Negotiating Ethnic Identities: A Study of Korean Americans and Adoptees in Minnesota A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA BY Haesook Koo IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Adviser: Dr. Gerald W. Fry December, 2008 © Haesook Koo, 2008 i Acknowledgements I would like to express my heart-felt gratitude to my dissertation committee members, Dr. Gerald W. Fry, Dr. Michael Paige, Dr. Richard Nunneley, and Dr. Robert Brown at the University of Minnesota. Without their continuous encouragement, support, and advice, this research would not have come to fruition. Dr. Fry has served as my academic advisor from the start and has provided expertise and guidance at every step of my doctoral studies. Dr. Paige has supported me with his expertise in intercultural education and shared his passion for cultural training. Dr. Nunneley has helped me to maintain focus with his logical mind and practical intuition. Dr. Robert Brown has supported me with his expertise in cultural studies with encouraging advice on the methodology. Without their dedication and support, I would not have been able to complete this study. I also would like to extend my gratitude to some local community members in Minnesota who have shown interest in this study and supported me over the years with their open hearts. Without their time and effort, this study would have not seen its completion. To name a few: Mr. Park, Sung Chul, Mrs. Kim, Yoonju, Susan Eubanks, Melissa M. Brown and Mrs. Kim, Hyerin for their input, interest, and support; Mr. Chung Chonghae and Mrs. Jane, Chongye Chung for their friendship and encouragement; and many Minnesotan friends and Korean adoptive families that I met through the University of Minnesota and the Korean Institute of Minnesota. To the sixteen research participants and several research informants of this study, I am very grateful for their time, interest, and openness in sharing their life stories with me. ii There is my Minnesota “family” who deserves special recognition: my dear friend, spiritual mentor, and professional editor, Mrs. Sylvia Lovett, and my Minnesota “uncle,” Dr. Michael Lovett. I am forever grateful for her endless support accompanying me throughout this long journey and I am thankful for Uncle Mike and his professional advice and personal support! Lastly, I would like to thank my loving parents for their continuous love and endless support for me and my education in the U.S. I have persisted to the end because of you all. iii Dedication With deep appreciation and love, I dedicate this dissertation to my mother, Mrs. Kim, Okjung for her devotion to education for her children, and to the local Korean community members in Minnesota for their courageous new life in Minnesota. iv Abstract This study focuses on the dynamic and complex nature of ethnic identity development of Korean Americans in Minnesota. It explores the complexity of ethnic identity of four major groups: first immigrant generation, 1.5 generation, Korean adoptees, and U.S. born second generation. It utilizes an ethnographic-informed approach (Wolcott, 2008) to describe the identity development and negotiation process among these four in-groups from an insider’s perspective. The primary research question is: How do Korean Americans define and negotiate their ethnic identity and what are the key factors influencing the development of this identity. Participants were selected to allow maximum representation of diversity complemented by additional selection criteria of education, age, gender, occupation, and previous exposure to both cultures. Data are from multiple sources including in-depth interviews with all participants, their scores on the Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI), and related observations. Triangulation (Denzin, 2006) is utilized to enhance data quality and Wolcott’s (1994b) sequence of description, analysis, and interpretation is used for data transformation. Findings from this dissertation research can inform theory, policy, and practice in such diverse fields as international education, counseling and cross-cultural psychology, and intercultural/multicultural education with important implications for international adoption practice and policy in the U.S. v Table of Contents CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1. Statement of the Problem 1 2. Purpose of the Study 2 3. Research Questions 3 4. Context of the Study 4 5. Research Design 5 6. Significance of the Study 6 7. Delimitation and Limitation of the Study 7 8. Organization of the Dissertation 8 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 1. Introduction 10 2. Ethnic Minorities in the United States 11 2.1. Ideological Origins of U.S. National Identity 11 2.2. Majority and Minority 13 2.3. The Elusive Concept of Ethnicity 14 2.4. Ethnic Minority Development: Before 1960 and between 1960 and 1990 17 2.5. General Trends in Minority Identification: Emergence of Pan-ethnicity in the U.S. 19 2.5.1. Examination of Asian American Pan-ethnicity 20 2.5.2. Myth of the Model Minority 20 3. Three General Models of Cultural Identification Patterns in the U.S. 22 vi 4. Ethnic Identity 25 4.1. Overview of Ethnic Identity Research 25 4.2. Definition of Ethnic Identity through Literature 27 4.3. Conceptual Frameworks for the Study of Ethnic Identity 28 5. Ethnic Identity Models 33 5.1. Stage Models 33 5.2. Racial Identity Model: The Cross Model 34 5.3. Racial/Cultural Identity Model (R/CID) 36 5.4. Comparison of Ethnic Identity and Racial Identity 37 6. Ethnic Identity Research of Korean American in the U.S. 39 6.1. Adhesive Adaptation 41 6.2. Korean Adoptees 44 6.3. Adoption Research and Remaining Issues 45 6.4. An Alternative Model for Thinking about Ethnic Identity: the Protean Construct 46 7. Korean Americans in the U.S. 48 7.1. The History of Immigration 48 7.2. The Korean American Community in Minnesota 52 7.3. Adoption of Korean Children in the U.S. 56 7.4. The Highest Number of Korean Adoptees in the U.S.: Why Minnesota? 58 vii CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY 1. Rationale for Research Design 61 2. Research Design: Ethnographically-informed Approach 63 3. Research Questions 64 4. The Research Process 66 4.1. Ethnographic Fieldwork: Access and Entry 66 4.2. Ethnographer as Research Instrument and Reflective Insider 68 4.3. Fieldwork Setting: the Korean Community in the Twin Cities and Multiple Sites 70 5. Research Participants Selection: Maximum Variation Strategy 73 6. Ethical Considerations: Protection of Human Subjects 77 7. Data Collection: Triangulation in Data Sources and Collections Methods 79 7.1. In-depth Personal Interview 81 7.2. Participant Observation 82 7.3. Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI) 82 7.4. Data Collection Procedures and Logistics 83 7.5. Data Analysis 85 7.6. Strategies for Bias Reduction 87 7.7. Limitations 88 CHAPTER 4: RESULTS 1. Introduction 91 2. Data Description 92 2.1. Profiles of Participants 92 viii 2.1.1. 1st Generation Participants 93 2.1.2. 1.5 Generation Participants 95 2.1.3. 2nd Generation Participants 99 2.1.4. Korean Adoptee Participants 103 2.2. IDI Scores of 16 Participants 108 3. Data Analysis 3.1. Research Questions Results 111 3.1.1. Primary Research Question 112 3.1.2. Subsequent Question A 117 3.1.3. Subsequent Question B 121 3.1.4. Subsequent Question C 124 3.2. Thematic Analysis: A List of Emerging Themes 125 3.2.1. Shared Experiences; united or divided? 126 3.2.2. The Korean Ethnic Church; a safe haven or a mixed blessing 130 3.2.3. Contested Korean-ness; given but unattainable? 132 3.2.4. Intergenerational Clash: It is stamped on my head vs. we are not in Korea! 134 3.2.5. Mixing the two cultures; taking the good sides only? 135 4. Integration of Qualitative and IDI Data 139 5. Identification of the Protean Individuals 141 CHAPTER 5: SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION 1. Summary and Discussions of the Findings 146 1.1. Findings and Discussions for the IDI Results 146 ix 1.2. Findings and Discussions for the Research Questions 149 1.3. Findings and Discussions for Thematic Analysis 151 2. Conclusion and Implications of the Study 152 3. Recommendations for Future Research 153 REFERENCES 158 APPENDICES 176 Appendix A: Consent Form 176 Appendix B: Demographic Questionnaire 178 Appendix C: Interview Guide 180 Appendix D: Sampling Guidelines 194 x List of Tables Table 1. Race and Ethnic Categories in Selected Decennial Censuses 15 Table 2. Changing Labels within Hispanic Ethnicity 16 Table 3. A History of Legal Treatment of Four Ethnic Groups Through Immigration Policies 17 Table 4. Definitions of Ethnic Identity 27 Table 5. Conceptual Frameworks in Ethnic Identity Research 29 Table 6. Proposed Stages of Ethnic Identity 32 Table 7. Parham’s Model of Nigrescence 35 Table 8. Racial/Cultural Minority Development Model 34 Table 9. Studies Using the Acculturation Framework 40 Table 10. Studies Using the Cultural Conflicts Framework 40 Table 11. Studies Using the Social Identity Theory Framework 41 Table 12. Korean Immigration to the United States, 1903-2007 49 Table 13. Chronology of Korean Community Development in Minnesota 54 Table 14. Research Sites 73 Table 15. Sampling Guidelines Related to Maximum Variation Strategy 75 Table 16. List of Selection Factors for Participants 76 Table 17. Three Phases of Data Collection 85 Table 18. 1st Generation Korean American Participants 93 Table 19. 1.5 Generation Korean American Participants 96 Table 20. 2nd Generation Korean American Participants 100 Table 21. Korean Adoptee Participants 105 xi Table 22. Group IDI Score Profile of Participants 109 Table 23. Difference between Actual and Perceived Development of Intercultural Sensitivity 111 Table 24. Personal IDI Profiles of the 16 Participants 140 Table 25. Group IDI Score Comparison between 1st and 1.5 Generation Participants 147 Table 26. Group IDI Score Comparison between 2nd and Korean Adoptee Participants 149 xii List of Figures Figure 1. Essence of Research Question 4 Figure 2. Berry’s Two-dimensional Model 31 Figure 3. Essence of the Main Research Question 65 Figure 4. Data Collection Schemata: Triangulation in Data Sources 81 Figure 5. Individual IDI Score for All 16 Participants 110 1 Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION The ability to adapt quickly and effectively to unfamiliar cultural environments is becoming one of the key skills demanded by an internationalized economy and rapidly changing domestic social contexts. In a society characterized by social and cultural change, neither our students nor our teachers can afford to remain culturally encapsulated. (Campbell, 2000, p. 37) 1. Statement of the Problem In our age of globalization, what knowledge and manners are needed to equip global citizens for interacting in and across multiple cultures? What characterizes effective interaction beyond simply knowledge of cultural differences? How can we teach essential elements of operational knowledge and skills in educating future global citizens? Are current models of intercultural education in our schools adequate to produce effective global citizens? Many models of intercultural education in the U.S. are constructed on the basis of binary thinking, focusing on the differences between the dominant and “minority” cultures (Phinney, 1990, p. 500). This overly simple dichotomy is also found in research on ethnicity. This construct of ethnicity is broadly defined by place of origin and then re-constructed by lumping many ethnic groups together under general descriptors. Labels and categories are used to generalize differences and similarities of an ethnic group. Descriptors, however, often deny differences within one collective ethnic group. For example, Korean Americans are assumed to have a unitary shared culture. This assumption and the descriptor “Korean American” mask the complex nature of in-group dynamics within the Korean American community. Indeed, this complexity has not been fully recognized and researched. 2 How do Korean Americans define Korean-ness and American-ness in their Korean American identity? What are the subjective meanings of their ethnic identities as Korean Americans? Where does the Korean Adoptee fit into such categorizations? Research on Korean Americans documents the existence of several sub-groups such as 1st generation, 1.5 generation, 2nd generation, and Korean adoptees (cf. Hurh and Kim, 1990a; Koh, 1994; Damico, 2004; Kibria, 2002). Previous studies, however, have taken a single case study approach in exploring the uniqueness of each sub group (cf. Meier, 1999). For Korean adoptees many studies have examined the issues of adjustment, but have lacked substantive explanation or description of how adoptees develop a sense of Korean-ness in their identity. No research has been conducted regarding subjective ethnic identity of these four sub-groups and little is known of how variation in subjective Korean American identity affects community development and integration. 2. Purpose of the Study This study attempts to explore the in-group dynamics of Korean Americans in Minnesota among four in-groups; 1st, 1.5, and 2nd generations, and Korean adoptees. It utilizes an ethnographically-informed approach to examine the dynamic and complex nature of ethnic identity development of Korean Americans living in Minnesota. The purpose of this study is three-fold: first, to describe the process of ethnic identity development of Korean Americans at the border of two cultures from an insider’s perspective; second, to describe a range of subjective notions of “Korean-ness” and “American-ness” in their Korean American identity; and finally to find out how these 3 different notions in their Korean American identity affect their interactions with each other in the Korean community. In addition, this study seeks to identify and understand some successful cases of “Protean” identity as defined by Robert Lifton in The Protean Self (1993). According to Lifton, a healthy protean self is capable of fluid transformations with coherent morality. Through a process of self-exploration on multiple levels of identification including personal, family, ethnic, religious, occupational and national, an individual can develop a “deep awareness of human connectedness” across cultures (Coles, 1997) and move among many cultures. People with this protean identity have cultural behaviors that are easily interchangeable between cultures and are flexible in various social settings. For example, protean Korean Americans show a fluid identity between the four in-groups and the U.S. mainstream by crossing cultural borders of Korean-ness and American-ness. This study attempts to identify those protean individuals, describe their process of identity development, and identify major factors affecting that complex process. 3. Research Questions The primary research question is: How do Korean Americans develop their ethnic identity and what are the key factors influencing the development of this identity? Several subsequent questions arise: a) How do different generations of Korean Americans identify Korean-ness and American-ness in their ethnic identity? b) How do different immigration and assimilation experiences affect ethnic identity development and identity negotiation? c) What other factors influence the ethnic identity of Korean Americans? The following diagram illustrates the essence of the main research question. 4 Figure 1. Essence of Research Question U.S. Mainstream Culture High Permeability Korean Culture In the above figure, the four in-groups are represented by ovals. Each group’s boundary is depicted by broken lines. The gaps in the lines indicate the level of permeability to the mainstream culture. The more broken the boundary is, the greater permeability the group appears to have toward U.S. mainstream culture. For example, the Korean adoptee group (KA) may show the highest level of permeability toward the mainstream culture since they are immersed in the mainstream culture because of their upbringing in Minnesota by Caucasian American parents On the other hand, 1st generation immigrant Korean Americans in Minnesota may show a low level of permeability to the mainstream culture depending on their level of adaptation to the mainstream culture. In addition, the four groups are located on a continuum from displaying more Korean-ness on the left to more American-ness on the right. For example, the Korean adoptee group is located farthest to the right on this continuum based on the assumption that they may have the highest level of assimilation to the mainstream culture due to their upbringing in Minnesota raised by Caucasian parents in Euro-centric communities. 4. Context of the Study 1st 1.5 G 2nd G KA American-ness Korean-ness 5 In this study, the participants are Minnesota Korean Americans who are naturalized and have been living in Minnesota at least for the past ten years. This study is focused on Minnesota Korean Americans living in the Twin Cities metro areas. Although there are other Korean communities in different cities such as the ones in Duluth or in Rochester, this study looks into the Korean community and the members’ interactions in the metro areas for the following reasons. First, several community organizations are located in the metro areas where important community events are held (e.g. Korean Service Center in Minneapolis or Korean Institute of Minnesota in Brooklyn Park). Therefore, these locations serve as a fieldwork setting for participant observation. Second, the Twin Cities metro areas are where the Korean adoptee community is visible through several support organizations (e.g. AK Connection, the Korean Adoptees Ministry Center, NoPAK.org, and AdoptSource). These supportive organizations host events and meetings for adult adoptees and therefore it is convenient to locate them. Third, the Twin Cities metro areas have been a center of the social interaction among the members from both the Korean adoptee and the Korean community. This serves as the most significant contextual factor of targeting the Twin Cities areas for the main context of this study. 5. Research Design Since the study is both culture-specific and context-specific, an “ethnographic- informed” approach (Wolcott, 2008) is the most appropriate method to capture in-depth understandings and to offer holistic explanations of subjective ethnic identities within the context (Bohannan, 1998). To examine the dynamic and complex nature of the Korean American identity development and cultural learning process among the four in-group 6 members in the Minnesota Korean community, this study utilizes a combination of an inventory (Intercultural Development Inventory), participant observation, and in-depth personal interview. 6. Significance of the Study This study is distinct from previous studies in several ways. First, it attempts to portray cultural variation in ethnic identity of Korean Americans by comparing the subjective meanings of Korean-ness and American-ness among the four in-groups. Minnesota is particularly appropriate for researching this variation because it has the highest percentage of Korean adoptees in the U.S. (Meier, 1999). Emerging as a cultural hybrid, Korean adoptees challenge the boundaries of Korean-ness and American-ness with important implications for the task of community integration with the local Korean American community. It is important to observe how this community resolves the double task of maintaining Korean-ness while constructing a new existence in Minnesota; i.e., transcending the borders of both ethnic and national boundaries, defined by Tambiah (1988) as the trans-national movement of diaspora populations. It is necessary to broaden the understanding of the complex dimensions of ethnic identity development within this diverse community and it is also timely to identify a broader typology of the Korean diaspora. This will deepen an understanding of the Korean cultural diaspora beyond political ideology, especially relevant to possible unification of the two Koreas in the future. Second, building on Berry’s view of a link between identity choices and acculturation choices (1997), this study seeks to examine how different immigration and assimilation experiences affect the ethnic identity development of Korean Americans. 7 Building on Meier’s study exploring the ethnic identity development of adult Korean adoptees in the Twin Cities (1998), this study also closely examines adoptees’ unique immigration and assimilation experiences and incorporates these factors into ethnic identity development. In addition, this study utilizes two new approaches. First, it compares adult adoptees’ experiences and identity development with the other Korean Americans in the community. Second, it portrays and contrasts identity negotiation among the four in-group members. These findings about adult adoptees’ identity development will provide insights into the complex issues of ethnic identity development in international adoption in the U.S. These insights also have implications for international adoption practice and policy with regard to parent preparation and education for international adoption, and standards for selecting adoptive parents. Third, findings about ethnic identity negotiation among the members of the four in-groups will illuminate the emerging need for an alternative approach to ethnicity beyond the simple dichotomy of “dominant” and “minority.” This binary framework, while convenient for many purposes, oversimplifies the complex reality of in-group dynamics. Observations of identity negotiation will help to identify significant factors affecting the intercultural development of Korean Americans as they may adapt in different ways in the U.S. in the process of becoming “American.” Identifying these factors will make possible practical application to public policy in areas such as immigrant social services, and to cultural education, including intercultural public education models, ethnic community development, and adult education. 8 7. Delimitation and Limitation of the Study This study is exploratory. It does not attempt to make any generalizations about findings related to Korean American identity as an entire group. Findings of this research are also context bound, i.e., in Minnesota; it will offer in-depth understanding and insights related to ethnic identity development and negotiation of the Korean American community in Minnesota. Since each local community has its own unique immigration and development history, findings of this study will not be representative of other Korean communities in the U.S. In addition, this study is inductive by nature. Many of the findings are drawn from participant viewpoints and thus rely on participants’ subjective and perceptive realities. Limited observations by the researcher do not warrant an objective truth in the participants’ experiences. However, to maintain clarity of the information gathered, a several verification measures are employed in this study. To maximize the clarity and accuracy of the information, triangulation is utilized through multiple data sources and multiple methods of data collection. 8. Organization of the Dissertation Chapter One articulates the need and rationale to investigate the subjective Korean American identity among the four in-groups of the Minnesota Korean American community. It provides the purpose, research questions, context, and significance of the study. Chapter Two offers an extensive review of the relevant theoretical and empirical literature to address unresolved problems and issues in the previous studies of ethnic identity in the U.S. and Korean American studies. It also provides the history of the 9 Korean community development in Minnesota and gives reasons for the high numbers in Minnesota. Chapter Three presents the research design and methodology and provides a detailed description of the research process including participant selection, data collection procedures, and methods of data analysis. Chapter Four presents data description and analyses. It includes individual scores on the Intercultural Development Inventory, profiles of the participants, and the results of responses to the research questions. It also offers thematic data analysis with a list of emerging coding themes from the interview data. Chapter Five summarizes and discusses the research findings. It suggests implications of the findings and gives recommendations for future research. 