Reflection on Park (2013)

When Diversity Drops: Race, Religion, and Affirmative Action in Higher Education / Julie J. Park (2013)

Park (2013) well conducted the qualitative research with her experiential knowledge, existing theory and research, and her pilot research and thought experiments in this book.  Park studied race and campus evangelicals, who are members of a Christian student organization known as InterVarsity Christian Fellowship (IVCF) at California University (CU), in order to understand: 1) “how underlying values, norms, and priorities shape a student community, which in turn can facilitate or hinder engagement with racial diversity;” 2) “how student subcultures are shaped by the structural diversity;” and 3) “how changing demographic conditions (that is, an institution’s loss of structural diversity) can affect a student subculture over time” (p. 8).

Park, as an expert of dealing with ethnographic methods, examined IVCF for almost two years.  She conducted her research in the natural setting including the formal and informal lives of the IVCF members and cultures.  During the first year, she attended several sites and events to do participant observation with permission from the CU IVCF.  Through the participant observation, She realized that she had more insights from informal interactions with students, so she supplemented participant observation with “individual in-depth interviews” with sixty IVCF associates, including thirty-four current students through snowball sampling.  Park used semi-structured interview (a list of possible topics and questions to ask the participant but is flexible enough to allow the interview in other directions (Merriam 1998)). 

After finishing collecting data, she began preliminary data analysis from three sources, “participant observation, in-depth interviews, and document collection” (Lincoln & Guba 1985), to strengthen “validity and trustworthiness” (p. 158).  As a semi-insider doing ethnography, she recognized herself as the instrument of research including observation, data collection, and interpreting data.  She became a professional stranger with both emic and ethic perspectives, and it helped her to be aware of the relationship between those observed and the researcher (herself) for data collection and analysis.  Interestingly she mentioned that her “identity, personality, and disposition undoubtedly shaped her fieldwork experience” with better and worse perspectives for the quality of the study or the trustworthiness of results (p. 161).  

Personally, “when a minority is the majority” chapter was insightful to me as an Asian when Park explained that Asian students became a new dominant group (instead of White) to set the norm of IVCF group culture and their cultural traits as a majority group was unintentionally exclusive to other students of color.  So, I understand why the author emphasized the difficulty of racial/ethnic reconciliation in campus.  Among Asian students, Park specifically focused on the religious behaviors of Korean American students.  For example, she described that despite religious convictions about the importance of diversity, Korean American students experienced tensions to decide between joining in a racially diverse campus fellowship versus their (ethnically) homogeneous group.  I agree with the author’s idea; however this tension should not be interpreted with negative meanings or values for the Korean American students.  In contrast, I think that this tension should be positively discussed as the process of how Korean American students make sense of cross-racial interaction and expand their perspective to the campus climate for diversity. 

Lastly, to overcome “inadvertently discouraged racial diversity, cross-racial interaction, and interracial friendship” among students’ groups (p. 27), as Park highlighted, “intentionality and displacement” to listen to each other’s stories can be a “critical to constructing an organizational culture that attracts and sustains diversity” in campus (p. 134 & 147).  Through this kind of practice, students may have positive (better understanding, healing, and forgiveness) or negative (misunderstanding, tokenization, and deep hurt) experiences.  I am sure that these practices for racial reconciliation and multiethnicity should be a core priority of student subcultures that exist between macrolevel structural diversity and micro level (personal) cross-racial interaction.  Thus, Park underlined that “intentionality in crossing racial lines” and priority in multiethnic organizational cultures are important to “sustain racially diverse communities that foster engagement with diverse students” (p. 3 & p. 108).  It is imperative that universities have articulates that a racially diverse student body is linked to important educational and civic goals for students both during college and as citizens in a diverse democracy.

A Critique of a Qualitative Journal Article

Zhang, Y. (2016). International Students in Transition: Voices of Chinese Doctoral Students in a U.S. Research University. Journal of International Students, 6(1), 175-194.

This article addresses the necessity to understand the transition experiences of international Chinese doctoral students and explores “strategies that can be employed to improve these students’ academic and sociocultural experiences” on American campuses (p. 175).  As a significant contribution in the article, this study provides higher education educators and leaders with insightful knowledge for new practice, programs, and policies that “can be created to improve international students’ transition and success” (p. 175).   

The review of the literature is well covered from the perspective of the adjustments in “both academic and social environments” of Chinese international students in America (p. 177).  In order to understand the difficulties that Chinese students experience, cultural differences and psychological or mental stress are also demonstrated as their transitioning challenges in the previous studies.  Adult transition theory (Goodman, Schlossberg, & Anderson, 2006) is used with 4S factors (“situation, self, support, and strategies”) as the theoretical framework for this study (p. 179). 

This research is well developed with a heading title and subtitle that convince readers of the importance of the purpose statement.  The author’s purpose statement is logically related to the literature review of international students’ adjustment in transition and the theoretical framework of adult transition theory in this research.  However, research questions are not clear in this study.  Instead, the central phenomenon seems to be considered a tacit hypothesis of the research.  The central phenomenon - Chinese international doctoral students have difficulty to adjust their academic and social life in the United States - is set up as if to prove the hypothesis. 

This research design is appropriate for identifying the purpose of the study by using a qualitative research method, used an interpretive phenomenological method.  Zhang (2016) mainly used snowballing sampling technique and selected ten doctoral students form Mainland China, studied in the Midwestern U.S in the academic year of 2010-2011, for this study.  Phenomenology as the guiding methodological framework (Moustakas, 1994) was implemented to explore “the essence of shared meaning of the international Chinese graduate students’ experiences (p. 179).  The researcher collected information from two focus group interviews with open-ended and semi-structured by audio recorded and verbatim transcriptions. 

To add more clarification of collecting data, interview records were first transcribed into Chinese and then translated into English.  Furthermore, the transcription and its English translation were sent back to each respondent for accuracy checks.  This is a great way to reduce bias. However, there were still limitations including “the findings of the study were not optional for external generalizability; this study conducted focus group interviews without additional follow-up interviews; and this study was limited to perspectives of international Chinese doctoral students only” (p. 181).

The conclusions and interpretations of this article seem to follow logically from the results presented with the findings (being as an ESL learner, tension in relationships, and changes of self-identification in the Chinese doctoral students in transition), discussion (four perspectives, according to Goodman and colleagues (2005), including academic and social situation, self-awareness, and institutional supports, and strategies) and implications of the study.  However, as I indicate above, its results cannot be generalized to all Chinese doctoral international students in Unites States because this research was of a small number of students in a particular school.  If the research was repeated in a different setting to a group of students with different backgrounds, it’s very possible to derive a whole new set of results.

While the results of this study cannot be generalized, it can be transferable to other contexts.  In other words, it provides insightful knowledge for new practice and policies that will “be created to improve international students’ transition and success” (p. 175).  For example, this study helps instructors (educators) and advisors who work with international students for the better understanding of international Asian students’ special challenges and needs.  So, they, both the students and instructors can be more aware of their difficulties in transition. 

Furthermore, this study guides how American institutions can assist international doctoral students to “establish a support network and provide them with more opportunities” (both academic and non-academic related) to share their own experiences and knowledge that can contribute on diverse campus cultures in higher education in America (p. 189). Therefore, the research deserves special attention because of the benefits for Chinese international students and the educators who hope to develop them in American universities.