicians (pp. 175-195). New York, NY: Guilford.
Hune, S., & Chan, K. S. (1997). Special focus: Asian Pacific American demographic and
educational trends. Minorities in higher education: Fifteenth annual status report,
39-67.
Ibrahim, F., Ohnishi, H., & Sandhu, D.S. (1997). Asian American identity development:
A culture specific model for South Asian Americans. Journal of Multicultural
Counseling and Development, 25(1), 34-50.
Inkelas, K. K. (2004). Does participation in ethnic cocurricular activities facilitate a sense
of ethnic awareness and understanding? A study of Asian Pacific American
undergraduates. Journal of College Student Development, 45(3), 285–302.
193 Inkeles, A. (1966). Social structure and the socialization of competence. Harvard
Educational Review, 36(3), 265-283.
Institute of International Education [IIE]. (2019). Open door report on international
students in the US. Retrieved 1 April 2020 from https://www.iie.org/Research-
and-Insights/Open-Doors/Fact-Sheets-and-Infographics/Fast-Facts.
Johnston-Guerrero, M. P., & Pizzolato, J. E. (2016). The utility of race and ethnicity in
the multidimensional identities of Asian American students. Journal of College
Student Development, 57(8), 905-924.
Jones, S.R. (1997). Voices of identity and difference: A qualitative exploration of the
multiple dimensions of identity development in women college students. Journal
of College Student Development, 38, 376-386.
Jones, S.R. & Abes, E.S. (2013). Identity development of college students: Advancing
frameworks for multiple dimensions of identity. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley &
Sons.
Jones, S.R, & McEwen, M.K. (2000). A conceptual model of multiple dimensions of
identity. Journal of College Student Development, 41(4), 405-414.
Josselson, R. (1987). Finding herself: Pathways to identity development in women. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Josselson, R.E. (1996). Revising herself: The story of women’s identity from college to
midlife. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Kahn, J.S. (1998). Southeast Asian identities: Culture and the politics of representation in
Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, and Thailand. London, United Kingdom: I.B.
Tauris Publishers.
194 Kanagala, V. (2011). Neither Here, Nor There: The experience of immigration,
integration, and consciousness development among Generation 1.5 Asian Indian
American college students (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest
dissertations (UMI 3494163).
Kanter, R. M. (1977). Some effects of proportions on group life: Skewed sex ratios and
responses to token women. American Journal of Sociology, 82, 965-989.
Kaufman, P., & Feldman, K. A. (2004). Forming identities in college: A sociological
approach. Research in Higher Education, 45(5), 463-496.
Kegan, R. (1994). In over our heads: The mental demands of modern life. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Kelly, B. T., & Torres, A. (2006). Campus safety: Perceptions and experiences of women
students. Journal of College Student Development, 47(1), 20-36.
Kibria, N. (1996). Not Asian, black or white? Reflections on South Asian American
racial identity. Amerasia Journal, 22(2), 77-86.
Kim, E. (2012). An alternative theoretical model: Examining psychosocial identity
development of international students in the United States. College Student
Journal, 46(1), 99-114.
Kim, J. (1981). Processes 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 Dissertations 1896 – February 2014. 3685.
Kim, J. (2012b). Asian American identity development theory. In C. Wijeyesinghe & B.
W. Jackson (Eds.), New perspectives on racial identity development: A
195 theoretical and practical anthology (2nd Ed.). (pp. 138-160). New York: NYU
Press.
King, P. M., Brown, M. K., Lindsay, N. K., & Vanhecke, J. R. (2007). Liberal arts
student learning outcomes: An integrated approach. About Campus, 12(4), 2-9.
Kodama, C. M. & Ebreo, A. (2009). Do labels matter? Attitudinal and behavioral
correlates of ethnic and racial identity choices among Asian American
undergraduates. College Student Affairs Journal, 27 (2) 155-175.
Kodama, C. M., & Maramba (2017). Reconsidering Asian American student
development. New Directions for Student Services, 160, 25-37.
Kodama, C. M., McEwen, M. K., Liang, C. T. H., & Lee, S. (2001). A theoretical
examination of psychosocial issues for Asian Pacific Americans. NASPA Journal,
38, 411–437.