10 CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 1. Introduction A sense of common origin, of common beliefs and values, and of a common feeling of survival - in brief, a “common cause” - has been important in uniting people into self-defining in-groups. Growing up together in a social unit and sharing a common verbal and gestural language allows humans to develop mutually understand accommodations, which radically diminish situations of possible confrontation and conflict. (De Vos & Romanucci-Ross, 1995. p.15) As De Vos explains, what people share “in common” appears to play a significant role in social groupings. How people define these “common” bases, however, varies in each society according to the cultural context. While kinship networks through lineage systems or class-based castes still function as grouping mechanisms, another form of social grouping, that of ethnicity, is found most frequently in current society due to increasing geographic and social mobility related to individual achievement (De Vos & Romanucci-Ross, 1995, p.16). The use of ethnicity as a form of group delineation needs further exploration from a social and historic perspective for the following reasons. First, each society tends to develop ethnic classifications if there is more than one ethnic group in its make-up. Second, regardless of external pressure from a host society, some ethnic groups maintain ethnic boundaries over time. In the U.S., race and ethnicity have been inseparable in studies of ethnic relations and ethnic identity research. It is in this regard that one should look at the “how and whys” of ethnicity within a context. This serves as a rationale for describing the U.S. context in this literature review. 11 The literature review consists of three parts. Part 1 explores the historic background of ethnic classification in the U.S. from two perspectives: first, how ethnicity has been defined; and second, how race-based ethnic classification has developed in the U.S. This section includes an examination of Asian American pan-ethnicity and explores the debate concerning pan-ethnicity and model minority. Part 2 includes a literature review regarding ethnic identity of ethnic minority groups in the U.S. An overview, conceptual frameworks for studies of ethnic identity, and its definitions are examined. Upon examination of several models, an alternative model for thinking about ethnic identity will be discussed. Part 3 introduces Korean America history in the U.S. A brief immigration history and characteristics in comparison to other Asian American ethnic groups are described. Finally, the Korean American community in Minnesota is introduced. The unique composition of the community and the history of its settlement are discussed to establish the context of this research on ethnic identity formation. 2. Ethnic Minorities in the United States 2.1. Ideological Origins of U.S. National Identity Discussing minority issues within a nation appears to involve social, historical, and political factors of a nation’s development. The existence of a stratifying majority and minority reflects a nation’s internal political dynamics related to its geographical location. In other words, defining a majority and a minority in a nation is a process unique to itself and one that is developed over time. For example, comparing the identification of majority and minority groups in the United States and in China will show differences not only in perspectives but also in policies representing internal 12 dynamics. Thus, reviewing the historical background will offer a framework for capturing nation-specific classification or labeling issues. In the United States, the historic origin of minority issues appears to result from racial classifications or groupings combined with the ideological nature of American nationalism. As the United States established itself as a nation, its goal was to develop a nationality distinct from England, even though many things such as language, literature, and religion were shared. Thus, the American national identity was conceived primarily in abstract ideological terms. Kohn (1957) points out that the United States defined itself as a nation by commitment to the principles of liberty, equality, and government on the basis of consent, and the nationality of its people derived from their identification with those principles. The ideological quality of U.S. national identity bears decisive importance on the question of immigration and ethnicity in the United States. The interpretation of the nation’s ideological quality applies to anyone who can commit oneself to the politically abstract ideals of liberty and equality, thus being able to be an American. Under this universal character of American nationality, a particular national, linguistic, religious, or ethnic background was not a barrier to becoming an American as long as a person made a commitment to the political ideology of the abstract ideals of liberty and equality. The ideal dimension of American nationality mentioned above, however, in practice had its limitations. Citizenship, voting rights, and other ideals had their exclusionary dimension. For example, the Naturalization Act of 1790 specified that citizenship was to be available to “any alien, being a free white person.” By this division, all non-white 13 aliens and immigrants were ineligible for naturalization. The ethnocentric notion of American was set to mean “white” or “European in origin.” Only after the Civil War did the Naturalization Act of 1870 extend naturalization laws to those of African nativity and to persons of African descent. 2.2. Majority and Minority As discussed above, the ideal dimension of the early history of the U.S. was based on the majority’s perspective, ie., “white” American. Hence, the majority and minority division in the U.S. was made along racial lines between whites and non-whites. This division, however, is on the verge of facing a dramatic change. Many demographic predictions tell us that by the middle of the 21st century, non-Hispanic whites will make up a slim but fading majority in the U.S. This will bring about a change in the definition of minority and change the division between majority and minority as well. For example, in the 1990s, the term “minority” referred to four major official racial and ethnic groups: African Americans, American Indians and Alaska Natives, Asians and Pacific Islanders, and Hispanics. This categorization will have a different meaning in the 21st century. The U.S. will no longer be able to use majority and minority divisions based on race. After 2050, no single racial or ethnic group will account for a majority of Americans according to demographic predictions (Pollard & O’Hare, 1999, p.4). This change in the racial and ethnic landscape of the U.S. raises the question: will the nation’s official racial and ethnic categorization change? During the 21st century, the first step may be realizing conceptual and methodological flaws in the U.S. racial and ethnic 14 classifications. The next section will discuss elusive and inconsistent racial and ethnic categorization in the U.S. 2.3. The Elusive Concept of Ethnicity From its linguistic origin, the word ethnic refers to “people” and is derived from the Greek word, ethnos. The concepts of ethnicity are centered on a group of people with a common pattern that separates one ethnic group from another in a society. For example, Milton Gordon (1964) refers to ethnicity as a sense of peoplehood created by a common race, religion, national origin, history, or some combination of these. Jones (1991) states it is a group that is socially defined on the basis of cultural criteria (p.454). Naroll (1964) uses the term, ‘ethnic group’ to define and designate a population sharing fundamental cultural values, making up a field of communication and interaction, and being largely biologically self-perpetuating. However, the ‘common pattern’ shared by one ethnic group can be widely diverse in terms of its internal compositions and cultural characteristics such as food habits, family patterns, sexual behaviors, modes of dress, standards of beauty to political orientations, economic activities and recreational patterns (Yetman, 1991, p.2). Thus, according to the above definitions, groups of people such as Chicanos, African-Americans, Jews, Poles, Filipinos, and white Anglo-Saxon Protestants, can all be considered ethnic groups in U.S society although each group has broad and diverse internal compositions. When ethnic grouping is combined with race in the U.S., the above concepts add more complexity. The terms, ‘race’ and ‘ethnicity’ have been intertwined and used interchangeably ignoring an analytical difference between the two. The difference is that 15 whereas ethnicity is defined on the basis of shared cultural characteristics, race is based on physical characteristics. Thus, mixing two terms from different standards has caused confusion about racial and ethnic classifications. Using examples of ethnic groups mentioned above, those groups can be reclassified as non-Hispanic whites, Hispanics, African Americans, and Asian Americans. The above conceptual confusion is best illustrated by the U.S. census. A careful examination of the labels and definitions used in the census reveals this inconsistency. The following tables show changes in the use of labels that reflect growing diversity as well as a changing political and social climate in the U.S. Table 1. Race and Ethnic Categories in Selected Decennial Censuses (Adapted from Pollard & O’Hare, 1999, p.9) Census 1860 1890 1900 1970 2000 Race White Black Mulatto White Black Mulatto Quadroon Octoroon Chinese Japanese Indian White Black (Negro decent) Chinese Japanese Indian White African American Chinese Japanese Indian (American) Filipino Hawaiian Korean Other White African American Chinese Japanese Amer. Indian or Alaska Native Filipino Native Hawaiian Korean Asian Indian Vietnamese Guamanian or Chamorro Samoan Other Asian Other Pacific Islander Some other race 16 Table 2. Changing Labels within Hispanic Ethnicity (adapted from Pollard & O’Hare, 1999, p.9) Census 1970 2000 Hispanic Ethnicity Mexican Puerto Rican Central/So. American Cuban Other Spanish [None of these] Mexican, Mexican Amer., or Chicano Puerto Rican Cuban Other Spanish/Hispanic/Latino Not Spanish/Hispanic/Latino Table 1 shows a dramatic increase in racial categorization and diversity as compared to the 1860 census, where there were only three racial groups identified. In the 2000 census, racial classifications show complexity combined with ethnicity. The category, Hispanic, shows the complexity of inconsistent classifications between race and ethnicity. Hispanic was created as an artificial category of an ethnic group rather than a distinct racial one because it crossed established racial lines (Pollard & O’Hare, 1999, p.8). Different subgroups within Hispanic Ethnicity in Table 2 also show a loose concept of race intertwined with a linguistic category (Spanish) and a national category (Cuban). Another example in shifting labels appears in the use of different names for the African American ethnic group. As shown in the examples of racial and ethnic classification in the U.S. census, grouping minorities on the basis of race and ethnicity in the U.S. has created conceptual confusion and inconsistencies. How has the U.S. has developed this confusing classification system? Looking at its historical development and political implementation will provide a key to understanding this complexity. 17 2.4. Ethnic Minority Development: Before 1960 and between 1960 and 1990 Two important issues, voting eligibility and citizenship, best capture the development of ethnic minority categorization in the U.S. These two issues represent the social and political status of minority groups in the U.S. In fact, the U.S. legal system has shown unequal treatment toward different racial or ethnic groups. Unequal treatment with regards to citizenship and voting rights started even before the adoption of the Constitution, with the nation’s original minorities, blacks and American Indians (McClain & Stewart Jr., 1995, p.25). This treatment was continuously applied to other racial and ethnic minorities. The following table shows the history of citizenship and voting rights of four ethnic groups. Table 3. A History of Legal Treatment of Four Ethnic Groups through Immigration Policies Ethnic Group The Year of Citizenship Granted Granted Year of Suffrage White immigrants The Naturalization Act of 1790 Hence after 1790 Black The Naturalization Act of 1870 The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution in 1868 American Indian Selectively granted up to 1919 Fully granted after 1924 Fully granted by the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 Chinese Selectively granted to U.S. born children; fully granted in 1943 by repeal of the Chinese exclusion laws Fully granted in 1943 by repeal of the Chinese exclusion laws Japanese Selectively granted to U.S. born children; fully granted in 1952 by the McCarran-Walter Act Fully granted in 1952 by the McCarran-Walter Act As shown above, gradual openness toward minority groups’ political freedom was initiated by U.S. Supreme Court decisions. For example, the Supreme Court decision in Dred Scott v. Sanford in 1857 clarified the citizenship status of blacks. The restricted 18 accessibility of minorities, however, shows a dramatic change after the1960s. The catalyst was the black civil rights movement during the 1950s and 1960s. In fact, the black civil rights movement served as a model for other minority groups. The way the black group organized and operated the civil right movements has four characteristics. First, it was organized as a collective social movement at the grassroots level. Second, it was led by catalytic leaders such as Martin Luther King. Third, it was well organized with outside resources such of personnel, money, community networks, and volunteer labor. Finally, it was organized with a plan and a set of strategies, from educating others with social inequities to providing a hopeful vision for social change. A famous and powerful speech, “I have a dream” by Martin Luther King is a clear example of this vision. The above organizational characteristics influenced other minority groups’ civil rights movements. The Asian American movement is a clear example. Before the black movement, each group among the Asian Americans had organized and participated in politics. However, efforts were made separately by each national group such as the Japanese, Chinese, and Filipino (McClain & Stewart Jr., 1995, p.47). Influenced by the black civil rights movement, young Asian college students took initiatives in organizing pan-Asian groups, in particular, raising questions about the racial implications of U.S. military policy during the Vietnam War. Although this movement increased awareness of “Asianness” in the U.S., it had limits from the beginning. First, young Asian Americans could not always communicate well with their parents, the first generation, due to the language gap. In fact, this first generation of Asian Americans had a different 19 history and language according to their different countries of ancestry. This lack of bonding caused difficulty in raising resources from locally established organizations and explains the lack of unified leaders in the Asian American movement. Thus, the Asian American civil rights movement was not able to reach out to all sub groups in Asian ethnicity and achieved a different level of success compared to the black civil rights movement. Encouraged by the success of the black civil rights movement, other minorities’ movements were triggered and spawned between 1960s and 1990s. Although applied strategies and the level of consensus differed from group to group, the developmental process showed a common pattern that produced overarching umbrella labels for defining ethnic and racial diversity in the U.S. It was during this period that various ethnic groups realized the need to form a collective group identity to promote social, political, and economic interests. Thus, newly created labels were Native American, Latino American, and Asian American. It may be considered a U.S. specific phenomenon that artificially created pan-ethnic group labels are used in categorizing its citizens. (Lien, 2001) 2.5. General Trends in Minority Identification: Emergence of Pan-ethnicity in the U.S. Emergence of pan-ethnicity in the U.S has a relatively short history. It is understood as a byproduct of civil rights movement since this term did not exist before 1960s. Yet, the creation and use of pan-ethnic identity has important political implications in the U.S. First, the development of pan-ethnic groups shows the continuous interplay between insiders within a pan-ethnic group and outsiders from both the mainstream and other 20 minority groups. The pan-ethnic identity concept was created for effective categorization and communication in the political arena and then maintained as ‘a political resource for insiders’ (Espirtu, 1992, p.7). Of this phenomenon, Stephen Cornell states, “the language of dominant-group categorization and control has become the language of subordinate- group self-concept and resistance” (1988, p.146). According to Espirtu and Cornell, the pan-ethnic concept is preferred by both the minority groups and the mainstream group even though there are intergroup differences along national, class, linguistic, and generational lines. For both sides, minority and majority, there are also political and economic gains to be realized using pan-ethnic identity. From a majority perspective, it is more efficient to allocate limited political and economic resources through a unitary pan-ethnic label than through numerous national groups. From a minority perspective, it is guaranteed to receive limited resources through one umbrella organization than fighting over resources among small local organizations. This preference to pan-ethnic labels, however, does not solve conflicts arising from internal diversity within a pan-ethnic group. There remains the question: who will be responsible for bridging its internal divisions along national, class, linguistic, and generational lines? And, how can insiders accomplish this? 2.5.1. Examination of Asian American Pan-ethnicity …[T]he term Asian-American identity encompasses on the one hand a strategic politics, and on the other hand a limiting trap for the expression of diverse ethnic cultures. (Takaki, 1994, p.239) 21 The continuing debate on Asian American pan-ethnicity is discussed by several scholars. For example, Takaki stated that the construct of ‘Asian American’ is a pre- eminently political and strategic one, driven by political goals rather than a sense of cultural commonality (1994, p. 239). Steinberg also contended that only in the U.S. are all Asians assumed to share a common “Asian” heritage (1989, p.272). He continued his criticism that it is difficult to talk about a common Asian American experience because of its internal diversity. If required to search for a common Asian experience in the U.S., perhaps important common experiences would be oppression, deprivation, and benefits from using an artificially lumping category. Unlike other pan-ethnic groups, there is a famous myth about Asian American pan- ethnicity. It is about Asians’ high achievements and their related fast success stories. This myth added another label to Asian Americans- that of “the model minority.” Steinberg (1989) reveals and analyzes the myth of Asian success in detail. He notes that the class character of Asian immigration reveals that a majority of Asian Americans represent an educational and occupational elite. In other words, the myth about Asian Americans’ success ignores ‘the operation of premigration class factors’ (Steinberg, 1989, p.272). Their success is destined even before their arrival to the U.S. because of their intellectual and professional occupations in their home countries. In addition, U.S. immigration law has favored these elite Asians. However, this myth has a conceptual problem criticized by Steinberg: the lack of evidence to support the inference of Asian immigrant successes to such cultural factors as strong family ties and powerful work ethics. These values were not measured or compared to other minority groups in the U.S. 22 who have also achieved substantial success. He questions if there is any group that became successful without a strong work ethic? Were there any first generation immigrants who did not sacrifice upon arrival to this country? 2.5.2. Myth of the Model Minority There are also Asian American scholars who have questioned the validity of the success image of Asian Americans (Chun 1980; Kim and Hurh 1983; Kim, B. K., 1978). Two Korean American scholars have pointed out practical and theoretical implications of the dominant group’s positive labeling of a racial or ethnic minority (Hurh and Kim, 1989). They argue that ethnic stereotypes are “convenient devices” used by the dominant group to differentiate minority groups and in particular, a defenseless minority group (1989, p.514). Another scholar asserted that the success image of Asian Americans was reinforced to serve a political need during the civil rights movements in the 1960s (Chun, 1980). Chun explained the need was “to blame blacks and other disadvantaged minorities for their own failure and the nation’s race problems (1980, p.2). Consequences of this image in reality are rather detrimental. Asian Americans appear to pay the price in the following ways. First, because of this positive image, Asian Americans are unlikely to benefit from social programs as compared to other disadvantaged minority groups. Second, the dominant’s group’s preferred image of Asian Americans affects intra-group relations between Asians and other ethnic groups. Competition and targeted violence toward Asian Americans has increased. For example, the 1992 L.A. riot revealed estranged relations and maximized hostility between Korean Americans and African Americans. Next, the positive image of the Model Minority has a 23 negative impact on other minority groups’ images. While dominant groups use Asian American’s success image as a proof of openness and mobility in U.S. society, other groups are continuously portrayed as lazy or inferior (Hurh and Kim, 1989, p.530). 3. Three General Models of Cultural Patterns in the U.S. Overall, there are three cultural patterns in the U.S. that have been developed as models: assimilation, biculturalism, and multiculturalism. Each pattern grew out of a different historical time representing different underlying assumptions and theoretical foundations. The assimilation model has the longest history in the U.S. This model was widely adopted in the U.S. during the flow of European immigrants from the 19th century to early 20th century. This model assumes that when a person living within two cultures goes through an ongoing process from the culture of origin to the target culture, it is desirable to be absorbed in the dominant culture as much as possible. This is based on the following two underlying assumptions: without full acceptance in the dominant culture, each individual will suffer from alienation and isolation. Therefore, living in two cultures is undesirable in many ways because managing the complexity of dual reference points generates ambiguity, identity confusion, and normlessness (Park, 1928; Stonequist 1935). The anticipated result of this model is that one member of a culture loses one’s original cultural identity as he or she moves through several stages of assimilation toward the target culture. The biculturalism model grew out of the civil rights movement during the 1960s. It mostly targeted one linguistic group in the U.S., Spanish speakers. Numerous special 24 programs were developed such as bilingual education, English as a Second Language (ESL) instruction, or Limited English Proficiency (LEP) program. The children of Cuban refugees and low-income Mexican Americans in the Southwest were the first beneficiaries of these programs. This model is based on the assumption that it is possible to maintain a positive relationship with both the target culture and minority culture without losing one’s own culture of origin. Under this model, it is, therefore, possible for the individual to assign equal status to the two cultures, even if he or she does not value or prefer them equally (LaFromboise, Coleman, & Gerton, 1993, p.400). The third model, multiculturalism has a more recent history in the U.S. It developed alongside the civil rights movement of the 1960s and 1970s. Although there is still an ongoing debate about the definition of and approaches to this model, it includes at least three things: an idea or concept, an educational reform movement, and an ongoing process (Banks, 2001, p.3). Mainly, this model addresses the problems and issues of a wide group of students including racial, ethnic, gender, social-class groups, and students with disabilities (Alkin, 1992, p. 870). The multicultural model is based on the assumption that certain groups of students will have better academic success if the culture of educational institutions is similar in structure to their culture. Therefore, it is assumed that changing the culture of educational institutions will offer equal opportunities to students from different backgrounds. 