Skip to main content
RSF: The “Model Minority” Goes to Work
Books

RSF: The “Model Minority” Goes to Work

Editors
Jennifer Lee
Kimberly Goyette
Jackson G. Lu
Xi Song
Yu Xie
Paperback
$29.95
Add to Cart
Publication Date
7 in. × 10 in. 216 pages
ISBN
978-0-87154-945-7

About This Book

Stereotyped as “model minorities” who excel in the classroom, Asian Americans are more highly educated than all other US groups. Once in the labor market, they outearn White Americans. Some believe this is evidence that White privilege, racial bias, and gender discrimination are fictitious narratives of a liberal “woke” agenda. Others use it as proof that confirms their stereotypes that Asian Americans are inherently smarter and harder working than other groups. While much attention has focused on Asian Americans’ academic achievement, far less research considers whether their later careers mirror their early success. In this issue of RSF, sociologists Jennifer Lee, Kimberly Goyette, Xi Song, and Yu Xie, management scholar Jackson G. Lu, and an interdisciplinary group of contributors examine how Asian Americans fare in the workplace.

The ten articles in this issue examine the ways in which Asian Americans, because of geographic clustering, are advantaged at a national level but disadvantaged at the regional level; how gender, family, and marriage impact Asian Americans in the workplace; and the different ways Asian Americans strategically adapt to the labor market. Robert Manduca and Jane Furey reveal that while on aver-age Asian Americans outearn White Americans at a national level, when compared to Whites living in the same metropolitan area, Asians earn only 88 percent as much. Sharon Sassler and Gabrielle Sorresso find that among computer science professionals, Indian women have a larger gender wage gap than White and Chinese women and experience larger marriage and parenthood penalties in earnings. Sojung Lim and Wonjeong Jeong show that Asian women are more likely to live with extended family than White women, leading to higher rates of employment among Asian women with children. Angelina Grigoryeva finds that Asian Americans are more likely to receive stock-based compensation than White Americans because they are more likely to work in jobs where stock options are provided. Asians and Whites working in the same types of jobs are equally likely to receive stock-based compensation and in similar amounts. Shih-Chun “Steven” Chien and colleagues find that despite being the fastest-growing racial minority group entering the legal profession, Asian Americans are underrepresented in leadership positions. They attribute this pattern in part to employers’ pervasive stereotypes that Asian Americans lack traits typically associated with leadership, such as creativity and assertiveness.

This issue of RSF reveals that the perception of the Asian American advantage in the workplace is illusory, and the contributors shed light on the lived experiences of the “model minority” when it goes to work.

About the Author

JENNIFER LEE is the Julian Clarence Levi Professor of Social Sciences, Columbia University.

KIMBERLY GOYETTE is a professor of sociology, Temple University.

JACKSON G. LU is the General Motors Associate Professor of Work and Organization Studies, Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

XI SONG is a professor of sociology, Columbia University.

YU XIE is the Bert G. Kerstetter ’66 Univer- sity Professor of Sociology, Princeton University.

CONTRIBUTORS: Shih-Chun “Steven” Chien, Jane Furey, Angelina Grigoryeva, Phoebe Ho, Wonjeong Jeong, Lisa A. Keister, Andrew Taeho Kim, ChangHwan Kim, Sojung Lim, Airan Liu, Goodwin Liu, Robert Manduca, Ajay K. Mehrotra, Hyunjoon Park, Sharon Sassler, Gabrielle Sorresso, Fumiya Uchikoshi, Jody Agius Vallejo

RSF Journal
View Book Series
Sign Up For Our Mailing List
Apply For Funding

Children of farmworkers on California’s Central Coast experience a legal and social regime that allows agricultural child labor while limiting educational protections. This dissertation examines how statutory exemptions in U.S. child-labor laws produce legally stratified childhoods and educational inequality for these children. Drawing on historical analysis, ethnography, and legal critique, the study traces how agricultural exemptions to the Fair Labor Standards Act position immigrant children as economic contributors rather than protected minors.

Remote work blurs boundaries between paid employment and household life, often producing overwork and gendered divisions of unpaid labor. This project moves beyond the “work-life balance” metaphor to study how remote households reorganize space, time, and labor. Using interviews and ethnographic observation, it examines household-level arrangements among remote workers, including partners, children, paid domestic workers, and extended support networks.

With roughly 2.3 million migrants awaiting asylum decisions, this project examines how Americans perceive asylum-seekers relative to refugees and undocumented migrants, and how perceptions vary by respondent race. Using a conjoint-design survey, respondents evaluate randomized hypothetical migrant profiles across multiple attributes. The analysis estimates average marginal component effects for each attribute, tests interactions among key variables, and assesses heterogeneity by respondent racial identity.

Older Mexican immigrants in the U.S.—many with limited or no legal status—face particular vulnerabilities in later life due to restricted access to public safety nets. This qualitative project explores how legal status shapes retirement planning, reliance on family versus public supports, and decisions about where to age. It will conduct 90 life-history interviews with Mexican immigrants aged 50+, 30 interviews with their adult children, and ethnographic observation of family and community interactions in San Diego County.

This project examines how governance—policing, shelter systems, and moral regulation—shapes the spatial lives and well-being of queer and trans people experiencing homelessness across Midwestern cities. It asks how laws, policies, and public moral discourse both neglect and control LGBTQ+ unhoused populations; how queer and trans people navigate these systems; and how communities create alternative safety and belonging.

Educational inequality is deeply intertwined with neighborhood conditions, yet widely used measures of neighborhood disadvantage, such as the Area Deprivation Index (ADI), rely on infrequently updated survey data and fail to capture the physical environments that children encounter daily.

Given the myriad ways residential places can determine life chances, understanding the reasons for and effects of exurban migration is important for understanding and mitigating the processes that may contribute to place-based racial and socioeconomic inequality. Residential migration from suburbs to exurbs has been led by more affluent residents contributing to a kind of rural gentrification with consequences for both the sending and receiving communities.

For the people and places facing climate-related risks, such as flooding, questions of whether to relocate, how, and to where, are becoming increasingly pertinent. To assist, the federal government has been funding the retreat of people and housing from areas of greatest risk by paying homeowners to voluntarily give up their housing for demolition and move elsewhere. Local officials have now used the policy to purchase and demolish more than 40,000 homes, leading to related relocations from more than two thousand census tracts nationwide.