Kodama, C. M., McEwen, M. K., Liang, C. T. H., & Lee, S. (2002). An Asian American
perspective on psychosocial development theory. In M. K. McEwen, C. M.
Kodama, A. N. Alvarez, S. Lee, & C. T. H. Liang (Eds.), New Directions for
Student Services: No. 97. Working with Asian American college students (pp.45–
59). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Kodama, C. M., & Laylo, R. (2017). The unique context of identity-based student
organizations in developing leadership. In D. Rosch (Ed.), New Directions for
Student Leadership: No. 155. The role of student organizations in developing
leadership (pp. 71– 81). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
196
Kohli, R., & Solórzano, D. G. (2012). Teachers, please learn our names!: Racial
microaggressions and the K-12 classroom. Race Ethnicity and Education, 15(4),
441-462.
Kurien, P. (1999). Gendered ethnicity: creating a Hindu Indian identity in the United
States. American Behavioral Scientist, 42(4), 648-670.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American
Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465-491.
Ladson-Billings, G., & Tate, W.F. (1995). Toward a critical race theory of education.
Teachers College Record, 97(1), 47-67.
Lai, E., & Arguelles, D. (Eds.). (2003). The new face of Asian America: Numbers,
diversity, and change in the 21st century. Berkeley, CA: Asian Week.
Lee, J.J. (2002). Religion and college attendance: Change among students. The Review
of Higher Education, 25(4), 369-384.
Lee, J.J. (2015). Engaging international students. In S. Quaye & S. Harper (Eds.), Student
Engagement in Higher Education. (2nd ed., pp. 1-14). New York, NY: Routledge.
Lester, J. & Harris III, F. (2015). Engaging undergraduate women and men. In S. Quaye
& S. Harper (Eds.), Student Engagement in Higher Education. (2nd ed., pp. 1-14).
New York, NY: Routledge.
Lieblich, A., Tuval-Mashiach, R., & Zilber, T. (1998). Narrative research: Reading,
analysis, and interpretation (Vol. 47). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.
Lien, P., Conway, M.M., and Wong, J. (2003). The contours and sources of ethnic
identity choices among Asian Americans. Social science quarterly, 84(2), 461-
481.
197 Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry (Vol. 75). Sage: Beverly Hills,
CA.
Lowe, L. (1996). Immigrant Acts: On Asian American cultural politics. Durham, N.C.:
Duke University Press.
Magolda, M. B. B. (1999). Creating contexts for learning and self-authorship:
Constructive-developmental pedagogy. Vanderbilt University Press.
Magolda, M. B. B. (2001). A Constructivist Revision of the Measure of Epistemological
Reflection. Journal of College Student Development, 42(6), 520-34.
Magolda, M. B. B. (2009). The activity of meaning making: A holistic perspective on
college student development. Journal of College Student Development, 50(6),
621-639.
Maira, S. (2002). Desis in the house: Indian American youth culture in NYC.
Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Majumdar, S. (2018). 5 facts about religion in India. Pew Research Center. Retrieved 8
April 2020 from: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/06/29/5-facts-
about-religion-in-india.
Mallapragada, M. (2014). Rethinking Desi: Race, class, and online activism of south
Asian immigrants in the United States. Television & New Media, 15(7), 664-678.
Mamiseishvili, K. (2012). International student persistence in U.S. postsecondary
institutions. Higher Education, 64(1), 1-17.
Marcia, J. E. (1966). Development and validation of ego-identity status. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 3(5), 551-558.
198 Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition,
emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224–253.
Mayhew, M. J., Rockenbach, A. N., Bowman, N. A., Seifert, T. A., Wolniak, G. C.
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2016). How college affects students: 21st
century evidence that higher education works (Vol. 3). San Francisco, CA: John
Wiley & Sons.
McIntosh, P. (2018). White privilege and male privilege. In Kimmel, M.S. & Ferber,
A.L. (Eds.) Privilege (4th ed, pp 91-98). Taylor & Francis Group.
McWilliams, J., & Penuel, W. R. (2016). Queer theory in the learning sciences. In Power
and Privilege in the Learning Sciences, 111-132. New York City, NY: Routledge.