25 4. Ethnic Identity 4.1. Overview of Ethnic Identity Research As ethnicity has been broadly defined, ethnic identity has been defined in many ways in empirical literature from a diversity of fields. The majority of research is conducted in psychology and its different branches such as social psychology, developmental psychology, and counseling psychology. Other disciplines such as sociology, anthropology, social work and education have produced empirical research as well. However, researchers appear to use a different approach to the research of ethnic identity. Phinney, in her review of empirical articles on ethnic identity (1990) pointed out this lack of agreement in ethnic identity research: “The authors of those articles examined many ethnic groups and presented Widely differing approaches to the meaning, the measurement, and the study of ethnic identity in adolescents and adults. The articles varied widely both in conceptualization and in the terminology applied to ethnic identity and its components. They differed in whether ethnic identity was simply described or was considered a variable whose antecedents, correlates, or outcomes were studied. However, all dealt with ethnic identity in minority or nondominant group members, including White ethnics.” (p. 500) Another psychologist, Helms (1994) discusses the same issue in ethnic identity research. She diagnoses the cause of this research problem by two factors as stated below: Theorists and researchers in the United States who have speculated about the effects of ethnicity on the identity development have not operationally defined the concept in a manner that distinguishes it from other similar collective identity constructs. Moreover, they have often confused the terms ethnic identity and ethnic classification. Identity is defined from the inside (of the person) out (to the world), whereas classification is defined from the outside in. (p. 294, italics original) 26 In addition to the above problems mentioned, conceptual confusion and lack of agreement in research methods, Yeh and Hwang (2000) address difference in the concepts of “self” and “identity” in varying cultural contexts. They argue that the interdependent self is found in many non-western cultures such as Hispanic, Filipino, Balinese and Moroccan, Hindu, Chinese, Korean, Indian cultures, in comparison to western independent self (p. 423). They cite Markus and Kitayama’s previous work (1991, 1997) about cultural influence on the formation of self and identity. According to Markus and Kitayama (1997, p.1247), the self is constructed very differently across cultures. This difference is stated below: Western, especially European American middle-class cultures are organized according to meanings and practices that promote the independence and autonomy of a self that is separate from other similar selves and from social context. The self is made meaningful primarily in reference to a set of attributes that are internal to the bounded, separate self… In contrast, many Asian cultures do not highlight the explicit separation of each individual. These cultures are organized according to meanings and practices that promote the fundamental connectedness among individuals within a significant relationship (e.g., family, workplace, and classroom). The self is made meaningful primarily in reference to those social relations of which the self is a participating part. Those in Asian cultures may then be motivated to adjust and fit themselves into meaningful social relationships. Building on Markus and Kitayama’s view of cultural aspects of self formation, Yeh and Hwang point out that Asian independent self in terms of situationalism and adaptivity appear to be incongruent with the assumed linear unidirectionality of some ethnic identity theories. They criticize that “current identity theories tend to prioritize developing a coherent and consistent sense of one’s ethnic background as a goal in the development process” without different cultural or contextual consideration (Yeh & Hwang, 2000, p.424). 27 In summary, previous research in ethnic identity appears to raise many theoretical and empirical issues. In the following section, these issues are explored and examined through different definitions and three conceptual frameworks employed in previous studies. A case-examination of several models of ethnic identity follows to illuminate the above issues. 4.2. Definition of Ethnic Identity through Literature The definition of ethnic identity or ethnic minority identity is not consistent among disciplines and researchers. One scholar states this difficulty as “the fact that there is no widely agreed-on definition of ethnic identity is indicative of confusion about the topic” (Phinney, 1990, p.500). However, many definitions can be classified by three groupings depending on a researcher’s emphasis. The following Table 4 shows three groups of definitions. Table 4. Definitions of Ethnic Identity Group Emphasis Related Studies Related Theories/Models Group 1 Social membership Tajfel (1978, 1981) Social Identity Theory Group 2 Attitudes and feelings Singh (1977) Ting-Toomey (1981) Tzuriel & Klein (1977) Nigrescence (Parham); White Racial Identity (Helms) The Sense of shard values and attitudes White & Burke (1987) Attitudes toward one’s group Parham & Helms (1981) Teske & Nelson (1973) Group 3 Cultural aspects Rogler, Cooney, & Ortiz (1980) 28 The first group of definitions emphasizes self-identification related to social membership to a group. For example, Tajfel defines ethnic identity as the ethnic component of social identity that derives from the knowledge of his membership in a social group (or groups) together with the value and emotional significance attached to that membership (1981, p.255). The second group shows researchers’ concentration on attitudes and feelings; feelings of belonging and commitment and the sense of shared values and attitudes, or attitudes toward one’s group. The third group of definitions put emphasis on the cultural aspects of ethnic identity such as language, behavior, values, and knowledge of one’s ethnic group history. According to those definitions, ethnic identity is achieved through a member’s active and dynamic participation rather than simply a given (Phinney, 1990, p.500). 4.3. Conceptual Frameworks for the Study of Ethnic Identity In addition to many broad definitions of ethnic identity, different approaches have been adopted in ethnic identity research. Different conceptual approaches appear to show theoretical overlap among the frameworks used as well as variation in terms of theoretical relevance and application to the research (Phinney, 1990, p.501). According to Phinney’s review (1990), there are three conceptual frameworks used in ethnic identity research as shown in Table 5. 29 Table 5. Three Conceptual Frameworks in Ethnic Identity Research Frame Related Discipline Emphasis Social Identity Theory Social psychology Relation between a sense of belonging and a self-concept or self-esteem Acculturation and Culture Conflict Social psychology, Sociology, Anthropology Relationship between ethnic culture and the new or dominant culture, the impact of psychological adjustment Identity Formation Developmental and Counseling psychology Identity achievement through an active process of decision making and self- evaluation The first conceptual framework, social identity theory, was developed by Tajfel and Turner (1979, 1986) based on Lewin’s (1948) earlier idea that a firm sense of group identification is crucial to the maintenance of psychological well-being. Tajfel and Turner develop this theory further by proposing that being a member of a group provides individuals with a sense of belonging, resulting in the development of a positive self- concept. Under the assumption that society is hierarchically structured into different social groups standing in power and status relation to one another, the basic premise of this theory is that social categories provides members with a social identity, that is, a definition of who one is and a description and evaluation of what this entails, based on that assumption (Hogg and Vaughan, 1995, p.329). In other words, social identity describes and prescribes appropriate behavior for members through the norms of a group. The main problem of this theory is increasing conflicts in attitudes, values, and behaviors between the racial or ethnic group of origin and the dominant group. Phinney notes this case and questions that “the issue in this case is whether individuals must choose between two conflicting identities or can establish a bicultural ethnic identity and, if so, whether that is adaptive” (1990, p.501). 30 Next, regarding the use of acculturation as a conceptual framework for studying ethnic identity, Phinney (1990) points out that these two concepts have been used interchangeably. She notes that a distinction should be made since the two concepts appear to engage at different level of analysis. She further specifies (1990, p.501): …the concept of acculturation deals broadly with changes in cultural attitudes, values, and behaviors that result from contact between two distinct cultures. The level of concern is generally group rather than the individual, and the focus is on how minority or immigrant groups relate to the dominant or host society. Ethnic identity may be thought of as an aspect of acculturation, in which the concern is with individuals and the focus is on how they relate to their own group as a subgroup of the larger society. The above point is supported by many studies conducted at the group level and is found in the acculturation literature of Berry et al. (1987), De Vos & Romanucci-Ross (1982), Glaser & Moynihan (1970), and Gordon (1964). Under the acculturation conceptual framework, there are two distinct models: a linear model and a two-dimensional model. The linear model conceptualizes ethnic identity on a continuum with strong ethnic ties at one end and strong mainstream ties at the other (Andujo, 1988; Makebe, 1979; Simic 1987; Ullah, 1985). The underlying assumption of this model is that movement in one direction results in weakening ties in the other direction. The two-dimensional model (Berry et al., 1986), however, offers an alternative independent relationship between the two cultures in contact. According to this model, ethnic group members can have strong or weak identifications to both their culture of origin and the majority since identification with one culture does not preclude that of the other. In summary, the difference between these two models is that whereas the first model offers a fixed understanding of ethnic identity only between two, the second offers 31 the four possible identifications in two dimensions. See Figure 2 for the two-dimensional model. Figure 2. Berry’s Two-Dimensional Model Identification with the Majority Identification with Ethnic Group Strong Weak Strong Integration Assimilation Weak Separation Marginalization Finally, the third framework of identity formation can be distinguished from the above two in that the level of analysis and examination of ethnic identity is on individual change and development. This frame is derived from Erikson’s (1968) theory of ego identity formation. Erikson proposes that an identity is achieved as the result of a period of exploration throughout one’s lifetime and experimentation during adolescence. Marcia’s (1966, 1980) ego identity model and several racial identity formation models are based on Erikson’s theory. Kim’s (1981) Asian American identity development, Cross’s (1978) Black Negro-to-Black conversion model, and Atkinson et al.’s (1983) minority identity development of Hispanic Americans are example models of racial identity formation. After cross-examination of these various models, Phinney (1989) proposes a three-stage progression model. Table 6 shows commonalities in these models by stages. Each stage of these models is listed in ascending order of development. 32 Table 6. Proposed Stages of Ethnic Identity (Adapted from Phinney, 1990, p. 503) Models Stages of Ethnic Identity Marcia Identity diffusion Identity foreclosure Moratorium Identity achievement Cross1 Pre-encounter Encounter Immersion/emersion Internalization Kim White identified Awakening to social political awareness Redirection to Asian American consciousness Incorporation Atkinson et al.2 Conformity: Preference for values of dominant culture Dissonance: Questioning and challenging old attitudes Resistance and immersion: Rejection of dominant culture Synergic articulation and awareness Phinney3 Unexamined ethnic identity Ethnic identity search (Moratorium) Achieved ethnic identity The above stage-wise identity formation models show the use of a binary construct between one ethnic group and the dominant group. This results in neglecting the complexity of within-group differences of an ethnic group and the role of the various contextual factors during a linear-progression. In addition, these models do not address potential issues caused by individually different states of development among in-group members. Phinney (1990, p.511) notes this problem below: A significant problem that has been virtually ignored in research is that of people from mixed backgrounds. There has been little documentation of this growing phenomenon, and it has been difficult to study, as many subjects identify themselves as members of one group even though they in fact have a mixed background. How do people with mixed backgrounds interact with each other? How do in-group members perceive differences of in-group members and to what extent are these 1 This model was later developed and renamed Black Racial Identity Model (1987, 1991). 2 This model was later refined to the five stage and renamed the Racial/Cultural Identity Development Model (R/CIDM; D.W. Sue & Sue, 1990). 3 This model was revised to the four phase model (1990). 33 differences are revised, negotiated, and maintained? As Nagel points out, there is an emerging need of a model “that emphasizes the socially constructed aspects of ethnicity, i.e., the ways in which ethnic boundaries, identities, and cultures are negotiated, defined, and produced through social interaction inside and outside ethnic communities” (1994, p.152). 5. Ethnic Identity Models 5.1. Stage Models There have been several models of ethnic minority identity, addressing the development process of minority and identity formation. The models of identity formation proposed by researchers are the five stage model of Atkinson et al. (1983), the four phase model of Phinney (1990), and the three stage model of Gay (1985). These stage models of ethnic identity development, however, appear to have several weaknesses. For example, Yeh and Huang point out that these models are not appropriate in describing ethnic identity for Asian Americans (1996). These two authors explain three main weaknesses. First, the stage models conceive that ethnic identity is a fixed outcome of linear progression through the various stages. Second, stage models are too general to capture the complexity of Asians and Asian Americans because these models were not created with specific consideration of Asians and Asian Americans in mind (p.648). Next, stage theories appear to have an underlying assumption that progression through stages is a highly valued goal for Asian Americans to approach in order to have a positive identity. 34 5.2. Racial Identity Model: The Cross Model Cross introduces a model of psychological Nigrescence, meaning the process of becoming black, and proposes a Negro-to-Black conversion model (1971, 1978). This model is characterized by movement through four distinct psychological stages; Pre- Encounter, Encounter, Immersion-Emersion, and Internalization. The four stages are placed on a continuum from negative to positive self-perceptions. Although this model was originally intended to discuss “the phenomenon of identity metamorphosis within the context of a social movement and not the evolution of identity from childhood through adult life” (Cross, 1978), several implicit assumptions of this model limit its wide applicability beyond developmental stages of late adolescence or early childhood (Parham 1989; Yeh and Hwang, 2000). Parham attributes the reliance on college student populations as main research subjects as the cause of such limitations and revises cycles of psychological Nigrescence in the Cross model to the life-cycle process (1989). The following Table 7 shows Parham’s model of Nigrescence. 35 Table 7. Parham’s Model of Nigrescence (1989, p.198)4 Life Stages Themes Attitudinal Stages Pre-Encounter Encounter Immersion- Emersion Internalization Late Adolescence/ Early Adulthood Activistic -Member of campus and community group with few ethnic members -Peer group mostly white -Beliefs shaken by significant encounter which disrupts previous belief in an integrationist philosophy -Have a very positive black experience which is contrary to previous frame of reference -Angry feelings towards whites or positive feelings towards blacks propel self into black frame of reference -Begins to absorb massive amounts of black literature -Secure with blackness -May express concerns for all minority peoples Middle Adulthood Institutional -Becomes individualistic achiever -Race seen as not inhibitive or important -Encounters may include: -No promotion on the job -Personal friends confront person about ethnic loyalties -May work to improve affirmative action policies on the job -May try to create more opportunities for blacks at the job -Security with blackness -Relationships with whites now negotiated on their acceptance of his/her blackness Late Adulthood Reflective -May feel some personal disdain for blacks who have less conservative attitudes -Feels accomplishments in life as personal achievements that all blacks could have done if they have only tried -Encounters a situation which makes self look back as life and question priorities and assumptions -Previous denial of blackness may have led to a life without integrity -Develops a serious dislike and distrust of whites -Counsels younger generations to remember blackness and not make same mistake -Looks back on life and is satisfied with the way in which it was lived -May continue membership in organizations which are dedicated to eradicating injustice 4 Due to space limitations only the first two descriptions of each stage appear here. 36 5.3. Racial/Cultural Identity Model (R/CID) Atkinson, Morten, and Sue (1989) proposed a five stage Minority Identity Development Model in an attempt to identify common features that cut across minority populations (Sue and Sue, 1999, p. 128). Sue and Sue revised this model and renamed it the Racial/Cultural Identity Development (R/CID) (1990). This model is different from the previous models of ethnic identity in that it considers cultural and racial identity to be joint processes (Yeh and Hwang, 2000, p.422). The five stages of development in this model hypothesize what oppressed people experience as they struggle to understand themselves in terms of their own culture, the dominant culture, and the oppressive relationship between the two cultures. Table 8 outlines this model listing 5 stages and the interactions of attitudes toward self, others of the same minority group, of different minorities, and towards the dominant group. (Table 8 appears on the next page.) 37 Table 8. Racial/Cultural Minority Development Model (Atkinson et al, 1998) Stages of Minority Development Model Attitude toward Self Attitude toward Others of the Same Minority Attitude toward Others of Different Minority Attitude toward Dominant Group Stage 1 Conformity Self-depreciating Group- depreciating Discriminatory Group- appreciating Stage 2 Dissonance Conflict between self-depreciating and appreciating Conflict between group- depreciating and group appreciating Conflict between dominant-held views of minority hierarchy and feelings of shared experiences Conflict between group-appreciating and group- depreciating Stage 3 Resistance and immersion Self- appreciating Group- appreciating Conflict between feelings of empathy for other minority experiences and feelings of culturo- centrism Group- appreciating Stage 4 Introspection Concern with basis of Self- appreciation Concern with nature of unequivocal appreciation Concern with ethnocentric basis for judging others Concern with the basis of group- depreciation Stage 5 Integrative Awareness Self- appreciating Group- appreciating Group-appreciating Selective appreciation 5.4. Comparison of Ethnic Identity and Racial Identity From this brief introduction to racial identity models, ethnic and racial identity has been linked to the study of a minority group’s identity development. These two aspects of identity development, however, are based on different assumptions. Helms (1995) attempts to distinguish between these. She explains that racial identity and ethnic identity differ in that racial identity is based on a sociopolitical model of oppression and on a socially constructed understanding of race. Thus, racial identity addresses how individuals relinquish the impact of disenfranchisement and build respectful attitudes toward their own racial group (Yeh and Hwang, 2000, p.422). On the other hand, ethnic 38 identity is not theoretically based on oppression but rather includes cultural conflicts and prejudices associated with conflicts between one’s own cultural values and those of the dominant culture. Furthermore, Helms emphasizes the importance of racial identity “as a core aspect of identity development” across minority populations. She asserts: Although race has been a neglected area of inquiry, racial-group membership is a core aspect of identity development in the United States regardless of a person’s racial classification, because of the country’s emphasis on racial markers as preliminary credentials for access to reward or punishment. Furthermore, I will suggest that the process by which identity development occurs is similar across racial groups, although the content within groups may different depending on whether or not the person’s group (rather than the person per se) is sociopolitically powerful. (Helms, 1995, p.286) What is noticeable about her emphasis is the hypothesized generalization about the “similar process” of identity development of all minorities, conceptualized by a binary framework between a minority and the dominant culture. This generalization consistently shows a lack of recognition or ignorance of in-group differences and dynamics in the research of minority identity development. In reality, can someone like a biracial or a multi-racial develop one’s ethnic or racial identity through a similar process as Helms hypothesized above? More specifically, would it be possible for a Korean adoptee growing up in a Caucasian family to develop his/her ethnic identity in the same way as a U.S. born Korean American growing up with Korean immigrants or as a Mexican American growing up in a Mexican American family? In such a binary framework, complex interactions among race, identity, and in-group dynamics are not captured. It is difficult to see how race can affect ethnic identity development among minority members, interacting with the same in-groups members from mixed backgrounds according to this framework. This remains a persistent theoretical and 39 empirical issue in the research of ethnic identity, requiring further examination and validation from other perspectives. Looking at the interrelationship between race and identity requires an understanding of the social history of a racial group and the complex nature of race relations operating in the U.S. Tuan (1999), for example, describes the Asian ethnic experience in the U.S. as “the unique combination of nativism and racism” being caught by a black-white model (p.163). In this regard, the following statement about the unique circumstances of Asian racial experience in the U.S. is worth mentioning: In essence, a black-white model fails to recognize that the basic nature of discrimination can differ among racial and ethnic groups. Theories of racial inferiority have been applied, often with violet force, against Asian-Americans, just as they have been applied against blacks and other racial minority groups. But the causes of anti-Asian subordination can be traced back to other factors as well, including nativism, differences, in language and culture, perceptions of Asians as economic competitors, international relations, and past military involvement in Asian countries….All of these considerations point to the need for an analysis of race that is very different from the dominant black- white paradigm. (Ancheta, 1998, p.13) 6. Ethnic Identity Research of Korean American in the U.S. In the research about ethnic identity of Korean Americans, three conceptual frameworks have been adapted using the binary constructs of Korean and the mainstream U.S. culture. In particular, the second conceptual framework, assimilation and cultural conflicts, appear to be the main focus of previous studies. This is reasonable considering the recent history of Korean American in the U.S. beginning in 1903. Many studies of Korean Americans are centered on Korean immigrants’ acculturation experiences including their cultural, social, and economic adaptation as well as 40 psychological adjustment to U.S. during the early years of settlement (1903 – 1970s) and from the 1970s and 1980s. Recent studies during the 1990s, however, show a shift focusing on cultural conflicts between Korea-born first generation and U.S.