Abstract
This article serves as an introduction for public administration and public institutions about Asian Americans. The experiences of Asian Americans and the field of Asian American Studies can inform a more nuanced understanding of how racial categories are constructed and community-led efforts that lead to institutional change. Asian Americans offer important insights for public administration, including how to contend with intra- and intergroup differences, how racialization upholds white supremacy, and how to document community-based histories of activism and engagement with public institutions. We end with recommendations to rethink diversity and racial climate in the field. Through a more in-depth understanding of racial categories, public institutions can improve resource distribution and decision-making.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Scott Robinson for reviewing an earlier draft of the paper.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes
1 We do not capitalize white to align with Crenshaw (Citation1991) because whites do not constitute a cultural group.
2 We use Espiritu’s (Citation1992) definition of ethnicity, which refers to shared national origin, language, or cultural identity. See also Omi and Winant (Citation2014) for how ethnicity differs from race.
3 Asian American Studies diverges from Area Studies (e.g., South Asian Studies, Southeast Asian Studies, Japanese Studies, that are linked to colonialism and national security (Ahluwalia, Citation2007). Asian American Studies also recognizes the diversity in the field and the need to elevate subgroup experiences in this monolithic category, such as Pilipino, South Asian, and Southeast Asian Americans (Nadal, Citation2018–2019).
4 A few MPA programs had joint degrees with East Asian Studies or Latin American Studies, which are not included because they are Areas Studies and not Ethnic Studies.