Mezirow, J. (Ed.). (2000). Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory
in progress. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Museus, S. D. (2009). A critical analysis of the exclusion of Asian American from higher
education research and discourse. In L. Zhan (ed.) Asian American voices:
Engaging, empowering, enabling (59-76). New York, NY: NLN Press.
Museus, S. D., & Kiang, P. N. (2009). Deconstructing the model minority myth and how
it contributes to the invisible minority reality in higher education research. New
Directions for Institutional Research, 2009(142), 5-15.
Museus, S. D., Shiroma, K., & Dizon, J. P. (2016). Cultural community connections and
college success: An examination of Southeast Asian American college students.
Journal of College Student Development, 57(5), 485–502.
199 National Association of Student Personnel Administrators (NASPA) (1989). Points of
View. Washington, D.C.: National Association of Student Personnel
Administrators.
Noy, C. (2008). Sampling knowledge: The hermeneutics of snowball sampling in
qualitative research. International Journal of social research methodology, 11(4),
327-344.
Ocampo, A., & Soodjinda, D.(2016). Invisible Asian Americans: the intersection of
sexuality, race, and education among gay Asian Americans. Race Ethnicity and
Education, 19(3), 480-499.
Omi, M., & Winant, H. (1994). Racial Formation in the United States from the 1960s to
the 1990s (2nd edition ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Osajima, K. (1995). Racial politics and the invisibility of Asian Americans in higher
education. The Journal of Educational Foundations, 9(1), 35-53.
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects students (Vol. 1991).
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Peterson, W. (1966). Success story, Japanese-American Style. New York Times
Magazine, 9(6), 20-43.
Phinney, J. (1989). Stages of ethnic identity development in minority group adolescents.
Journal of Early Adolescence, 9(1-2), 34-49.
Phinney, J.S. (1996). When we talk about American ethnic groups, what do we mean?
American Psychologist, 51(9), 918-927.
Pizzolato, J. E., Chaudhari, P., Murrell, E. D., Podobnik, S, & Schaeffer, Z. (2008).
Ethnic identity, epistemological development, and academic achievement in
200 underrepresented students. Journal of College Student Development, 49(4), 301–
318.
Poon, O. A. (2013). “Think about it as decolonizing our minds”: Spaces for critical race
pedagogy and transformative leadership development. In S. D. Museus, D. C.
Maramba, & R. Teranishi (Eds.), Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders: A
national por- trait of growth, diversity, and inequality (pp. 294–310). Sterling,
VA: Stylus.
Poon, O. A. (2014). “The land of opportunity doesn’t apply to everyone”: The immi-
grant experience, race, and Asian American career choices. Journal of College
Student Development, 55(6), 499–514.
Prakash, G. (1992). Postcolonial criticism and indian historiography. Duke University
Press, (31), 8-19.
Prashad, V. (2000). The karma of brown folk. Minneapolis, MN: University of
Minnesota Press.
Rana, A. M. (2016). Beyond the classroom: Student Involvement experiences of second-
generation South Asian college students (Doctoral dissertation).
Reynolds, A.L., & Pope, R.L. (1991). The complexities of diversity: Exploring multiple
oppressions. Journal of Counseling and Development, 70, 174-180.
Riessman, C.K. (2002). Analysis of personal narratives. In J. F. Gubrium & J.A. Holstein
(Eds.), Handbook of interview research (pp. 695-710). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Riessman, C.K. (2008). Narrative methods for the human sciences. Los Angeles, CA:
Sage Publications.
201 Roy, M. (1998). Mothers and daughters in Indian American families: A failed
communication? In S. D. Dasgupta (Ed.), A patchwork shawl: Chronicles of
South Asian women in America (pp. 97-110). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers
University Press.
RSU, (2019). Retrieved 1 April 2020 from https://budget.rsu.edu/factbook.
Ruzicka, S. S. (2011). Desi women on the forty acres: Exploring intergenerational issues
and identity development of South Asian American college students (Doctoral
dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest dissertations (UMI 3484392).
Sellers, R. M., Chavous, T. M., & Cooke, D. Y. (1998). Racial ideology and racial
centrality as predictors of African American college students’ academic
performance. Journal of Black Psychology, 24(1), 8–27.