-born second generation Korean American. In addition, several exploratory and qualitative studies about 1.5 generation5 Korean American appear to address their unique assimilation experiences, compared to first and second generation Korean American, which, in turn, reflects a complex dimension of ethnic identity development within the Korean American community. The following three tables6 outline previous studies of ethnic identity development of Korean Americans. Table 9. Studies Using the Acculturation Framework Topic Studies Immigrants adaptation, adjustment Hurh and Kim (1984, 1988, 1990a) Kim (1993); Rhee (1995); Jo (1999); Kim (1977) Economic settlement Min (1989a, 1996a, 1997); Yun (1991, 1995); Kim and Hurh (1985); Park (1997); Young (1983) Psychological adjustment Rue (1993); Pai (1993) Table 10. Studies using the Cultural Conflicts Framework Topic Studies Intergenerational relationship Kim, Kim, & Hurh (1991); Min(1995c); Kim, B. (1978); Ishii Kuntz (1997) Conjugal role differentiation/Marital conflict Min (1993b); Kim and Hurh (1988); Jaeyop, K. (1999) Women’s power and status Min (1997); Kim, A. (1995); Min (1992b, 1997); Lee (1990); Song and Moon (1998); Sunoo and Kim (1980) 5 1.5 generation refers to Korean-born youths who immigrated to the U.S. with their parents. However, the boundary of the 1.5 generation in the Korean American community is more inclusive, complex, and still contentious within the Korean American community (Park, 1999, p.141). 6 Studies with exclusive focus on a specific topic are listed on the three tables due to space limitation. For a more complete bibliography of studies about Korean Americans, consult Suh and Chang (2000). 41 Table 11. Studies using the Social Identity Theory Framework Topic Studies Intergroup relations Min (1990, 1996a); Aubry (1993); Chang (1993); Cheng and Espiritu (1989); Jo (1992); Weitzer (1997); Ethnic association/attachment Min and Choi (1993); Park, S.S. (1996); Chong (1998); Han (1994) Among the many studies examined above, the use of a binary construct between Korean and American was consistently found. What “Korean” entails and refers to, however, appears to be different from study to study. In the studies of immigration adaptation and adjustment in Table 9, Korean refers to Korean nationality, whereas the studies in Table 10 refer to Korean ethnic culture. On the other hand, in the studies about intergroup relations, Korean refers to Korean nationality as one of Asian Americans, compared to other racial groups. In particular, after the L. A. riots in 1992, many studies examined first generation Korean American’s racial identity towards African Americans in California areas. What is noticeable is that there is a scarcity of literature mentioning the relation between race and ethnic identity of Korean Americans before 1992. There still exists a scarcity of current research regarding the effects of race on ethnic identity development of Korean American from various backgrounds, including biracial Korean Americans from interracial marriages. 6.1. The Adhesive Adaptation Regarding assimilation studies, one study is worth noticing since it addresses a unique pattern of Korean immigrants. Hurh and Kim’s study (1984) examines Korean immigrants’ sociocultural adaptation pattern. In their survey research of the large Korean American community in the Chicago area, they found an “adhesive” or “additive” mode 42 of adaptation among first generation Korean Americans. They define adhesive adaptation as “a particular mode of adaptation in which certain aspects of the new culture and social relations with members of the host society are added on to the immigrant’s traditional culture and social networks without replacing or modifying any significant part of the old” (Hurh, 1998, p.79). Although this pattern of adaptation appears to be similar to the separation approach in the Berry’s model (1986), Hurh makes a clear distinction between the two: Most Koreans have thus far maintained their pervasive attachment to Korean culture and social ties regardless of length of residence in the United States. They have retained Korean culture and maintained close social ties with members of their ethnic group. At the same time, however, they have also been assimilated into the American way of life in certain selected areas as their length of residence increases, such as learning and using English, exposure to American mass media, selective adoption of American cultural values, preference for American breakfast and lunch on weekends, some friendships with Americans, and limited participation in American voluntary associations. This simultaneous occurrence of the two adaptation process-retention of “Koreanness” (ethnic attachment) and “Americanization” (selective assimilation)-clearly indicates the additive or adhesive mode of adaptation among Korean Americans, particularly among first- generation Korean Americans. (Hurh, 1998, p.79-80) According to Hurh, the adhesive pattern differs from separation since it is based on voluntary and selective adoption of some American aspects of culture by Korean Americans. However, there appears to be a limited scope in the adoption or selection process and in this regard it can be differentiated from integration. The limitation of this study is that this pattern has not been confirmed by other Korean Americans living in different areas of the U.S. such as L.A. or New York areas. It is also not clear whether or not this pattern can be applied to earlier Korean American immigrants who entered the U.S. before 1965, the year massive immigration of Koreans to the U.S. began. 43 Another limitation of the above studies is that the majority of Korean Americans studies are of Korea-born first generation living in Los Angeles, California, which is the largest Korean town in the U.S. It is only since the 1990s that some researchers have begun to research Korean American communities in other cities such as New York, Atlanta, and Chicago. This is particularly important to point out since a transition from first generation to U.S. born second generation has slowly begun. Except for a few studies about a new generation in the Korean American community such as the 1.5 generation, there is an increasing need of future research looking at in-group dynamics of Korean American communities at various locations. One U.S. born Korean American scholar notes this need and states: Until recently, Korean immigrants identified themselves primarily as “Korean.” In this context, issues facing second-generation Korean Americans, adoptees, army brides, and non-immigrants were ignored and neglected… We need to analyze the similarities and differences among Korean communities in different regions in terms of adaptation patterns, interethnic relations, and the construction of Korean American identity. A more adequate regional representation would strengthen the overall quality of Korean American studies. (Chang, 2000, p. 2-3) As Chang points out, in-group dynamics of Korean Americans have not been addressed and explored by scholars. Although a few studies looked at in-group differences, a common approach was a single-case study directed toward 1.5 generation, a selected second generation Korean American, or Korean adoptees. In this extensive literature review, only one study was found that explored interactions of the three generations; first, 1.5 and second generation (cf. Koh, 1994). Considering strong ethnic attachment among Korean American, a comparison study looking at interactions among 44 various Korean Americans deserves priority in future research. As Hurh (1998, p.154) puts it: In general, it is a common observation that most Korean Americans, whether first- generation immigrants or their posterity (the 1.5, the second, or even the third generation), interact socially primarily with members of their own ethnic group. It is indeed interesting to observe that the emerging generations of Korean Americans feel more comfortable with their fellow Korean Americans, or at least with other Asian Americans, than with members of other ethnic groups-in spite of the fact that most second-generation Korean Americans do not speak the Korean language very well. Culturally they are 100 percent American, but unfortunately, socially they are not. The Korean American youth are not necessarily socially rejected by their non-Korean peers; instead, the Korean American children bond together because of their parental generation’s strong Korean ethnic attachment. 6.2. Korean Adoptees What is noticeable from this literature review is that many studies looking at overall Korean Americans appear to neglect the existence of Korean adoptees as a unique group of Korean Americans. Among four recent publications about Korean Americans in general (Hurh, 1998; Kwon and Kim, 1993; Min, 1995 and 1998; Kim, 2004), there was no mention of Korean adoptees although there is a large population of Korean adoptees in the U.S. (over 100, 000 Korean adoptees). It is not clear where Korean adoptees stand in terms of their racial, cultural, or ethnic identity within the larger Korean American community in the U.S. There is little research conducted on identity and identity development of Korean adoptees compared to other Korean Americans. In this literature review, it was found that the few studies completed have taken a single case-study approach looking at only Korean adoptees’ experiences (Cox, 1999; Harp, 1999; Mancini, 1995; Mullen, 1995; Meier, 1999). A recent research trend involving Korean adoptees is that their experience 45 is grouped with other Asian adoptees in regard to their transcultural and transnational adoption experiences in the U.S. (Dorow, 2006; Trenka, Oparah, and Shin, 2006; Volkman 2006). This is understood as an attempt to reframe Asian adoption as a new ethnicity or a sub-culture within the Asian American context as documented in two recent studies by Shiao, Tuan, and Rienzi (2004) and Fong (2008). A comparison study between Korean Americans and Korean adoptees is a potentially significant area of research, particularly comparative studies of ethnic identity development between adult Korean adoptees and other Korean Americans in the U.S. Because both are perceived as Asian American by the mainstream culture, how each group defines “Asian American-ness” in their identity as well as how different immigration experiences affect this development process would be of interest. 6.3. Adoption Research and Remaining Issues Although there have been many themes and issues investigated in the research of adoption, there is a common pattern in the published literature. Scholars in adoption research have studied the issues of adjustment and the variables of successful adjustment of adopted children to find out whether domestic same-race and trans-racial adoptions and intercountry transracial adoptions are successful (Mancini, 1995, p.26). However, there appears to be lack of agreement among previous studies in terms of mixed findings, research methods utilized, and the very basic definition of “success” in the adjustment process of the adopted children, all of which appear to have affected the outcome of each study. For example, variables investigated in empirical research include the initial and later adjustment of adopted children, adopted adolescents, and adoptive adults (parents) 46 with regard to their physical, emotional, psychological, and behavioral adjustment. Demographic, experiential, clinical, and follow-up studies have utilized various research methods such as doll, puzzle and picture tests, structured, semi-structured or open-ended questionnaires and interviews based on different indexes and scales. Sample size and scope of data collection has varied from local, regional, and national levels. The ages of the adopted children in each study differ ranging from infancy to adults. Most of all, the fundamental definition of success is not agreed upon among scholars and this appears to be a remaining issue in adoption research. This is well expressed below in one adult Korean adoptee’s research: There is no agreement among adoption researchers and within the adoption community whether transracial adoptions are actually “success.” This brings to the forefront of the discussion what is considered “successful”? How are researchers and those in the adoption community defining “success”? It seems that a weakness of empirical adoption research is the authors not stating explicitly their and/or others’ definitions and operationalization of terms such as “success,” “well adjusted,” and “well adapted. (Mancini, 1995, p.53-54) 6.4. An Alternative Model for Thinking about Ethnic Identity: the Protean Construct Earlier sections in this literature review explored conceptual frameworks used in ethnic identity literature and examined three common models: stage models, the racial identity model (Cross model), and the cultural/ethnic identity model (R/CID model). Many previous studies on ethnic identity have examined ethnic identity using the binary framework of the dominant and minority cultures. This binary framework, however, appears to be inadequate in capturing the complex nature of in-group dynamics. Thus, 47 the complexity of ethnic identity persists as a theoretical and empirical issue (Yeh and Hwang, 2000). Among the issues unresolved from using the above models, the first theoretical issue to point out is the concept of self that these models and the binary framework utilize. As Yeh and Hwang point out, these models of ethnic identity development are solely based on a western view of self with a clear individual boundary. Yeh and Hwang argue that this concept of self is not adequate for some minority Americans, in particular Asian Americans who possess an interdependent self concept. Their view is that this interdependent self varies according to the situation and relationship. They also cite a previous study of Asian American college students identifying “the situational nature of the self” from interdependent cultures (cf. Yeh and Huang, 1996). The finding of this study was that ethnic identity development is strongly influenced by one’s social context and external factors, such as geographic location, educational setting, relationships, stereotypes, and racism (Yeh and Hwang, 2000, p.422). In summary, these models of ethnic identity are limited in describing the malleable and dynamic nature of ethnic identity. This remains a question and serves as a rationale of searching for an alternative construct for thinking about ethnic identity. An alternative construct can be found in Robert Lifton’s The Protean Self (1993). In this book, he defines “Protean” cultural identity based on a lifetime of research and clinical work with individuals who survived significant historic events in the 20th century including the victims of Chinese communist thought reform, Nazi physicians, and the Hiroshima survivors. After many interviews with those survivors, Lifton found common psychological patterns of self; being fluid and many-sided. He defined an individual with 48 the above patterns through a conceptualization of a new self, “proteanism.” Then he named it “the protean self’ after Proteus, the Greek sea god of many forms (Lifton, 1999, p.1). According to Lifton, a healthy protean self is capable of fluid transformations with coherent morality and principles of human commonality (Lifton, 1999, p.227). Through a process of self-exploration on multiple levels of identification including personal, family, ethnic, religious, occupational and national, an individual can develop a “deep awareness of human connectedness” across cultures (Coles, 1997) and move among multiple cultures. People with this protean identity have cultural behaviors that are easily interchangeable between cultures and are flexible in various social settings. This protean construct may provide an alternative theoretical model for thinking about ethnic identity, going beyond the simplistic binary thinking found in ethnic identity and previous cultural education models. 7. Korean Americans in the U.S. 7.1. The History of Immigration The history of Korean Americans’ immigration to the U.S. is not even a century old. In 1903, the first group of Korean immigrants came to Honolulu, Hawaii and by 1905 a total of 7,226 Korean immigrants had reached Hawaiian shores on sixty-five different ships (W. Kim, 1971, p.10). One Korean American sociologist explained three distinct phases of Korean Americans’ immigration history: 1) the early immigration of predominantly male laborers to the Hawaiian islands between 1903 and 1905; 2) the post- Korean War immigration between 1951 and 1964; and 3) the large wave of Korean 49 “family immigration” since 1965, following the passage of the Immigration Act of 1965. Table 12 below records Korean immigration to the U.S. between 1903 and 2007. Table 12. Korean Immigration to the United States, 1903-2007 (Adapted from Hurh, 1998, p. 32 and Dept. of Homeland Security, Yearbook of Immigration Statistics) Year Number of Immigrants Admitted Category 1903-1905 7,226 Labor Immigration to Hawaii 1910-1924 1,100 Picture Brides 1951-1964 14,027 Post-Korean War Immigration: Mostly wives of American servicemen (6,423) and war orphans (5,348). Others are professional workers. 1965 2,165 New Wave of Family Immigration: Effect of the Immigration Act of 1965 (P.L. 89-236) is gradually evident. 1966 2,492 1967 3,956 1968 3,811 1969 6,045 1970 9,314 1971 14,297 1972 18,876 1973 22,930 1974 28,028 1975 28,362 1976 30,803 1977 30,917 1978 29,288 1979 29,248 1980 32,320 1981 32,663 1982 31,724 1983 33,339 1984 33,042 1985 35,253 50 1986 35,776 1987 35,849 1988 34,703 1989 34,222 1990 32,301 1991 26,518 Gradual Decrease from the 1990s 1992 19,359 1993 18,026 1994 16,011 1995 16,047 1996 18,185 2001 19,933 2004 19,441 2005 26,002 2006 24,472 2007 21,278 Each wave of Korean Americans appears to have different reasons for immigration and has differing characteristics. The first wave of Korean immigrants was primarily comprised of uneducated young males, most of whom were engaged in semiskilled or unskilled occupations such as working on Hawaiian sugar plantations. During this period, two major factors attracted Korean immigrants; the Hawaiian labor force was decreasing at that time and the labor supply from other countries was unpredictable because of immigration policies; i.e. the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 cut off the labor force from China (Hurh, 1998, p.36). The second wave of immigrants consisted of Korean wives of U.S. servicemen, war orphans, refugees, and some professionals including students. The Korean domestic crisis, i.e. the Korean War, was the main cause of this immigration. The third wave of immigration showed somewhat different 51 demographics compared to the two previous waves. Because of the Immigration Act of 1965, educated urban and middle class Koreans were able to immigrate to the U.S. Their immigration motives were mainly economic but complex as well, including hopes for better educational opportunities for their children (Kim & Min, 1992; Min, 1995a; Yoon, 1993). A close examination of each wave of immigrants, however, reveals additional factors affecting immigration trends and the change in the characteristics of Korean immigrants in particular regarding their SES. First, there appears to be two factors affecting this; first, the development of the South Korean economy due to its rapid industrialization beginning the late 1970s and continuing through the 1990s and second, added provisions in the U.S. immigration laws restricting occupational immigrants (Jo, 1999, p. 16). For example, 71 percent of Korean immigrants were listed as professionals, while showing a significant decrease of professionals to 40 percent between 1974 and 1977 (Bouvier and Gardner, 1986; Bach and Bach, 1980). The 1976 U.S. Immigration Act offered an easier situation for immigrants to bring their family members. This is evidenced by the fact that 90 percent of Korean immigrants since 1976 have been admitted each year based on family reunification. Second, regarding the SES of Korean immigrants, there is a difference between earlier immigrants in the early 1970s and those of the 1980s and the 1990s. Immigrants of the 1980s and the 1990s have been characterized as representing the lower socio- economic class than those of the 1970s were from the middle and upper-middle class (Jo, 52 1999, p.17). This difference in socio-economic background has caused tension between Korean immigrants, in particular between Korean professionals and shopkeepers. There is a clear chasm between these two and the established professionals become frequent targets of disapproval by nonprofessional immigrants. One Korean American characterizes an elite group of professionals as a “do-nothing class” within the Korean community: Most Korean-American intellectuals isolate themselves from the community and live by themselves, looking only after their own interests. Their ambition is to be a part of an American establishment, to secure their position first and then to advance into the American circle. Some even forget that they are descendants of Koreans. (Choi, 1979, p.224-225) Tensions and conflicts among the Korean immigrants are affected by strong ethnic ties due to a highly homogeneous background, a single language, and shared history. These ties are strengthened through Korean immigrant churches. Approximately 75 percent of Korean immigrants in the U.S. are affiliated with Korean Christian churches, which often provide ethnic networks and Korean language programs for their children. In addition, a unique code of economic adaptation through small family businesses in grocery, liquor, dry cleaning services, and retail sales of Asian-imported manufactured goods contribute to a strong sense of ethnic solidarity because their class and ethnic interests overlap (Min, 1993a, p.229-230). 7.2. The Korean American Community in Minnesota The state of Minnesota is a unique place for Korean Americans compared to other areas of the U.S. in terms of the demographic composition of Korean Americans. The 53 Minnesota Korean community is relatively new, starting in the 1950s and continuing to evolve with the addition of one significant cultural subgroup, Korean adoptees. Although an accurate number of Korean adoptees is unavailable, there is a rough estimate of 17, 000 to 20, 000 made in 1998 (Korean Quarterly, ‘Braving the Minnesotan frontier,’ 1999). This estimate exceeds the Korean American population in Minnesota. According to the 2000 census7, there are about 12, 584 to 15, 255 Korean Americans in Minnesota. This offers an important context for future research on interactions between the local Korean American community and Korean adoptees as Korean adoptees grow up and attempt to explore Korean culture through the local Korean community. Table 13 gives the chronology of the Minnesota Korean community. (*Table 13 is on the next page.) 7 The 2000 census allowed participants to mark more than one box in marking ethnicity. 15,255 Koreans included Asian alone or in combination with one or more other races and Asian groups. 54 Table 13. Chronology of Korean Community Development in Minnesota (Adapted from ‘A half century of Koreans in Minnesota’ in Korean Quarterly, 1999, Winter Issue) Year Population Estimated (Korean Americans) Notes Early 1990s 1 One nameless mineworker hired by the Oliver Mining Co. Mid-1920s 2 Two Korean students enroll at Hamline University 1948 3 Students 1950 between 3 and 30 Students 1953 about 30 ‘The Korean Association of Minnesota’ organized by U of M students 1954 about 260 229 Korean faculty arrive from Seoul National University (SNU) as part of a sister-school relationship between SNU and the U of M 1959 about 500 Korean wives of U.S. Servicemen arrived and Korean orphans begin to be adopted by American Caucasian parents from Minnesota 1968-1969 about 600 157 immigrants in MN as of 1969 1972 about 1,000 502 immigrants total 1975 ‘The Korean Institute of Minnesota’ (KIM) formed 1990 8,000 to 10,0008 and 15,000 adoptees ‘The Korean Service Center’ (KSC) established 1991 Minnesota Adopted Koreans (MAK) founded for adult adoptees (Later changed to AK Connection) 1993 The Mother’s Association of Korean Americans (MAKA) established 1998 10,000 to 12,000 and about 17,000 to 20,000 adoptees 2002 12,584 to 15,255 Korean Americans (the 2000 Census) and 20,000 + adoptees 15 religious institutions, 1 educational institution (KIM), 1 social service institution (KSC), two Korean American students associations at the U of M (MKGSA, KSA) and two Korean adoptee support groups (AK Connection, Korean Adoptee Ministry Center) 2008 Updates unavailable 18 to 229 religious organizations, KIM, KSC, four Korean students associations at the U of M (MKGSA, KSA, KISO, KASO), three Korean adoptee support organizations (AK Connection, KAMC, NoPAK.org, AdoptSource) 8 According to 1990 census, Korean ethnic group in Minnesota is 11,576. 