Shankar, L. D., & Srikanth, R. (1998). Introduction: Closing the gap? South Asians
challenge Asian American studies. In L. D. Shankar & R. Srikanth (Eds.), A part,
yet apart (pp. 1-24). Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Shankar, S. (2008). Desi land teen culture, class and success in Silicon Valley. Durham,
NC: Duke University Press.
Shweder, R.A., & Bourne, E.J. (1984). Does the concept of person vary cross culturally?
In R.A. Schweder & R.A. LeVine (Eds.), Culture theory: Essays on mind, self and
emotion. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Solórzano, D. G., & Yosso, T. J. (2002). Critical race methodology: Counter-storytelling
as an analytical framework for education research. Qualitative inquiry, 8(1), 23-
44.
202 Sue, D. W., Bucceri, J., Lin, A. I., Nadal, K. L., & Torino, G. C. (2007). Racial
microaggressions and the Asian American experience. Cultural Diversity and
Ethnic Minority Psychology, 13(1), 72–81.
Sue, D. W., & Sue, D. (2013). Counseling the culturally diverse: Theory and practice (4th
ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Tang, N.M. (1997). Psychoanalytic psychotherapy with Chinese Americans. In E. Lee
(Ed.), Working with Asian Americans: A guide for clinicians (pp. 323-341). NY,
New York: Guilford.
Teranishi, R.T. (2002). Asian Pacific Americans and Critical Race Theory: An
examination of school racial climate. Equity & Excellence in Education, 35(2),
144-154.
Thakore, B. K. (2014). Must-See TV: South Asian Characterizations in American
Popular Media. Sociology Compass, 8(2), 149-156.
Thakore, B.K. (2016). South Asians of the US screen: Just like everyone else? Lanham,
MD: Lexington Books.
Thelamour, B., George Mwangi, C., & Ezeofor, I. (2019). We need to stick together for
survival: Black college students’ racial identity, same-ethnic friendships, and
campus connectedness. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 12(3), 266.
Torres, L. (2009). Latino definitions of success: A cultural model of intercultural
competence. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 31, 576-593.
Torres, V., Jones, S.R., & Renn, K.A. (2009). Identity development theories in student
affairs: Origins, Current Status, and New Approaches. Journal of College Student
Development, 50(6), 577-596.
203 Tseng, W. C, & Newton, F B. (2002). International students' strategies for well-being.
College Student Journal. 36(4), 597-598.
Turpin, K. (2017). Christian education, white supremacy, and humility in formational
agendas. Religious education, 12(4), 407-4017.
Uba, L. (1994). Asian Americans: Personality patterns, identity, and mental health. New
York, NY: Guilford Press.
Urrieta, L. (2007). Identity production in figured worlds: How some Mexican Americans
become Chicana/o activist educations. The Urban Review, 39(2), 117-144.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). Resident population estimates of the United States by sex,
race, and Hispanic origin. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Viswanath, K., & Mehrotra, S. T. (2007). 'Shall we go out?' Women's safety in public
spaces in Delhi. Economic and political weekly, 1542-1548.
Visweswaran, K. (1997). Diaspora by design: Flexible citizenship and South Asians in
the U.S. racial formations. Diaspora: A Journal of Transnational Studies, 6(1), 5-
29.
Williamson, E.G. (1961) Student Personnel Services in Colleges and Universities. New
York, NY: McGraw Hill.
Wing, J. Y. (2007). Beyond black and white: The model minority myth and the
invisibility of Asian American students. The Urban Review, 39(4), 455-487.
Wong, A. (2013). Racial identity construction among Chinese American and Filipino
American undergraduates. In S. D. Museus, D. C. Maramba, & R. Teranishi
(Eds.), The misrepresented minority: New insights on Asian Americans and
204 Pacific Islanders, and the implications for higher education (pp. 76–105). Sterling,
VA: Stylus.
Wong, S. (1992). Ethnicizing gender: An exploration of sexuality as sign in Chinese
immigrant literature. In S. Lim and A. Ling (Eds.), Reading the literatures of
Asian America (pp. 111-129). Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Wong, S. & Santa Ana, S. (1999). Gender and sexuality in Asian American literature.
Signs: Journal of women in culture and society, 25(1), 171-226.
Wu, F. (2002). Yellow: Race in America beyond black and white. New York, NY: Basic
Books.