9 This number varies by sources because some institutions are not listed either at the Directory of Minnesota Korean or at another MN-Korean based cyber community website, www.ohmn.com. 55 As shown above, most Korean immigrants came after 1965 and the community population increased rapidly between the 1970s and 1990s. This short immigration history of Korean Americans in Minnesota represents “bi-modality” of Korean Americans in the U.S., with a growing second generation and a sizable population of Korean adoptees in the community. The characteristics of the Korean community in Minnesota are notable. First generation Korean immigrants from the 1960s and 1970s are still working and are currently visible leaders in the community. Second, the second generation’s ages range from the mid-20s to early 30s. There are relatively few Korean Americans in their 40s. Third, compared to Korean Americans in other big cities in the U.S. such as Los Angeles, New York, or even Chicago, Minnesota Koreans appear to have low mobility (or on the other hand, high stability). The influx of new population in the community showed little increase between 1990 and 2000, from11, 576 to 12, 584 (or up to 15, 255). Finally, there is a continuous influx of South Koreans to the local community due to the “pull factor” of the University of Minnesota. Each year, there are Korean international students and visiting scholars from South Korea who come to attend the University of Minnesota for academic or research purposes. For example, between 2006 and 2007, there were 105 visiting scholars and a total of 509 Korean international students who were enrolled at the University of Minnesota in 2007 fall semester according to an on- campus office source at the University of Minnesota (International Student & Scholar Office, 2008) 56 7.3. Adoption of Korean Children in the U.S. To understand the history of adopting Korean-born children in the U.S. It is important to consider recent Korean history and its culture. The Korean War (1950- 1953) produced about 100,000 war orphans and with the presence of foreign troops, biracial children (Nahm, 1988, p.482). During the war, many families were separated and dislocated throughout the country, and there occurred a massive flight of Koreans from north to south. As the war continued, the situation of homeless children worsened and foreign interest increased aid to homeless children by building and supporting camps (Han, 1987, p.36). The adoption of Korea-born children by U.S. families started in 1953 through a religious institution and later was followed by the work of Henry Holt, who founded Holt Adoption Program (currently Holt International Children’s Services). During its early years (until the 1960s), most children adopted were racially-mixed children who were fathered by servicemen stationed in Korea (Mancini, 1995, p.7). After the 1960s, Korea’s rapid modernization and industrialization caused a breakdown of the traditional family system and a loosening of sexual mores, resulting in many children being born out of wedlock. These children could not be added to the family system of either birth parent and could not be registered at the local district office and could therefore never attain legal membership in the family (Han, 1987, p.40). These children had difficulty being fully integrated into the society due to the Confucian influences prevailing in Korean culture. An understanding of Confucianism is also important in understanding of Korean culture since it has affected attitudes towards adoption – which explains low domestic 57 adoption rates in current Korean society. Confucianism was a founding principle and religion of the centuries-old Yi Dynasty, which ruled in Korea from 1392 to 1910. Confucianism emphasizes patriarchy and patrilineality. Therefore, a wife is not considered to be a fully legitimate member of her husband’s family until she completes her primary obligation to produce a son. A husband was justified in practicing polygamy or in taking concubines if they were rich or of noble birth. If these were not possible, adoption would occur, but limited to the adoption of a male relative, either by blood or by marriage (Osgood, 1951, p.147). Having a male is deeply rooted in ancestor worship and the idea of pure-blood lineage. The family name and its tradition are carried on only through males and it is thought that if no son is born and the family dies out, the formerly honored ancestors will become homeless wanderers, deprived of reverence and sustenance and left to beg and starve (Han, 1987, p.13). The above emphasis on pure-lineage is reflected in family genealogies. In Korea, all blood relatives, however far apart, if descended from one ancestor, speak of themselves as ‘ilga’ (meaning one house or one extended family) in the belief that they belong to one family (Ha, 1970, p.59). Thus, the necessity of kinship and blood ties is vital for a Korean to function as a member in Korean society. Under these influences, Korean children born out of wedlock could not be fully integrated to society. This is one major socio-cultural factor affecting low domestic adoption practices, sending over 140, 000 children overseas (Ministry of Health and Social Affairs, 1998). In addition to Confucianism-based Korean culture, other societal factors are noteworthy. A close relation between the U. S. and Korea developed after the Korean 58 War including the establishment of a permanent U.S. military presence in South Korea. This is another factor explaining the arrival of the high number of Korean adoptess in the U.S. According to Korean government statistics, among those 140, 000 Korean children sent overseas between 1952 and 1998, over 93, 000 children were adopted by families in the U.S. (Ministry of Health and Social Affairs, 1998). Changes in the U.S. domestic situation are also noteworthy. During the 1960s and 1970s, there was a scarcity of non-Hispanic Euro-American babies available for adoption due to the wide-use of contraceptives, the availability of legalized abortion, and society’s tolerance toward unmarried mother’s raising their own children (Bonham, 1977; Feigelman and Silverman, 1979). Thus, a new source of adoptable children was sought and one was found in Korea (Mancini, 1995, p.9). 7.4. The Highest Number of Korean Adoptees in U.S.: Why Minnesota? As shown in Table 12, more than 12, 000 Korean-born children have been adopted by families in Minnesota. In fact, intercountry adoptees (children from foreign countries) are disproportionately concentrated in Minnesota both per capita and in total numbers (Meier, 1998, p.17). According to Meier who studied cultural identity of Korean adoptees in Minnesota, several factors contributed to this high number. These factors are a perceived tolerance and openness on the part of Minnesotans as a host culture, a healthy local economy, and a strong public/private institutional infrastructure including linkages between Korea and Minnesota (Meier, 1998, p.19). The following is a summary of several factors based on Meier’s extensive investigation. 59 First, there is a long history in Minnesota related to the early development of the adoption process. This dates back to the 19th century when Minnesota was one of the first destinations of the orphan trains, which brought orphaned and abandoned children from eastern cities to work on farms and businesses. Consequently, Minnesota was one the first states to enact a formal adoption law with child-welfare laws (Mancini, 1995, p.61). This was supported by the establishment of the Children’s Home Society (CHSM) in 1889, which became involved in placement of children off the orphan trains, and also legislation, as expressed in the Minnesota Act of 1917, which included standards of adoption practice and formalization. Second, in the 1950s, institutional partnerships between Minnesota and Korea were established. In particular, the University of Minnesota and Seoul National University developed a sister-school relationship to produce human resources in the fields of medicine, social work, and engineering to meet the increasing needs of Korea in rebuilding its national infrastructure after the Korean War. Several Korean students educated at the school of social work at the University of Minnesota became well connected to Minnesotan agencies such as Lutheran Social Services and CHSM. Some started their own Korean social service agencies in Korea including Korean Social Services, which became the primary adoption partner with Lutheran Social Services. There was also a Korean-educated social worker, Mrs. Han, Hyun Sook, who completed a social work internship with CHSM in 1971 and returned in 1975 to work for CHSM. Having her as a “Korean diplomat,” the CHSM had agency connections with three of the four Korean agencies involved in intercountry adoptions in Korea. Thus the CHSM 60 became the primary adoption agency for Korean children, placing 70 to 80 percent of the total population of Korean adoptees. Third, there are “open, liberal, and tolerant” cultural attitudes in Minnesota according to Han, a Korean social worker in CHSM and Roger Toogood, former Executive Director at CHSM for 27 years. Roger Toogood explains the Minnesotan local “culture” that made international adoptions successful: There definitely was a cultural atmosphere that was supportive of the concepts of pluralism and diversity and that combined with the good organization, very constructive and positive laws that protected the rights of all parties of the adoption triad—the “satisfied customer” thing—put all of that together and also the financial resources that this state has in terms of our economic platform [and] we could do things here that Mississippi or Louisiana could never do. (cited in Meier, 1998, p.23) 61 CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY Research design makes explicit a plan for conducting a study, offers a model and justification for establishing the validity of data and inferences drawn from them, and implicitly indicates a research’s ability to successfully conduct a study. Research design should be made explicit so that others may gain insights into how the study was conducted, and more importantly judge its worth. (Hesse-Biber & Leavy, 2004, p.336) 1. Rationale for Research Design As cited in the introduction to this paper, De Vos & Romanucci-Ross emphasize the role a common background plays in social groupings of people. How people define what constitutes “common” bases, however, varies in context from society to society and from culture to culture. This complicates empirical research in defining compositional elements of ethnicity and ethnic identity. As shown in the literature review, research on ethnic identity has shown differing components according to each ethnic group. For example, African American identity models show the race component to be more important than ethnic culture (Cross, 1991; Helms & Parham, 1996). For Asian Americans, identity models emphasize a particular Asian culture and assimilation into U.S. culture, and culture and assimilation have constituted the main emphases of empirical research. Most of these models, however, have utilized a binary framework between the ethnic group of origin and U.S. mainstream culture. While the use of a binary framework offers advantages in making generalizations and comparisons across different ethnic groups, much of the in-group dynamics of a single ethnic group have not been fully explored. In the case of the labeling of Korean Americans, the label “Korean American” appears to integrate multiple components of identity due to the assumption of a unique 62 Korean culture and the relatively short history of Korean immigration. This label, however, masks many factors that are attached more or less significance by each subgroup. These factors include: assimilation, generational and cultural gaps, membership in and multiple components of one’s SES (Socio-Economic Status), religion, language, race, shared history, education level, gender role, Confucianism, the mode of economic adaptation in the U.S., and so on. How much importance is attached to each component appears to be different in each sub-group. In the case of Korean adoptees, race may be a more significant factor than others due to the racial difference between the adoptees and their adoptive families. On the other hand, assimilation may not be as significant to Korean adoptees since they grow up in the mainstream culture and are raised by mostly middle and upper middle class racially white parents. For first generation immigrants, SES and education level appear to be more important due to the strong influence of Korean values and social values inherent in Confucianism. Even after their settlement in the U.S. or in Minnesota, the year of arrival in the U.S., the mode of adaptation and adjustment as newly arrived immigrants, and further interactions with other local Korean immigrants within the already structured Korean community in Minnesota are all significant factors in understanding this first generation. What about distinctive components of Korean American identity in the 1.5 and the U. S. born 2nd generation? What about diversity within the second generation? How does race affect the identity of biracial and full-blooded Korean Americans? How do they integrate their Korean-ness rooted in them being raised by their Korean parents with the 63 American-ness that they have been exposed to and influenced by beyond their home environments? It appears that components of Korean American identity are more complex according to each sub group. Even a single component (for example, race) appears to play a different role in the composition of Korean American identity held by a member of a different sub-group. This leads to a question of identifying an appropriate methodology for doing research. How can we illuminate the variation in these differing components of Korean American identity? What is the most appropriate method to explore such complexity of in-group dynamics and not lose their richness and detail? How can we explore the simultaneity of various factors affecting Korean American identity in every day life as one interacts with the community? What is an appropriate method for a holistic and thorough cultural portrait of the Korean American identity from an insider’s view? How is it possible to develop an in-depth understanding of the multi-dimensional components and subjective meanings of Korean American identity? 2. Research Design: Ethnographically-Informed Approach This study is distinct from previous studies in its nature and approach. It is exploratory and inductive by nature and takes an interdisciplinary approach to capture the rich and holistic aspect of the subjective Korean American identity held by each in-group member. The study utilizes qualitative research methodology, in particular, ethnography, to examine the dynamic and complex nature of ethnic identity development among members of the four group represented in the Korean American community in Minnesota: first generation immigrants, 1.5 generation, U.S. born second generation, and 64 Korean adoptees. In addition to its ethnographic approach, the study also utilizes an instrument (the Intercultural Development Inventory) to capture a more holistic picture of a participant’s cultural learning process between Korean and U.S. American culture. Since the study is both culture-specific and context-specific, an “ethnographically- informed” approach (Wolcott, 1999, p.31) is the most appropriate method to capture in- depth understandings and to offer holistic explanations of subjective ethnic identities of Korean Americans in Minnesota. 3. Research Questions Using an ethnographically-informed approach, this study attempts first to examine the dynamic and complex nature of ethnic identity development of Korean Americans living in Minnesota and to describe the process of ethnic identity development of Korean Americans at the border of two cultures through an insider’s perspective. The primary research question is: How do Korean Americans develop their ethnic identity and what are the key factors influencing the development of their ethnic identity? Subsequent questions are: a) How do different generations of Korean Americans identify Korean- ness and American-ness in their ethnic identity? b) How do different immigration and assimilation experiences affect ethnic identity development and identity negotiation? c) What other factors influence the ethnic identity of Korean Americans? The following diagram illustrates the essence of the main research question. 65 Figure 3. Essence of Research Question U.S. Mainstream Culture Korean Culture The four in-groups are represented by an oval boundary. Each group’s boundary is represented by a different of dash line. Broken lines indicate the level of permeability to the mainstream culture. The more broken the boundary, the greater permeability each group appears to have toward U.S. mainstream culture. For example, the Korean adoptee group may show the highest level of permeability toward the mainstream culture since they were immersed in the mainstream culture because of their upbringing in Minnesota. On the other hand, 1st generation immigrant Korean Americans in Minnesota may show a low level of permeability to the mainstream culture depending on a level of their adaptation to the mainstream culture. In addition, the four groups are located on a continuum of the displaying more Korean-ness on the left to more American-ness on the right. For example, the Korean adoptee group is located farthest to the right on this continuum based on the assumption that they may have the highest level of assimilation to the mainstream culture due to their upbringing in Minnesota raised by Caucasian parents in Euro-centric communities. 1st 1.5 G 2nd G KA American- ness Korean-ness High Permeability 66 4. The Research Process 4.1. Ethnographic Fieldwork: Access and Entry For doing ethnographic fieldwork, issues such as access, entry, rapport, trust, and communication from a participant’s perspective are critical for the quality of the data collected (Marcus, 2001). An important strength of this study is that access, trust, rapport, and communication within the local Korean community were well established by the researcher both individually and institutionally through my participation in two major community organizations: the Korean Institute of Minnesota (KIM) where I served on the teaching staff between 1999 and 2005 and as volunteer after 2005; and the Korean Service Center where I have volunteered since 2000. While attending the University of Minnesota, I selected coursework so that would enable me to explore educational issues related to the local Korean American community. By connecting various class projects and papers to practical issues of the local community, I was able to develop an understanding of the history and issues of the local Korean community. Teaching Korean and Korean culture at KIM at its two branches10 , I was able to explore educational issues related to U.S. born second generation Korean Americans and Korean adoptees. Teaching the Korean language at the University of Minnesota between 2000 and 2005 gave me the opportunity to connect with many students, including second generation Korean Americans and adult Korean adoptees. During those years of teaching, I conducted a preliminary mini-ethnography with students in my classes and identified various emic categories representing the complexity 10 KIM has two schools; Monday school for the second generation Korean American children and Saturday school for Korean adoptees and their adoptive parents. 67 of in-group dynamics. The following are labels that insiders gave to identify different members of the Korean-American community in Minnesota: A.K., Fake Korean, Pure Korean, Y-Byang, FOB, Real Korean, Korean-Korean, the mainstream Korean, Chosun- jok, Korean Adoptee, Korean American, and Gyopoh. This project was an eye-opening experience for me as I began to recognize the significance of in-group dynamics among young Minnesota Korean Americans and in their Korean American identity. In particular, the variety of emic categories revealed a wide range of interpretations of cultural authenticity and representation of one’s Korean-ness within the Minnesota community. I also found that a significant number of Korean adoptees in Minnesota have challenged a primordial notion of Korean-ness in traditional Korean ethnic identity. Traditional Korean identity was based on being a full blooded Korean or ethnically pure Korean, sharing the same history, Korean language, and culture, and nationhood (Shin, 2006). According to this notion, Korean adoptees do not fit all four conditions to be defined as “Korean” and thus exclusion of Korean adoptees within the Minnesotan Korean community was reported and commented by both 1st generation and some Korean adoptee informants. From my initial connection with key informants and several community leaders, my personal network grew and developed over time. I began making friends with local community members and their families whom I met at several local Korean churches and at community events held during Korean holidays or the KIM’s school performances. The KIM serves as a place of community gathering by connecting adoptive parents from the mainstream American culture to the Minnesota Korean community. At these events, 68 Korean community members including educational leaders, teachers, volunteers, elders, church members, and local business owners meet each other. Through these community events, I was able to locate myself both as a KIM teaching staff and a researcher from the University of Minnesota and to extend my scope of network and fieldwork settings. To balance the network of informants between Korean immigrants and Korean adoptees, I utilized a Minnesota-based adoptee advocacy organization, “AK Connection.” AK Connection was established in 1991 and has been serving the adult Korean adoptees by hosting events to help adult adoptees network with other Korean adoptees. One AK Connection board member was a former student of mine from the University of Minnesota Korean class of 2000 and became a valuable informant in assisting me to get to know the Minnesota Korean adoptee community. I attended several lectures hosted by the AK Connection that were open to the public and met other Korean adoptees at those meetings. Another source of information about the Minnesota Korean adoptee community was through the Korean Adoptee Ministry Center that was developed by a former principal of KIM. I volunteered to assist with organizing cultural programs and events to introduce Korean culture to young adult Korean adoptees. Two additional informants were recruited from this organization and these became important informants supplying information on the history and dynamics of the Minnesota Korean adoptee community. 4.2. Ethnographer as “Research Instrument” and “Reflective Insider” In conducting an ethnographic study, a researcher encounters social relationships with members of the particular socio-cultural community of interest. From preparing 69 field work to initiating contacts and follow-ups, a researcher faces many significant decisions that eventually impact the quality of data drawn from participants. Once an initial contact is made, the researcher’s social relationships with participants during fieldwork affect the degree of openness of participants. The depth of information is related to the trust that the researcher builds with participants who are members of that particular cultural community. The researcher’s skill, understanding, and cultural behaviors in the target language and culture as well as the status as an insider within the community are essential for drawing authentic data from participants. As Patton comments, “in qualitative inquiry, the researcher is the instrument” (2001, p.14) and the researcher’s “emic perspective as an insider is at the heart of most ethnographic research” (Fetterman, 1998, p.20). Furthermore, to engage in culturally- focused research that probes for deeper understanding, the researcher continually needs to reflect “to eliminate bias and increase truthfulness” of one’s own native perspective (Denzin, 1978). To be more specific, since this study attempts to portray subjective Korean American identities through an insider’s perspective, my personal background was an asset during fieldwork. My language skills and in-depth understandings of both cultures were important in positioning myself in the local community. As a South Korean national, I have an authentic understanding and knowledge of South Korean culture. Coming from a large family, I have experienced different generations (from the 1930s Korean culture of my parents to the 1990s and the 2000s of my nephews and nieces) and developed an understanding of in-group dynamics of first generation Korean Americans. Having lived and worked in the U.S. since 1990, I have flexibility and proficiency in both American 70 culture and English. This has helped me to develop interpersonal skills in interacting with U.S. born second generation and 1.5 generation. In addition, my early observations and contacts with my Korean American relatives have helped me to understand the 1.5 generation’s unique experiences living as a cultural bridge between their parents. Finally, I have key informants who helped me to develop the sensitivity needed to interact with Korean adoptees and to do in-depth interviews with them. These two informants shared their valuable feedback on the list of interview questions for this research and insights on the use of adoption sensitive words during the interviews. 