Yeh, C. J., & Huang, K. (1996). The collective nature of ethnic identity development
among Asian-American college students. Adolescence, 31(123), 1-15.
Yosso, T. J. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of
community cultural wealth. Race ethnicity and education, 8(1), 69-91.
205 APPENDIX A: Recruitment Script
Dear Student,
I am a graduate student conducting my dissertation research on South Asian students and their identity development. This study aims to provide insight into the college experiences of South Asian students in order to understand the role of the college environment on identity.
You are eligible for this study if you have ancestral roots and/or are from one of the following South Asian countries: Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal,
Pakistan or Sri Lanka; and are in at least your second year of full-time undergraduate enrollment at RSU. The questions will center on your childhood and college experiences.
This study requires an interview ranging from 1-3 hours during the fall 2019 semester. The interview will ask about your experiences prior to college, during college, and the evolution of your identity. You will be compensated for your time with a $20 gift card.
If you are interested in participating in this study or have any questions, please email me at [email protected].
Thanks for your consideration,
Sridevi Rao
206 APPENDIX B: Interview Questions
Part A: General. a. What year are you at Penn State? Age? Major? b. How would you describe yourself racially/ethnically? (ie. Desi, Brown, South Asian, Asian, Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, etc.?) Part B: Prior to College. Context c. Tell me about your family. d. Who did you grow up with? What was it like? e. Describe your relationship with your family. f. Where did you spend your childhood and what was it like growing up there? g. Please describe when/how/why your family immigrated to the United States. h. What do you parents do? i. What was school like? j. Tell me about your friends and relationships prior to college. i. Did you have friends/relationships of the same ethnicity? Gender? Religion? k. What parts of your identity did you feel were most salient prior to college? Social l. In what ways was your race salient prior to college? m. In what ways was your gender salient prior to college? n. In what ways was your religion salient prior to college? o. In what ways was your sexual orientation salient prior to college? a. Was it something you discussed with your parents? p. Was money ever something that you had to think about growing up? q. Are there any other significant childhood experiences that you feel shaped you? r. How would you describe yourself prior to college?
Part C: During College. s. How would you describe yourself since coming to college? Context t. Why did you decide to attend RSU? u. How did you decide on your major? v. What role does your family play in your life since coming to college? w. How would you describe the culture of RSU? i. How are you a part of or not a part of X cultures? x. What are some of the distinguishable characteristics that make RSU, RSU? y. In what ways have you felt supported or unsupported during your time at RSU? z. Could you describe some of your in-classroom experiences at RSU? aa. Describe your involvement in college. What organizations or activities are you involved in? Ethnic orgs? bb. Describe your friends. Describe your dating life. Social cc. In what ways is your race salient? dd. In what ways is your gender salient? ee. In what ways is your religion salient? ff. In what ways is your sexual orientation salient?
207
208 APPENDIX C: Participant Vignettes
Abhi
Abhi is an international student from India and is currently a junior business management major at RSU. Abhi spent his whole childhood in private international schools in both Cyprus and
India. He lived in Cyprus until he was six and moved back to Chennai, India. He lived mainly with his mom and older sister because his dad worked for the United Nations, posted in
Afghanistan and Somalia. His family identifies as Hindu and speaks Tamil. Abhi talked about how a lot of his peers and he himself identify as third culture kids because they grew up in environments and cultures that they may not be from. He also recounted how much he loved sports and playing soccer but that his parents discouraged him from attempting to play professionally.
Aditya
Aditya is a domestic student and is currently a senior computer science major at RSU.
Aditya grew up in Pennsylvania with his mother, father, and his younger brother. His family identifies as Hindu and speaks Malayalam. Aditya explained that his parents were very protective of him growing up and that prevented him from having deep friendships because he was not allowed to hang out with anyone outside of school. He talked about not being able to ask his parents for help growing up. Aditya talked about feeling free since coming to college and does not communicate often with his parents.
Ajay
Ajay is an international student and is currently a junior materials science engineer at
RSU. Ajay grew up in India and lived with a joint family of ten people, which included his father’s family and grandparents. Ajay’s family is Hindu and speaks Punjabi. He described it as being a very close-knit family and that they were always doing things together. Ajay went to a private Christian school along with his three siblings. He talked about being very involved in
209 sports, debate and theater and being popular at school. Ajay talked about how coming to college strengthened his relationship with his family. College was also a time when he had the opportunity to interact with people from all over the world and it has made him open and welcoming of all races and cultures.
Arushi
Arushi is a domestic student and is currently a junior and a kinesiology major at RSU.
Arushi grew up in New Jersey with her mom, dad, older brother, and sister. Arushi’s family is
Hindu and speaks Gujarati. She said her parents immigrated to the United States from India right before they had kids and they did not know anyone. She talked about her experiences going to a predominantly white school in New Jersey and feeling like the odd one out being the only Brown person in her classes. She was involved with tennis and Bollywood dance during childhood and talked about meeting most of her Brown friends there. Arushi said her older brother came to RSU as well.
Avani
Avani is a domestic student and is currently a junior and a health administration major at
RSU. Avani grew up in New Jersey with her parents and a younger brother, who she is very close to. Avani’s family is Hindu and speaks Gujarati. She talked about being very close to her family and going on regular trips with her cousins who lived nearby. She recalled loving high school and being the only Indian girl in her grade at school so all of her friends were white. Avani said that she sometimes feels the need to compartmentalize parts of her identity when she is with her white friends, mainly because she gets tired of explaining parts of her Indian identity to her white friends.
Charu
Charu is an international student who grew up in India and is currently a sophomore and computer science major at RSU. Charu grew up in a joint family with her grandparents until she
210 was twelve years old and then she lived with just her nuclear family, which included her mom, dad, and brother. She said her grandparents, especially her grandfather had a huge impact on her upbringing. Her family speaks Hindi and Punjabi and are Sikh. Charu’s Sikh religion is an important part of her identity. Charu went to a private school that she described as her second home where she built personal connections with many of the teachers. She talked about being able to show her mom her whole self and not having to compartmentalize her identities.
Deepak
Deepak is an international student who grew up in India and is currently a sophomore and chemical engineering major at RSU. Deepak grew up with his mother, father, and uncle. His family is Hindu and speaks Bengali. He went to a private school in Kolkata where he played cricket. He describes cricket as a rough and tough mental game and really enjoyed playing. He explained that he enjoyed school and had good friends growing up. Deepak was the only international student who expressed having to think about money growing up. He explained that he used to live in a one-bedroom apartment with his mom, dad, and uncle.
Divya
Divya is categorized as a domestic student but spent her childhood in both the United
States and India. She is currently a junior and a Global International Studies major at RSU. Divya lived with her mother, father, and brother and went to school in Pennsylvania until fifth grade and then returned to India where she went to an international school there. Divya’s family are Hindu and speak Telugu. She described the struggles of growing up as one of the few students of color in her elementary school in the United States. Divya said the transition to India was not too bad because they would still come back to America every summer. She recounts moving back to India for her parents to pursue a career in politics.
Jay
211 Jay is an international student from India and is currently a senior and an industrial engineering major at RSU. Jay is an only child and grew up with his mother and father. His family is Hindu and speaks Marathi. He also went to a state school (public school) in Mumbai,
India. His family moved to another part of town so he had experiences from two high schools but described them both as fun and said he keeps in touch with some of his friends. He reminisced about missing the noise of living in a busy city like Mumbai now that he is at a rural college in the United States. He enjoyed playing cricket growing up and continues to play at RSU.
Neha
Neha is a domestic student from India and is currently a junior and a cyber-security major at RSU. Neha grew up in New York with her mother, father, and two younger sisters. Neha’s family are Hindu and they speak Hindi. She is really close to her family and did a lot of things together growing up. Growing up, her parents put Neha in a lot of different activities including
Bollywood dance, acting, gymnastics, and ice skating. She talked about not really having a friend group until high school where she met a good group of friends. Neha also talked about volunteering at a local elementary school when she was in high school because she loves kids and wanted to be a pediatrician at the time. She described changing majors a lot at RSU and is still trying to figure out what career path she wants to take.
Nisha
Nisha is an international student from India and is in her fifth year as a computer engineering major at RSU. Nisha grew up with her mother, father, and sister in India. She described her family as Hindu and speak Gujarati. She went to private school and moved three times to different regions of India from Gujarat to Assam to Andhra Pradesh and back to a different region of Gujarat. She talked about her experiences at a coed school and how growing up she was always involved with sports including badminton and track. Nisha described enjoying the fact that her family moved a lot because she was able to meet lots of new people.