4.3. Fieldwork Setting: the Korean Community and Multiple Sites The Minnesota Korean community is relatively small with an estimated population between 12,584 and 15,255 geographically spread throughout the Twin City area and scattered throughout the state. According to the Minnesota State Demographic Center (2002), this is more than any other Asian group. Hennepin County has the largest number of Koreans estimated between 4, 527 and 5, 330 and Minneapolis is home to between 1, 637 to 1, 934 Koreans according to the 2000 Census. In addition, there are three geographically separate Korean communities in Rochester, St. Cloud, and Duluth, each having more than 100 Koreans (Carlson, 2002). In summary, Koreans are the fifth largest Asian group living in Minnesota in 2000. The above numbers, however, do not accurately represent the size of the Minnesota Korean community because it is not clear whether these numbers include a number of Korean adoptees. Since the ethnicity-related census questions and response options on the 2000 Census show a conceptual overlap between race and ancestry, it is not clear 71 whether Korean adoptees’ subjective interpretation of their heritage is based on their biological heritage as born in Korea or their cultural heritage growing up in Minnesota and therefore American. Korean appeared as a both race and ancestry category on the 2000 Census. While there are no definitive statistics on the exact number of Minnesota Korean adoptees (estimated between 17,000 and 20, 000 in 1998), it is estimated that roughly half of Minnesota’s Korean population of about 35,000 is adopted (Larsen, 2007). According to personal interviews with several informants of this study, more than a half of the Korean community is Korean adoptees. In the Twin Cities area, there is no distinct Korean ethnic or commercial center, a so-called “the Korean town.” The oldest Korean market place is located in the area of Snelling Avenue N. in St. Paul near the Hamline University. The very first Korean grocery store in the Twin Cities is KIM’s Oriental Market and has been running since the late 1960s. There are three Korean restaurants near KIM’s Oriental Market along Snelling Avenue. In addition, there is a hair salon, a billiard hall, and a Korean Karaoke (or noraebang in Korean) that serve Korean customers. These stores are run by local Korean immigrants. For some time, this area on Snelling Avenue has been a place for local Koreans to buy groceries, books, magazines, movies, TV dramas from Korea. These stores also serve as a communal space where Koreans meet and exchange news for each other outside of their religious organizations. This area of Snelling Avenue has been known as Minnesota’s Korean market place among Koreans in Minnesota for almost thirty years. 72 During the past ten years, reflecting a geographic migration pattern of Korean immigrants moving out of the cities and settling in the suburban areas, three additional Korean grocery stores opened: in Fridley, Seoul Oriental Foods opened in 1995; in Hilltop Dong Yang Oriental Foods opened in 2003; and in Bloomington, Hyundai Grocery Store in 1985 (renamed as Hana Asian Foods Market since 2005). Six additional Korean restaurants opened during this time: Hoban Restaurant in Eagan, King’s Restaurant in Fridley, Dong Yang Korean Restaurant inside the Dong Yang Oriental Grocery Store in Hilltop, and two Korean restaurants near the University of Minnesota campus along Oak Street in Stadium Village (Yummy Yummy and Korea Restaurant). These last two restaurants near the University serve young Korean students on campus. There is also a Korean karaoke (Noraebang in Korean) on the second floor of the Korean Restaurant building, which attracts both local Korean students as well as Korean international students. To access participants’ everyday lives and to maximize participant observation for this study, multiple sites of the research setting were necessary. Wherever participants granted me access to their everyday lives, whether to their workplace, home, religious institutions or a neutral space, I met them for interviews. To prevent potential participants from feeling their privacy was invaded and to respect their willingness to participate in the study within a convenient time frame, I followed each key informant’s suggestions. The procedure I followed was to wait until a key informant contacted each potential participant and I was told how to contact each participant. Each time the key informant was the go-between me and a potential participant until I received the 73 participant’s permission through the key informant to directly contact him or her. There were many phone relays and/or e-mail exchanges answering questions from potential participants figuring out convenient times and locations for initial meetings. There were two interview meetings with each participant and an additional observation of each participant. A list of interview sites for all 32 interviews is shown below in Table 14. Table 14. Research Sites (*Note: listed by frequency in each group) Location / Field Sites Key Informants The Korean Institute of Minnesota, the Korean Service Center, Personal Residences, Restaurants, Religious Institutions 1st Generation Participants Religious Institution, Personal Residence, Restaurant 1.5 Generation Participants Coffee shop, Restaurant, Personal Residence 2nd Generation Participants Restaurant, Religious Institution, U of M Campus Korean Adoptee Personal Residence, Restaurant, Religious Institution 5. Research Participants Selection: Maximum Variation Strategy Following the traditional ethnographic view toward selection processes as being dynamic, phasic, and sequential (Zelditch, 1962), potential participants were recruited and sampled in three phases: first, mixing and mingling with community members in dynamic communal events and settings as a way of observing participants; second, introducing myself and this study to potential participants that appeared to fit into the selection guidelines of each of the in-groups in the Minnesota Korean Americans community, and third, selecting the most appropriate participants meeting both the selection guidelines for the four in-groups as well as additional criteria for each group. To sample participants meeting the purpose of this study, maximum variation sampling 74 strategy was adopted. According to Patton, maximum variation sampling enables the researcher to “document unique or diverse variations that have emerged in adapting to different conditions and identifies important common patterns that cut across variations” (1990, p. 182). This strategy allowed me to capture a wide range of variation on multiple dimensions of Korean and American identity as well as different adaptation strategies to Korean community and to mainstream American culture in Minnesota. To apply this strategy to my study, participants were selected to allow maximum representation of diversity in the four in-groups. This was based on the assumption that wide representation would highlight the different processes of identity development and negotiation in the local Korean community. Sixteen participants were recruited by advertising in the publications of twelve Korean-oriented local institutions and by referrals from seven key informants: the directors of the Korean Institute of Minnesota and Korean Service Center, a first generation immigrant, a former president of the Korean Association in Minnesota, a board member of AK Connection, and two volunteers from the Korean Adoptees Ministry Center (formerly known as the Korean Adoption Ministry). Four participants from each subgroup were selected and additional selection criteria (e.g. education, age, gender, occupation, and previous exposure to both cultures) were used to ensure variation. Participants were recruited through four sources: first, referrals by the key informants, second, postings at the twelve local institutions, third, students associations of Twin Cities-based universities, and fourth, support groups such as AK Connection or the Korean Adoptees Ministry Center. Table 15 below shows a list of selection criteria used in recruiting and sampling participants. Appendix D shows a full list used for participants including Korean adoptees. 75 Table 15. Sampling Guidelines Related to Maximum Variation Strategy Criteria Arrival to MN The year of immigration in the U.S. 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s Length of stay in MN 40 yrs 30 yrs 20 yrs 10 yrs Level of Education Ph. D/ Professional degrees Masters B.A. High school Community Organization Affiliation Church (Christianity) Korean School Catholic Church Buddhist Temple Educational Background in Korea Elementary/ Kindergarten Middle School High School University Neighborhood in MN Mpls St. Paul Suburb(Where) Marital status, Spouse Korean Non-Korean Language Fluency More English Both More Korean Korean Other Korean relatives in the U.S. Yes (where) No: How often do you visit Korea? Occupation Professional/ Academic Company worker Self- employed Employee After an initial contact with potential participants was made by phone or e-mail, my first personal meeting with them was at locations convenient to them. Usually at this first meeting, I introduced myself, explained the research process, and received their official consent following the procedures specified by the Institute Review Board (IRB). There was a time interval, usually about two weeks between this initial meeting and a follow-up meeting. During this time, I reflected on the information of the demographic survey and 76 their responses to the first interview to decide whether participants met the selection criteria and whether these participants could elaborate their responses to more in-depth questions during the second interview. In some cases, participants were dropped from this study based on the following two indicators; first, not meeting the selection criteria fully, and second, not being able to articulate their thoughts when responding to in-depth questions saved for the second interview. In these cases, I explained that a follow up meeting was not necessary and that no further information will be required of them. Table 16 shows a brief demographic profile of all 16 participants with the selection factor used for each participant. Table 16. List of Selection Factors for Participants (*To conceal the identity of some participants, an approximate age span is given. **Age at time of interview) Group Participant Selection Factor **Age 1st G 1G1-Male came to MN in 1968 with his family late 60s 1G2-Female came to MN in 1975 with her family early 60s 1G3-Female came to MN in early 80s, interracial marriage early 40s 1G4-Male came to MN early 90s mid 30s 1.5 G 1.5G1-Female came to MN 5 year old mid 30s 1.5G2-Male came to MN 9 year old late 30s 1.5G3-Male came to MN 10 year old early 30s 1.5G4-Female came to MN 15 year old early 40s 2nd G 2G1-Female bi-racial (Korean mom and Caucasian dad) late teens 2G2-Male active with a Korean church youth group, having both Korean immigrant parents mid 20s 2G3-Female MN-born and raised, professional, married to 1.5G mid 30s 2G4-Male MN-raised, professional, married to 1.5G late 30s KA KA1-Male just started exploring Korean people and culture early 20s KA2-Female frequent contact with local Koreans, 1.5 G Korean boyfriend mid 20s KA3-Male No previous exposure to Korea, the local Korean community, more interaction with the adopted community early 30s KA4-Female Continuous involvement both in the Korean adoptee and the Korean community late 30s 77 Based on the view that culture is imagined, remembered, reinvented, created, and continued within communities and through relationships (Fisher 1986; Hall 1990; Lowe 1996), the year of arrival in Minnesota was used as the most significant selection factor for first and 1.5 generation participants. This was done to draw upon participants’ subjective notions of Korean and American culture based on their interactions with later immigrants. For1.5 generation participants, the additional criteria of living in Minnesota for at least the last ten years, was used to ensure participants’ exposure to and knowledge of the local Korean community. For second generation participants, an extended stay in Minnesota of more than 15 years as well as personal background including race and family were used for final selection. For Korean adoptees, the level of exposure to both Korean culture and the local Korean community were used. Across all four in-groups, an even number of each gender was selected. 6. Ethical Considerations: Protection of Human Subjects Utilizing ethnographic work in research requires an ethical consideration. It always involves more risks than benefits since it is basically “the business of inquiring into other people’s business” as stated by Wolcott (1999, p.284). He points out that the underlying issue is to balance risks and benefits. The question was how to maximize the benefits and potential benefits in my research and to minimize the risks. In this regard, Wolcott’s suggestion (1999, p. 282) was helpful: The guideline I try to follow is the Golden Rule restated in negation, to not do to others anything I would not want them to do to me. Sometimes that translates simply into not saying or not telling more than is necessary. In addition to following this guideline, I ensured personal security, confidentiality for participants and tried to maintain openness toward them. I kept an acceptable level of 78 integrity by watching and following ethical standards as well as the code of conduct described in the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at the University of Minnesota. This research project and its protection of human rights were approved by the IRB in October of 2002. Once approval was granted, I began contacting informants within the Korean community beginning in November 2002. Because the local Korean community is small and full of close-knit networks among community members, confidentiality of the participants was crucial for this study. To help informants and potential participants be assured of the anonymous treatment of information and data, I offered an initial information session with them either by phone, e-mail or in person before I officially started the research process by obtaining their informed consent. At each information session, any possible risks were explained such as sensitive feelings and thoughts related to Korean American identity. Participants were informed that they could decide not to answer to some questions if they felt uncomfortable or sensitive to some questions during the interview. The risks and discomfort involved in this study were considered to be minimal or not greater than those that participants experienced in daily life. The consent form included information about the purpose, procedure, and voluntary nature of the study. It informed participants that although they initially agreed to participate in the study, they could withdraw from the study at any time without justifying their action and affecting their relations with the University of Minnesota. Confidentiality of the participants and anonymity of the information and data were secured by using identification numbers on all written reports. There was no personal information linked to any individual participant. All records and audio recordings were 79 taped with permission and have been kept private and locked in a password protected computer file. Only I have access to the files and records containing personal information on participants. The audio recordings and written records are to be destroyed within six months after the final report of this research is completed. 7. Data Collection: Triangulation in Data Sources and Collection Methods In qualitative research, “triangulation” has been used as a strategy to increase the quality of the data and the overall validity of a study. It refers to the combined use of two or more theories, methods, data sources, and analysis methods as identified by Denzin (1989). Since this research involves the process of identity negotiation in a culture and context-specific setting, I utilized two types of triangulation to capture these multiple dimensions of identity negotiation process. These are methodological triangulation and data triangulation. The process of identity negotiation involves a participant’s intercultural development, that is a broader cultural-learning process requiring cognitive, behavioral, and affective forms of learning (Paige, 1993). For this research, a combination of qualitative and quantitative research methods was used to examine this complex process. According to Denzin (1989), ‘within-method triangulation’ can be used when the phenomenon of the study is multidimensional. Following this tradition, I used two qualitative methods (in- depth ethnographic interview and participant observation) and one quantitative instrument, the Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI). The IDI was added to enhance depth to explanations of flexibility of ethnic identity negotiation with respect to a participant’s cognitive domain. The IDI, reported to have high reliability and validity, 80 was utilized to explore the cognitive dimension of the intercultural development process (Hammer and Bennett, 1999). The use of methodological triangulation is supported by many researchers and believed to “strengthen research results and contribute to theory and knowledge” (Morse, 1991, p. 122) and “to produce richer and more insightful analyses of complex phenomena that can be achieved by either method separately” (Duffy, 1987, p. 133). To capture a holistic picture of a participant’s cultural learning process, I collected data from the following three sources: a) qualitative textual data from in-depth interviews with all participants, b) observation field notes, and c) quantitative data and statistical analyses from the Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI). Through these sources, multiple dimensions of ethnic identity negotiation can be portrayed in breadth and depth. Participants were interviewed in the language of their choice, either in English or Korean, and sometimes both. Interviews with participants were audio-recorded with permission of participants or notes were taken. Participant observations were conducted at communal events, at religious institutions, at their meetings, or other activities, and also upon invitation to homes or work places. During observation, a participant’s process of identity negotiation with other community members was examined and cultural behaviors were observed. Field notes were also taken during all phases of data collection and were combined with observation notes to enhance a deeper understanding of the identity negotiation process in a particular setting with in the context of the Minnesota Korean community. Figure 4 illustrates the overall approach to data collection. 81 Figure 4. Data Collection Schemata: Triangulation in Data Sources 7.1. In-depth personal interview “The emic perspective-the insider’s or native’s perspective of reality-is at the heart of most ethnographic research. The insider’s perception of reality is instrumental to understanding and accurately describing situation and behaviors.” (Fetterman, 1998, p. 21) In accordance with ethnographic research tradition mentioned above, in-depth personal interviews were used to draw a detailed description of each participant’s own perception and thoughts on Korean-ness and American-ness from their life experiences living in the Minnesota Korean community. A list of guiding questions for the interview was developed for each sub-group to elicit information that would reveal the participant’s subjective notion of Korean American identity. The list of interview questions served as a guide to encourage participants to explain their life experiences and to provide a vivid description of their experiences, beliefs, thoughts, and knowledge. To elicit different data from the four in-groups, Patton’s (1980) typology of questions was adopted and modified for this study. Among his six categories of questions, I utilized the following four categories; experience and behavior questions, opinion and value questions, knowledge questions, and background and demographic questions. The interview questions were organized under four topic areas: assimilation, cultural adjustment & racial integration, Personal Interview Participant Observation Intercultural Development Inventory Holistic Picture & In-depth Explorations of Ethnic Identity 82 within-group attitude & awareness of cultural change, and self-identification. Appendix C lists the guiding interview questions used for the four in-groups. 7.2. Participant Observation Participation observation is the primary technique used by ethnographers to gain access to data, namely, the daily activities of participants’ lives in order to observe their interactions and activities in their world (Fetterman, 1998, p.109). To apply this technique in the context of the Minnesota Korean community, I utilized Korean holiday events such as Korean Thanksgiving Day (called Chusok in Korean) and the Korean New Year Day (called solnal in Korean). These are two major holidays observed in Korean culture. In the local Korean community, Korean religious institutions often hold events for their members to celebrate these Korean holidays by hosting an event or dinner at their institutions. I participated in these events as a volunteer preparing Korean food for each holiday or as a guest at a participant’s residence, celebrating a Korean holiday meal with their family members. Once participants were familiar with me and as my relationship developed with them on a personal level, I was often invited to their home to other festive events such as a Thanksgiving dinner or a Christmas celebration as well as a personal gathering. These occasions offered me extended fieldwork where I was able to observe their private family life and interactions with family members. 7.3. Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI) The IDI was developed by Hammer & Bennett (2001a, b) to measure an individual’s intercultural sensitivity, i.e., one’s reaction to cultural differences. The IDI is based on Bennett’s Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS). This model consists of six developmental stages: denial, defense, minimization, acceptance, cognitive and 83 behavioral adaptation, and integration. The IDI is a paper and pencil instrument asking respondents to rate their agreement or disagreement 50 statements using a five-point scale. The IDI measures an individual’s intercultural sensitivity (ICS) by providing scores matching one’s orientations to cultural differences in the following dimensions: Defense/Denial (combined), Reversal, Minimization, Acceptance/Adaptation (combined), and the Encaptulated Marginality. The IDI provides an overall ICS score, a developmental score (DS), specific scores for Defense/Denial (combined), Reversal, Minimization, Acceptance/Adaptation (combined), and the Encaptulated Marginality dimension of Integration to quantify the attained level of an individual’s intercultural sensitivity. 