212 Pallavi
Pallavi is an international student from India and is currently a junior majoring in security risk analysis at RSU. Pallavi grew up near New Delhi with her mom, dad, sister, and grandmother, with whom she was really close. Pallavi’s family is Hindu and speaks Hindi. She attended a private school in India and talked about how it was hard to follow in her older sister’s footsteps there because all of her teachers expected her to be as smart as her sister. Pallavi talked about how she really struggled through STEM courses. Although she hates math and science, her father made her do something STEM related especially if she wanted to come to the United States for college. Pallavi discussed the importance of not being too prideful about studying in the
United States when she returned to India.
Pooja
Pooja is a domestic student and is currently a sophomore majoring in cyber security at
RSU. Pooja grew up in Pennsylvania with her mother, father, and an older sister. She talked about how both of her parents came from India and both had to work, so her mom put her in a charter school for kindergarten because they offered full day as opposed to the local school where it was half-day. She spoke about being closer to her Indian friends outside of school, who she met through participating in Bollywood dance and considers them her sisters. She talked about being closer to her dad than her mom and talked about her parents tracking her whereabouts on her phone.
Priya
Priya is a domestic student and is currently a junior majoring in management information systems at RSU. Priya grew up with her mother, father, and younger brother in Pennsylvania.
Priya’s family are Hindu and speak Hindi. She recounted that her parents sent her to India to live with her grandparents right after she was born, while her parents built up their careers in the
United States. The plan was for her to stay there for a few years, but her parents missed her too
213 much and came to get her after eight months. Priya talked about how in elementary school the school put her in ESL even though she knew English. Priya described being closer to her Dad because he was more aware of American culture. Priya talked about having to suppress parts of her identity when she was at home and because of that college was a time she was able to find herself.
Raj
Raj is a domestic student and is currently a senior majoring in Electrical Engineering at
RSU. Raj grew up as an only child with his mom and dad. He grew up in California and New
Jersey. Raj’s family are Hindu and speak Telugu. He did not have many friends growing up because his family moved around so much and he was only able to keep up with one or two of them. But Raj explained that most of his friends are from high school and they are like family to him. He said that moving so much as a kid taught him how to talk to people and make friends which made it easier later in life. Raj talked about truly enjoying learning since coming to college. He also talked about not sharing much about who he is or who he is becoming with his family since coming to college.
Ramesh
Ramesh is an international student from India and is currently a senior majoring in electrical engineering at RSU. Ramesh grew up in Delhi, living with his paternal grandparents, mother, father, and younger sister. Ramesh’s family are Hindu and speak Hindi. He talked about attending a public school that was one of the good ones in his area. He described the school as having strict uniform policies and would send you home if you were not dressed correctly. He said that the students stayed with the same class of peers all day, even in high school, the professors would change classrooms as opposed to the students. Ramesh described himself prior to college and since coming to college as two different people because he is so much more confident and responsible now.
214 Rani
Rani is an international student from India and is currently a senior majoring in bio renewable systems. Rani grew up with her mother, father, and her sister. Rani’s family is Hindu and speaks Hindi. She described her mom and sister as her best friends and talked about how growing up her mom was her role model because she worked at the clinic and took care of everything at home. She expressed liking her K-12 schooling process at her private school in
India. She said girls weren’t really into sports so most of her friends were guys and she played track, basketball, badminton, and lawn tennis.
Rishika
Rishika is an international student from India and is currently a junior majoring in energy engineering. Rishika grew up primarily in Mumbai. She explained that she does not live in a joint family and that it was just her dad, mom, and older brother who lived with her. Rishika’s family are Hindu and speak Marathi. Rishika also talked about being pretty open and close to her parents. She describes her parents are morally strong and attributes her strength to them as well.
Rishika went to private school and recounted not enjoying first to third grade because the teachers were really bad and used to shout at the students. Then she switched schools and spent fourth to twelfth grade at one school and had amazing teachers, good grades, and great friends.