7.4. Data Collection Procedures and Logistics In this study, data collection in the field took place over three distinct periods. The first period was from November of 2002 to November of 2003. Before launching fieldwork on a full scale, I conducted a pilot study with eight community members to test the effectiveness and intercultural sensitivity of the research instruments used for data collection. These instruments included a list of guiding questions and a demographic questionnaire in Korean and English. Of these eight participants, three were first generation, two were 1.5 generation, one second generation, and two were adopted Koreans. From the pilot interviews, I learned the immigration history, development, and generational dynamics of the Korean community as well becoming acquainted with popular social spaces for younger Korean Americans in the Twin City area. Based on feedback and comments from pilot study participants, I revised and clarified the language 84 used on all research documents as well as modified procedures and logistics for interviewing and observing participants. The second period of data collection was from April of 2005 to December of 2006. This was when I attended communal events for Korean holidays and visited five major religious institutions listed in the Korean Directory of Minnesota (published in 2005 and 2006). During this time I also identified potential participants for four in-groups based on referrals and my observations. Among these four groups, I initiated contact with first generation and Korean adoptee groups to introduce myself and this study. After receiving their consent, I conducted two rounds of ethnographic interviews and participant observations with eight participants from these two groups. The third period of data collection was from February 2007 to December of 2007, with exception of one participant whom I replaced in September of 2008. This was the most intense time of data collection from the two remaining groups: 1.5 generation and second generation. By this time, I was able to administer the IDI by myself after I received certification in 2007. During this period I administered the IDI at a follow-up meeting with fifteen participants. Korean New Year Day and Korean Thanksgiving Day celebration were two major events that I utilized for participant observation. The in-depth ethnographic interviews were conducted in a semi-structured way with a list of guiding questions developed for each sub-group. These questions only served as a guide in the beginning of the interview to frame conversations. Once an interview started, it often took its own course until a participant stopped it. The interview times ranged from 1 hour 45 minutes to 5 hours 30 minutes. There was a time interval of 85 several days or weeks between the first and the second interviews to reflect on interview responses and to identify questions needing further clarification and explanation. The time and place of each interview was at the participant’s convenience and were conducted in the participant’s preferred language, either Korean or English, and sometimes both. Two in-depth interviews were conducted per each participant with the exception of two participants with whom I had follow up communications via e-mail. Table 17 shows the three phases of data collection for the study. Table 17. Three Phases of Data Collection Time Period Data Collection Progress 11/2002 - 11/2003 Pilot Study on the history and development of the Korean community, revision of the interview questions 04/2005 - 12/2006 Data collection on 1st generation and Korean Adoptee group; 2 rounds of interviews and observations 02/2007 - 12/2007 Data collection on 1.5 and 2nd generation; 2 rounds of interviews and observations; administering an IDI on 15 participants *09/2008 Replaced one 1.5 generation participant 7.5. Data Analysis In qualitative research, data collection and data analysis are often conducted simultaneously and concurrently (Merriam, 1998). In this study, data analysis was also conducted at the same time as collection in this order: translating and transcribing interviews verbatim; listening and selectively coding related interview responses to research questions during the third data collection period; selectively coding interview responses by the research questions on Nvivo 7, a qualitative software; and lastly, identifying patterned regularities through comparing, contrasting, and sorting. 86 Transcribing interviews verbatim was later revised during the third data collection period, mainly due to the intensity of doing word-to-word transcription as well as translation, and for efficiency in transcribing the related interview responses. A total of 30 interviews with 16 participants were conducted. These interviews were audio-recorded with permission from the participants, with the exception of one participant who was not comfortable with audio recording. Detailed interview notes were taken instead with this participant. Audio recordings were downloaded to Digital Voice Editor, an audio software program for organizing and transcribing audio recordings for transcription. Once transcripts were made in word processing software (MS Word), these scripts were imported to NVivo 7, a qualitative data analysis software for data coding. The interviews conducted during the first data collection period were transcribed by the researcher into verbatim scripts immediately following the interviews. These were a total of 7 interviews with 1st generation and Korean adoptee participants. Among these interviews, there were 2 interviews conducted in Korean, 2 interviews in mixed English and Korean as the participants switched back and forth between languages, and the other three interviews were conducted in English only. During the third data collection period, because of the quick turn-around time between the first and the second follow-up interview, interview scripts were organized by selective coding. I listened to the recordings carefully and then reorganized interview responses to each question on NVivo. This process was more efficient on Nvivo because of its many convenient features of managing and cataloging data as well as identifying themes from the interview responses. 87 As for transforming interview data into something manageable and ready for analysis, I utilized Wolcott’s (1994b) sequence of data transformation: description, analysis, and interpretation. Raw data were coded and patterned regularities identified through comparing, contrasting, and sorting. Patterns were examined to identify major categories and themes. Interpretations were made from identified themes to develop a deeper understanding of subjective meanings and the process of negotiating Korean American identity. 7.6. Strategies for Bias Reduction In qualitative research, four criteria are used to establish trustworthiness of findings. These are credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability. According to Lincoln and Guba (1985), credibility involves confidence in the ‘truth’ of the findings. Transferability is to show the findings have applicability in other contexts. Dependability is to show findings are consistent and can be repeated. Finally, confirmability is to demonstrate a degree of neutrality or the extent to which the findings of a study are shaped by the respondents and not researcher bias, motivation, or interest. For this study, several techniques were employed to establish and increase the trustworthiness of findings. These techniques included prolonged engagement, persistent observation, member-checking, thick description, triangulation, and reflexivity. For example, I extended my involvement and participation in the field at the local Korean community over a four year period and observed participants in settings where they were actively engaged as members both on in personal and public settings. In addition, to establish the validity of an account or an interpretation made in the data analysis, I asked 88 participants to read related findings involving them. When participants were willing to do so, a portion of related findings were sent and confirmed by them via e-mail. Also, to show transferability of the findings in other contexts, a detailed account of relevant findings was included in chapter 4. To minimize the researcher’s bias or to increase the neutrality of the findings, I employed data triangulation to ensure a comprehensive and in-depth understanding of identity negotiation in context. I also kept a reflective journal to record methodological decisions and reasons as well as to detect my own values or interests during the research process. 7.7. Limitations “Particularly in qualitative research, the role of the researcher as the primary data collection instrument necessitates the identification of personal values, assumptions and biases at the outset of the study” (Creswell, 2002, p. 200) In this study, my role as the researcher has been shaped by my personal and academic experiences in the U.S. My cross-cultural living experiences in the U.S. have enhanced my awareness, consciousness, observation, knowledge, and sensitivity to many of the challenges and issues contributing to fine cultural schisms among Koreans living overseas. In particular, my personal awakening as a native South Korean in understanding cultural divisions among Koreans living in Minnesota has led me to question the conventional notion of Korean-ness reflecting the South Korean mainstream perspective. Thus, my critical awareness as an educated researcher inevitably affects an interpretive frame of the findings of this study related to my personal values on social justice. I agree with Charmaz’s viewpoint as stated below (2005, p. 510): An interest in social justice means attentiveness to ideas and actions concerning fairness, equity, equality, democratic process, status, hierarchy, and individual and collective rights and obligations. It signifies thinking about being human and 89 creating good societies and a better world. It prompts reassessment of our roles as national and world citizens. It means exploring tensions between complicity and consciousness, choice and constraint, indifference and compassion, inclusion and exclusion, poverty and privilege, and barriers and opportunities. I observed how the issues of cultural inclusion and exclusion, fairness, equity, and equality affected members of the local Korean community in Minnesota. I noticed how a notion of “cultural and ethnic authenticity” has impacted the community integration and generational dynamics among Korean community members. Due to my previous observations on the divides within the community, my status as an insider may have worked both as an advantage and disadvantage. My status as a South Korean native and Korean language teacher at local educational institutions ensured a higher level of access to many community members. On the other hand, because of my proficiencies in both languages and cultures, some participants might hold back or screen their views or opinions during the interview. In addition, some participants may not have developed a consciousness or awareness over cultural schisms and rendered their thoughts during interview without further developing their ideas. Although there was a time interval between the two interviews, participants may have needed more time and reflection to process and develop their thinking about their previous life experiences. This study is also limited to the extent that findings of this study are neither generalizable nor applicable to the larger Korean American context in the U.S. due to the small number of participants and different contextual factors. Because of the intensity of the fieldwork, a total of sixteen participants were purposefully chosen by the researcher to meet selection criteria. These participants and their responses may not represent the 90 whole population of the local Korean community in Minnesota. Certainly having a larger number of adopted Koreans in Minnesota has provided more opportunities for social interaction between Korean adoptees and the rest of Minnesotan Korean Americans which increased the feasibility of this research. However, this context may be different in other Korean American communities with a less visible presence of Korean adoptees. In addition, the culture and history of the Korean adoptee community in Minnesota may be different from those of other Korean adoptee communities located in different other parts of the U.S. 91 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS 1. Introduction “No qualitative method rests on pure induction – the questions we ask of the empirical world frame what we know of it. In short, we share in constructing what we define as data. Similarly, our conceptual categories arise through our interpretations of data rather than emanating from them or from our methodological practices. Thus, our theoretical analyses are interpretive renderings of a reality, not objective reportings of it.” (Charmaz, 2005, p.509, bold added for emphasis) As explained by Charmaz above, researchers do not assume that they will enter the research scene without an interpretive frame of reference, particularly in qualitative inquiry. Researchers, instead, take an inductive approach toward the collected data to assure that the emergence of categories from data will not be contaminated by previous concepts or theories in the literature unless warranted by evidence from the data (Glaser & Strauss, 1967, p. 46; Dey, 1999, p.4). Adopting the same qualitative research tradition, I fully acknowledge my significant role as the researcher in interpreting the data. As the researcher, I have been the main data collection instrument (Patton, 2001, p.14), and in analyzing the data, I am going to be using my own “filter” to interpret each participant’s realities to generate relevant and meaningful findings. In doing so, I utilize a coding procedure of bracketing defined as a methodological device to ascertain the meanings and describe the particularities of the phenomenon under investigation in a temporal structure (Moustakas, 1994, p. 96). This section consists of two parts: data description and data analysis. The data description includes a summary of demographic information and an individual IDI (Intercultural Development Inventory) score for all 16 participants. The data analysis section presents data interpretation and analysis organized by responses to the research 92 questions. The primary research question is “How do Korean Americans develop their ethnic identity and what are the key factors influencing the development of their ethnic identity?” Subsequent questions are: a) How do different generations of Korean Americans identify Korean-ness and American-ness in their ethnic identity? b) How do different immigration and assimilation experiences affect ethnic identity development and identity negotiation? c) What other factors influence the ethnic identity of Korean Americans? 2. Data Description 2.1. Profiles of the Participants 2.1.1. 1st Generation Participants 1st generation participants were selected mainly by their arrival time in Minnesota. The four 1st generation participants were purposely chosen to reflect generational dynamics, in particular, the impact of social, political, and cultural change in South Korea on individual notions of Korean-ness. From the late 1970s to the 1990s, South Korea was going through rapid industrialization and/or westernization. How these changes have influenced each participant’s Korean American identity as well as their immigrant life and adaptation to mainstream Minnesota culture was more emphasized among the 1st generation participants. In addition, how socio-economic class difference affects each participant’s integration to the Korean community was closely examined among the 1st generation Minnesota Korean Americans. Table 18 summarizes demographic information on the 1st generation participants and provides a brief descriptive profile of each. To maintain anonymity of all 16 participants, their names are randomly assigned. 93 Table 18. 1st Generation Korean American Participants (*To conceal the identity of some participants, an approximate age span is given. Age information reflects a participant’s age at the time of the interview.) Identifier- Gender (F or M) Age Arrival Time in MN Education Occupation Organizational Membership Legal Status 1G1-M late 60s 1968 Ph.D Professor (retired) mainstream church first and later Korean church Citizen 1G2-F early 60s 1975 Masters Social Service Korean church only Citizen 1G3-F early 40s 1992 (1988 in U.S.) Masters Social Service mainstream church first and Korean church later Citizen 1G4-M late 30s 1989 B.A. Company Worker Korean church only Citizen Dr. Kim (Participant 1G1) was born in Seoul, Korea and finished an advanced education degree (master’s) in Korea. Before his arrival in Minnesota in 1968, he worked at the U.S. Embassy and had frequent contact with U.S. Americans from the mainstream culture. His governmental work had given him opportunities of visiting the U.S. and eventually influenced him to come to the U.S. He came to Minnesota taking an academic position at one university in a city located about 80 miles southwest of the Twin Cities. He continued in a Ph. D program and completed his degree. He lived in that city with his family until he retired and then moved back to a suburb of the Twin Cities in 2001. He is currently involved with several community-related non-profit organizations in both communities; through the Korean Association of Minnesota and a philanthropic non-profit organization based in the Twin Cities. He commented on his English proficiency as 70-80% of mastery in English proficiency, more so in written English. During the interview, he frequently switched back and forth between English 94 and Korean. He has an accent in speaking English but appears to show no hesitation in speaking English with his accent. Mrs. Lee (Participant 1G2) lived in Seoul and finished a B.A. in Korea. She worked as a teacher in a variety of educational settings. After her marriage, her Korean husband decided to pursue an advanced education degree at the University of Minnesota. She came to Minnesota with her family in 1975. She finished her master’s at the University of Minnesota and began working at a local day-care for young children. She went on working at a local social service organization which handled Korean adoption cases. She was actively involved with connecting adoptive families with the Korean community earlier in her career. She is currently leading a social service organization in the Twin Cities. In terms of her proficiency in English, she has a proficient command of both spoken and written English. At work, she uses both English and Korean. Mrs. Fisher (Participant 1G3) was born and raised in Seoul, Korea. Unlike the two previous 1st generation participants who came to the States with their families, participant 1G3 came alone as a college student in 1988. She finished her B.A. and masters in another state in the Midwest and came to Minnesota in 1992 with her career move. Since her marriage to a Caucasian American man in 1990, she has been living fully assimilated to the mainstream culture without any contact with Korean culture or the local Korean community. She has been living in a first-ring suburb situated immediately southwest of Minneapolis since her arrival in Minnesota. After a later divorce and spending some time to consider about becoming involved in the local Korean community, she joined a local Korean church about five years ago. She has been working at a local social service organization where she interacts with American people from diverse backgrounds as well 95 as people of color. As for her proficiency in English and American mainstream culture, she has shown a proficient command of English in both written and spoken English. She uses English in her professional work settings and speaks Korean only in her personal life. Mr. Park (Participant 1G4) was born and raised in Seoul, Korea. He attended one university in Seoul until his senior year and then came to the U.S. with his parents in 1989. His family came to the States after a 10 year wait in applying for occupational immigration upon his Korean aunt’s official invitation. His aunt’s family has been residing in Minnesota since the 1970s. Upon his arrival in Minnesota, he attended a university in a small city located southwest of the Twin Cities and finished a B.A. in a technology-related major. While he was going to the university, he was working part- time at a local Korean restaurant in St. Paul. After graduation, he has worked at several local companies related to computer technical support. He is married to his college friend from Korea and has been living in a rapidly growing suburban city about 13 miles located northeast from Minneapolis since his arrival in Minnesota. He uses English only at work and speaks Korean at home and at church. 2.1.2. 1.5 Generation Participants 1.5 generation participants were all born in Korea and came to Minnesota with their families as children. These participants have some memories of Korea and an understanding of Korean language and culture based on their childhood experiences in Korea. With varying ages at the time of their arrival in Minnesota and their exposure to Korean culture, the process of socialization in becoming 1.5 generation in the Korean community was the main focus of studying this in-group. In particular, the role of their 96 Korean immigrant family, U.S. education, and the already existing Korean community in the Twin Cities in forming and reconstructing their ethnic identities between generational boundaries was significant in characterizing this group in comparison to first generation and second generation participants. Table 19 summarizes demographic information on the 1st generation participants and gives descriptive profiles of each participant. Table 19. 1.5 Generation Korean American Participants (*To conceal the identity of some participants, an approximate age span is given. Age information reflects a participant’s age at the time of the interview.) Identifier- Gender (F or M) Age Arrival Time in MN Education Occupation Organizational Membership Legal Status 1.5G1-F mid 30s 1977 (5 year old) B.A. In transition Korean church first and mainstream church later Citizen 1.5G2-M late 30s 1980 (9 year old) Masters Engineer Korean church only Citizen 1.5G3-M early 30s 1988 (11 year old) B.A. In transition Korean Catholic Church only Citizen 1.5G4-F early 40s 1980 (15 year old, in 1989 moved to Mpls) A.S. Self- employed (own business) mainstream church first and Korean church later Citizen Sunny (1.5G1) was born and raised in Inchon, a large city and major seaport on the west coast of Korea near Seoul. She came to Minnesota in 1977 with her family including her grandparents when she was five years old. She did not receive any formal education in Korea. Because of her father’s occupation and involvement with a local Korean church, she grew up keeping close friendships with her circle of Korean church friends in the Twin Cities. She left the Twin Cities for the first time for college. She attended a liberal arts college that was predominantly white in a small city in Minnesota. After graduation, she returned to Minneapolis and worked at several retail stores. From 97 1998 to 2006, she worked at a university located in Minneapolis as a research assistant and at the time of interview, she was preparing a career move. She visited Korea once since her arrival in Minnesota. At the time of interview, she was single. As for her Korean language proficiency, she has some receptive skills in listening and speaking and manages conversational Korean. She has limited skills in written Korean. She has a relatively strong American accent in speaking Korean. Jung (1.5G2) was born and raised in Seoul, Korea. He came to Minnesota with his family when he was nine years old. He finished a year and half of elementary education in Korea. His parents chose Minnesota because of their relatives, his father’s older brother who settled in Minnesota after his advanced education and marriage to a Caucasian woman. Both of his parents worked as factory workers in a local American manufacturing factory with other Korean immigrants. His parents went to a local Korean church and he grew up in the community with other Korean American church friends. His family first settled in a northern residential suburb of Minneapolis with visible diversity among many resident people of color. For the last ten years, his family has lived in a northwestern suburban city of Minneapolis. He went to a local public university and finished his B.A. and a master’s degree. He has been working as an engineer in a local firm. He has been involved in a variety of activities both in his church and in Minnesota Korean American organizations in the Twin Cities. Since his arrival in Minnesota, he has visited Korea once. At the time of interview, he was single. As for his Korean language skills, he has also shown more receptive skills than literacy skills in Korean. He speaks Korean to his parents at home and to some Korean church elders at church. 