Rohan
Rohan is a domestic student and is currently a senior majoring in finance at RSU. Rohan grew up primarily in New Jersey and Pennsylvania with his mother, father, and younger brother.
Rohan’s family are Hindu and they speak Punjabi. Rohan talked about how his parents came to the United States for college, so they were familiar with western culture. He said he played tennis growing up but otherwise he was minimally involved and felt like he did not “catch his stride” until his last two years of high school. He described his high school as not being diverse. He
215 reflected that he was ignorant of the fact that he did not know anything about Indian culture until he got more involved with other South Asians in college.
Sanjay
Sanjay is an international student from India and is currently a senior majoring in economics at RSU. Sanjay lived away from his family most of his childhood because he went to a
Christian boarding school in Mussoorie from second grade until he graduated. He only saw his mother, father, and brother, every other month because it would take 8 hours for his parents to travel to see him. His family is a mix of Hindu and Sikh and speaks Hindi. Sanjay said when he used to go back home he knew that he only had limited time with his parents and that he realized their value and loved spending time with them. His parents put him in school there because they wanted him to go to the best school possible. He described his friends at school as being like his family since they were together twenty-four seven.
Sidra
Sidra is a domestic student and currently a senior majoring in biobehavioral health at
RSU. Sidra grew up in Pennsylvania with her mother, father, older brother, and sister. Her family is Muslim and they speak Pashto and Urdu. Sidra discussed how hard it was growing up in a primarily white neighborhood and school. Sidra explained that as the only student of color in her white class she wanted to fit and belong but it was difficult. Sidra said her she just wanted to fit-in so badly especially in elementary school and hated that even her name made her stand out. She said she had a pretty good mix of friends in high school and described them, herself included, as a weird group of losers. Outside of school, she said that her family had a Pakistani community they would regularly get together with so she had Pakistani friends too, but that they were never the same age as her. Sidra aspires to go on to become a physician’s assistant in the future.
Curriculum Vita for Sridevi Rao EDUCATION Doctor of Philosophy, Higher Education and Comparative & International Education 2020 Pennsylvania State University, College of Education, University Park, Pennsylvania Master of Science in Education, Higher Education 2013 University of Pennsylvania, Graduate School of Education, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Bachelor of Science, Behavioral Neuroscience, Health, Medicine and Society Minor 2011 Lehigh University, College of Arts & Sciences, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania
SELECTED PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE Assistant Director of Student Activities 2015-2016 Neumann University, Aston, PA Assistant Director of Intercultural Advancement & Student Programs 2013-2015 Moravian College, Bethlehem, PA Assistant Coordinator of Leadership 2012-2013 Rosemont College, Rosemont, PA
SELECTED RESEARCH EXPERIENCE Graduate Research Assistant, Global Programs 2018-2020 Pennsylvania State University Graduate Research Assistant, Center for the Study of Higher Education 2016-2018 Pennsylvania State University
SELECTED TEACHING EXPERIENCE Teaching Assistant, College of Education, Pennsylvania State University 2019 HIED 846: College Students & Their Success Guest Lecturer, College of Education, Pennsylvania State University 2017 HIED 808: Pro-Seminar in U.S. Higher Education
SELECTED PRESENTATIONS Rao, S., Halberstadt, L., Meng, Y. (July 2019). Global Classroom Project: Bringing Global Competency to the STEM classroom. American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE), State College, PA.
Rao, S. (April 2019). Maintaining and Sustaining a South Asian American/South Asian International Student Identity Model. Comparative International Education Society (CIES), San Francisco, CA. . Kanagala, V., Rao, S., Rodriguez, N., & Rodricks, D.J. (April 2019). Desi-South Asian/Americans in the Color-line: Contested Realities in Educational Contexts, (AERA) Toronto, Canada.
Oseguera, L., De los Rios, J., Park, H. J., Rao, S., & Aparicio, E.M. (April 2017). Mental Health and High Achieving STEM Scholars. American Educational Research Association (AERA), San Antonio, TX.
SELECTED SERVICE 2011 Class Correspondent, Lehigh University 2011-Present Alumni Interviewer, University of Pennsylvania 2017-Present Vice-President, College of Education Graduate Student Council, Penn State 2018-2019 President, Higher Education Student Association (HESA), Penn State 2017-2018