98 CJ (1.5G3) was born and raised in Buchon, Kyonggi-do, a satellite city located southwest of Seoul, Korea. He finished two years of elementary education in Korea and came to Minnesota when he was 11 years old. Upon arrival in Minnesota, his father attended a two-year college and eventually opened his own business in a medical supply- related business. His parents attend a Korean Catholic Church located next to the St. Paul Campus of the University of Minnesota, which recently moved to a suburb. He attended a local public university where he made many local Korean American friends at a Korean student organization. Following his growing interest in updating his Korean language and knowledge of contemporary Korean society, he did a study abroad for a year and half in a private university located in Seoul. After college graduation, he went back to Korea in 2004 and worked at a business corporation located in Seoul until 2006. At the time of interview, he was applying for graduate school and was single. As for his Korean language skills, he was the most proficient among the 1.5 participants. During the interview, he was able to switch back and forth between English and Korean, showing a sophisticated level of command in speaking Korean. He speaks Korean to his parents at home and to his older relatives. Mrs. Choi (Participant 1.5G4 was born in and raised in Osan, Kyonggi-do, a small city located south of Seoul, Korea. Her father chose Minnesota on the recommendation of his close American friend whom he met at a U.S. Army base in Korea. In 1980 her family first arrived in a small city located on the Iron Range. Her family was the first non-Caucasian family to settle in that city and resided there until 1989. Her father decided to move to Minneapolis to open his own business related to medical supplies. Her family lived in a northwest suburb from Minneapolis and went to a local Korean 99 church to meet other Korean families. She attended a professional vocational school following in her father’s footsteps. She eventually took over her father’s business and is currently running it with her younger brother. Although there was a time in her mid-20s when she stopped going to a Korean church and interacting with other local Koreans in the community, she is now a member of a Korean church. She is married to a 1.5 Korean American man. As for her Korean language skills, she shows more receptive skills than literacy skills in Korean. She speaks Korean to Korean-speaking church members as well as to her parents and occasionally to her husband to help him improve his Korean skills. She commented on her husband’s Korean skills saying that his Korean improved after they both joined their current Korean church. She spoke Korean during our initial phone conversation but spoke English predominantly during the interview. 2.1.3. 2nd Generation Participants Because of the relatively short history of the Korean community in Minnesota, the number of Minnesota-born second generation Korean Americans is small and there is a small pool from which to choose. This made it difficult for gender distribution. MN- born males were much difficult to locate them because many have left Minnesota because of their careers. It is notable that a certain age group of second generation between their late 20s and early 30s is invisible or non-existent in the community. This led to a widening of the selection criteria for second generation male participants in two ways: place of birth and place or origin. For example, Bryn (2G2) was born in Minnesota but spent his early childhood elsewhere in the U.S. Matt (2G4) was born in Korea and came to Minnesota as an infant (7 months old). 100 As for the second generation participants, the sociocultural process of identifying their second generation identity apart from their parents’ generation was the main focus. This process involves how they became acculturated as both Korean and American culturally, socially, and economically and how they assimilated to the mainstream culture in navigating boundaries of racial, cultural, and ethnic identity. What is notable among the four participants is their salient affiliation with and strong ties to Korean ethnic churches. The parents of all four participants went to Korean ethnic churches in the Twin Cities. These participants were socialized with other Korean Americans and experienced Korean cultural practices within this sociocultural environment. Table 20 summarizes the demographic information of the 2nd generation participants and gives a descriptive profile of each participant. Table 20. 2nd Generation Korean American Participants (*To conceal the identity of some participants, an approximate age span is given. Age information reflects a participant’s age at the time of the interview.) Identifier- Gender (F or M) Age Arrival Time in MN Education Occupation Organizational Membership 2G1-F late teens Has stayed since her birth in St. Paul, MN Currently in College Full-time student/ Part-time work at a local Korean store Korean church only 2G2-M early 20s Was born in St. Paul but stayed elsewhere in the U.S. until the 2nd grade, returned and has stayed in MN since then Currently in College Full-time student Korean church (youth group leader) 2G3-F mid 30s Has stayed since her birth in St. Paul, MN Professional degree Public Servant Korean church only 2G4-M late 30s Has stayed most of his life in MN Masters Manager Korean church only 101 Kelly (2G1) was born in St. Paul and raised in Minnesota all her life. She is a bi- racial second generation Korean American from a working-class family of a Korean mother and a Caucasian father. Her parents met each other when they were in Korea and came to Minnesota in 1987 after marriage. Her parents are divorced now but she has kept in contact with her father through attending the same Korean ethnic church. She has been living with her mother who has supported her financially. She and her mother have attended the same Korean church located in a northwest suburb of Minneapolis. She has been actively involved with the church’s youth group and ministry. She has not been able to visit Korea but hopes to go there soon. At the time of interview, she was attending a community college and has been working part-time at a local pizza chain run by a local 1.5 Korean American. Her Korean language skills are minimal with receptive understanding in conversational spoken Korean. She is currently taking a formal Korean language class from a local public university. Bryn (2G2) was born in St. Paul but moved out of state due to his father’s advanced training in the medical field. His family met each other in Korea and decided to come to the States to pursue an advanced education in the States after their marriage. They first arrived in Minnesota because of his mother’s family being in Minnesota. His family returned to Minnesota when he was in the second grade with his father’s job offer at a local hospital. According to 2G1, both of his parents are devout Christians who have been actively involved with several Korean ethnic churches in the Twin Cities. His mother has been teaching Korean language at the churches they have attended. He is also actively involved with the church youth group and has served as a youth group leader since he was in the late teens. As for his Korean language skills, he shows the most 102 proficiency among the 2nd generation participants both in speaking and writing. Being the first child at home, he said he was exposed to more Korean-speaking environments growing up, compared to his siblings. He also commented on his church environment where there is a continuous influx of young Korean international students as another contributing factor in maintaining a higher level of Korean language skills. Kaitlin (2G3) was born in St. Paul and raised in Minnesota. She has spent all of her life in Minnesota finishing her B.A. as well as a professional degree at a local public university. Her parents are both native Koreans who came to Minnesota as students and met each other. Her father arrived in 1964 and her mother in 1963 and they remained in Minnesota ever since. Both of her parents attended a local Korean ethnic church for a long time and made a close network of Korean church friends whom they mostly socialized with. She also attended the same church with her parents spending all Sunday at the church involved with church activities or taking a Korean language class. She eventually stopped taking Korean language classes at the church as her other extracurricular activities took priority. She grew up in a suburb that was predominantly white until she came to Minneapolis to attend the university. She joined a Korean student association on campus and met with other young Korean Americans her age. She was involved with this student organization and was a vice president at one time. She met a Korean American man (1.5 generation) who also grew up in the Twin Cities and married him. She goes to the same church that her parents have attended for a long time. She is trying to expose her children to the Korean language as much as she can either by taking them to a Monday Korean class or taking them to her visit parents. Her Korean language 103 skills are limited compared to the two previous 2nd generation participants. She understands the Korean language more but is not able to read or write. Matt (2G4) was born in Pusan, Korea, but came to Minnesota with his parents to Minnesota when he was 7-months old. His parents went to a Korean ethnic church located in a northwestern suburb to Minneapolis. He met other second generation Korean Americans at the church and attended the same church until recently. His father completed a Ph. D from a local public university and his parents together also ran a restaurant in a northeastern suburb of Minneapolis. He helped his parents’ business by working there part time when they needed extra help. He started college out of state initially at an Ivy League school but returned to a local public university to complete his B.A. Since then he has been residing in Minnesota. Growing up his parents spoke more English to him at home. This may have affected his limited Korean language skills. He does not appear to retain much of the Korean language. He is currently married to a 1.5 Korean American woman whom he met at the Korean church he attended. 2.1.4. Korean Adoptee Participants In Minnesota where Korean adoptees outnumber those in the Korean community, their visible presence poses a unique challenge to the community in extending a notion of authentic Korean-ness to these Korean adoptees. From the perspective of Koreans, they are Korean by birth but they do not share their language, culture, and history. From the perspective of Korean adoptees, they are culturally mainstream American based on their Caucasian American adoptive families’ culture. Yet, in the larger society, Korean adoptees are considered to be members of the Asian American “minority” because of their physical appearances. Korean adoptees have a complex task of navigating among 104 multiple reference groups. These reference groups are the mainstream White American race and culture of their adoptive families, the Korean American race and culture of the Minnesota Korean community, and the South Korean race and culture of their birth place. Their task gets more complicated when they enter the Minnesota Korean community because of generational dynamics between first generation immigrants and later generations of Korean Americans within the community. Because Korean adoptess are unfamiliar with Korean ethnic/cultural norm and behaviors, their early sociocultural interactions with local Korean community members influence the course of adoptive Korean identity development in their early 20s. As adult Korean adoptees enter the local Korean community in an attempt to experience and learn their birth country’s culture and language in order to understand where they are from, how their experiences affect and shape their Korean-ness is significant. Hence, the Korean adoptees’ unique challenge in navigating racial, cultural, ethnic identities and in the process, constructing “Korean- ness”, were a main focus of study for this sub-group. Table 21 summarizes the demographic information for the Korean Adoptee participants and profiles each participant as follows. 105 Table 21. Korean Adoptee Participants Identifier- Gender (F or M) Age Arrival Time in MN Education Occupation Organizational Membership Visit to Korea KA1-M late teens 7 months Currently in college College student/ Part time work on campus AK Connection None but planning KA2-F mid 20s 2 years old B.A. Bank Teller Korean adoptee supportive group (religious) 3 times KA3-M early 30s 3 years old A.S. (Associate degree) Mechanic AK Connection, NAAP (National Association of Asian American Professionals) None but planning KA4-F late 30s 4 years old B.A. Business Administration Korean adoptee supportive group (religious) 2 times Ryan (KA1) was adopted when he was 7 months old. His parents are both Caucasian and have no biological children. They adopted another Korean male after him. He grew up in a small city in eastern Minnesota, highly populated with Swedish Americans. He moved to Minneapolis in 2004 for his college education. While attending college, he started tapping into several networks of the Korean community. He has volunteered at events hosted by the Korean Service Center (KSC). He met with 1st generation Minnesota Koreans through KSC and connected to young second generation Korean Americans who go to the University of Minnesota. He said that he met young Korean Americans at local dancing clubs. He has been an active member of the AK Connection attending gatherings and events. As for his exposure to Korean language and culture, he had no exposure before he moved to Minneapolis. Since he moved to Minneapolis, he has explored the ethnic diversity of the city as well as discovered social networks of the local Korean community. He has visited three different Korean ethnic churches in the 106 Twin Cities. He also has taken an 8-week informal private Korean language course from a local Korean immigrant to prepare for his first visit to Seoul, Korea in the coming summer. Brittney (KA2) was adopted when she was two years old. She has two other Korean sisters adopted from Korea. Her parents are both Caucasian with German heritage. She grew up in a suburb of St. Paul where residents are predominantly white. Growing up, she did not have any real exposure to Korean culture or the local Korean community except at home through some books about Korea. She attended a college located in Minneapolis but commuted, staying at home living with her parents until she moved out recently. At college she met other Korean adoptees with whom she became close friends. One of her Korean adoptee friends introduced her to a religious-oriented Korean adoptee support group run by a local Korean pastor in the Twin Cities. Since she joined this group, she has explored social networks with both the adoptee community and local Korean community. She has gone to a Korean ethnic church where she regularly listens to the sermon given in English for the English-speaking congregation. She also has pursued her strong interest in learning Korean language and culture. She has visited Korea twice (in 2003 and 2004). She has worked for a local Korean school assisting the teaching staff. She is currently in a relationship with a local Korean American (1.5 generation). According to her, she has the more interest in learning the Korean language and culture compared to her other Korean sisters who are both married to Caucasian men and are living in the suburbs. Jason (KA3) was adopted when he was about three year old. His parents are both Caucasians of Polish heritage. They adopted two more children from Korea and had no 107 biological children. He grew up in a northeastern suburban city to Minneapolis, which was also predominantly white. He did not have any exposure either to Korean culture or to the local Korean community while growing up. He was married to a Hispanic American woman until he was divorced two years ago. He has one child and shares custody with his ex-wife. He shared that his marriage to his ex-wife helped him increase his awareness and understanding of life for people of color in the U.S. While recovering from the divorce, he developed an interest in Buddhism. He contacted a local Korean Buddhist temple but did not attend religious services due to the language barrier. His active participation in the Korean adoptee community is recent and occurred after his divorce. He goes to AK Connection gatherings on a regular basis and socializes with other adult Korean adoptees in the Twin Cities. He has become most interested in learning Korean culture in his late 20s. He has one brother who has been living and working in Korea for the last two years. Based on correspondence with his brother and because of greater interest in learning about his birth country, he is planning to visit Korea for the first time in the coming summer. Amy (KA4) was adopted when she was about four year old. Her parents have one biological child and she was the only one adopted from Korea. She grew up in a small town in Wisconsin that was predominantly white. She did not have an opportunity of knowing or learning about Korean culture while growing up. She lived with her parents until she moved to Minnesota to attend college. She had more interactions with people of color on campus but this experience did not prompt her to develop an interest in her birth country or culture. She had more interest in African American culture and met her African American boyfriend in Minneapolis. After graduating from college, she married 108 her boyfriend and moved to a Northeast Minneapolis neighborhood highly populated with African American residents. She attended an African American church with her husband. At work, she worked with African American staff that served low-income African American residents in St. Paul. Her personal interest and efforts learning Korean culture began shortly before her divorce. She was introduced to a local Korean ethnic church by a church member. Though this church, she found out more about the local Korean community. She attended a local Korean school (KIM) with her child. She also met with other adult Korean adoptees in the Twin Cities through several Korean adoptee support groups. She has visited Korea twice in 2000 and 2006. 2.2 IDI Scores of 16 Participants According to the IDI results, the mean developmental score of intercultural sensitivity (ICS) for the 16 participants was 93.72. Following Bennett and Hammer’s interpretation guide of the intercultural sensitivity development profile score (2002), 93.72 is classified within the range of Minimization between the lowest score of 85 and the highest score of 114. A score of 70 indicates the midpoint of Denial/Defense with a range of 54 as the lowest score and 84 as the highest score. A score of 130 indicates the midpoint of Acceptance/Adaptation with a range of 115 as the lowest score and 145 as the highest score. According to the DMIS theory, along the intercultural development continuum, Denial/Defense and Reversal fall into more ethnocentric orientations, Minimization to the in-between orientation, and Acceptance/Adaptation and Integration fall into the more ethnorelative orientation. Table 22 shows the group IDI score profile of all 16 participants as well as a subgroup profile by the four in-groups and also by gender. 109 Table 22. Group IDI Score Profile of Participants All Male Female 1St Gen 1.5 Gen 2nd Gen KA Developmental Score Mean 93.72 97.86 89.58 91.99 90.89 98.15 93.84 Lowest Score 77.57 77.57 80.04 77.57 84.05 89.09 80.04 Highest Score 126.66 126.66 101.50 101.50 98.82 126.66 113.49 Difference bet. L and H 49.09 49.09 21.46 23.93 14.77 37.57 33.45 Based on the developmental scores of the 16 participants, 4 participants are placed in the stage of Defense, 11 participants in the stage of Minimization, 1 participant in the Acceptance. Figure 5 shows each participant’s IDI score on the corresponding IDI stage of intercultural development. (*Figure 5 is on the next page.) 110 Figure 5. Individual IDI Scores for All 16 Participants The IDI profile analysis also provides the gap between participants’ actual development of intercultural sensitivity and their perceived development along the developmental continuum of intercultural sensitivity from ethnocentrism to ethnorelativism. The perceived intercultural sensitivity profile indicates how an individual rates one’s own development and the difference score between these two is a numerical indicator of how much additional intercultural development is needed in order to begin to experience consistently cultural differences in a more ethnorelative manner (Bennet and Hammer, 2002). Table 23 shows this difference. Denial / Defense Minimization Acceptance / Adaptation 111 Table 23. Difference between Actual and Perceived Development of Intercultural Sensitivity Group Participant Developmental Score (ICS) Perceived ICS Difference bet. ICS and Perceived ICS Stage 1st G 1G1-Male 77.57 117.72 40.15 Defense 1G2-Female 96.86 124.08 27.22 Minimization 1G3-Female 101.50 124.83 23.33 Minimization 1G4-Male 92.03 119.73 33.3 Minimization 1.5 G 1.5G1-Female 84.54 117.84 33.3 Defense 1.5G2-Male 96.14 123.32 27.18 Minimization 1.5G3-Male 98.82 122.37 23.55 Minimization 1.5G4-Female 84.05 114.05 30 Defense 2nd G 2G1-Female 85.78 119.30 33.52 Minimization 2G2-Male 91.07 120.45 29.38 Minimization 2G3-Female 89.09 118.66 29.57 Minimization 2G4-Male 126.66 134.47 7.81 Acceptance KA KA1-Male 113.49 131.37 17.88 Minimization KA2-Female 80.04 116.93 36.89 Defense KA3-Male 87.06 114.35 27.29 Minimization KA4-Female 94.75 124.71 29.96 Minimization 3. Data Analysis: Research Questions Results This section consists of data interpretation and analysis from the interview data. It is organized by findings to the related research questions based on interview responses from all 16 research participants. These findings are listed by each sub-group in order of 1st, 1.5, 2nd, and Korean adoptee participants. The primary research question of this study is “How do Korean Americans develop their ethnic identity and what are the key factors influencing the development of their ethnic identity?” Subsequent questions are: a) How do different generations of Korean Americans identify Korean-ness and American-ness in their ethnic identity? b) How do different immigration and assimilation experiences 112 affect ethnic identity development and identity negotiation? c) What other factors influence the ethnic identity of Korean Americans? 3.1. 1. Primary Research Question: How do Korean Americans in Minnesota develop their ethnic identity and what are the key factors influencing the development of their ethnic identity? In the case of the 1st generation participants, developing Korean American identity appears to evolve gradually as exposure to the mainstream American culture and interactions with Minnesota Americans increases through their work settings. The work place serves as the primary means of experiencing “American culture” in contrast to Korean culture. “American-ness” appears to be added onto the Korean identity that was formed in Korea before they arrived in Minnesota. The process of adding “American- ness” onto their Korean identity has varied according to the type and nature of their work, the opportunity for career advancement, and the pattern of settlement in the U.S. as an immigrant. With three participants (1G1, 1G2, and 1G4), Korean identity has been maintained within their family life with all Korean family members and reinforced by their “Korean” social life extended through Korean ethnic churches. The Korean ethnic church serves as both a Korean “ethnic” place and “cultural” space. It also provides a social network of fellow Korean immigrants. With the 1G3 participant (Mrs. Fisher), this process of adding on American-ness takes a different path. Because of her marriage to a non- Korean man (Caucasian), she has been immersed in the mainstream culture. From her family life and religious membership in a church in the mainstream, her level of assimilation to the mainstream American culture was higher than the rest of first 113 generation participants. In addition, her professional work a social service organization in the mainstream has given her the opportunity for a range of cross-cultural experiences. During her marriage, it appears that she did not have a chance to assert her Korean identity. Her pursuit of “Korean-ness” was resumed after her divorce with her joining a local Korean ethnic church. For 1.5 generation participants in the process of developing Korean American identity, “American-ness” appears to take more prominence over Korean identity and the boundary of Korean and American is less distinct compared to 1st generation participants. Rather, they have developed a unitary state of “Korean American” in Minnesota with their “Korean-ness” rooted in the Minnesota Korean community, not in South Korea. The 1.5 participants show individual differences redefining “Korean-ness” in the course of restructuring their Korean identity. This process of restructuring appears to validate “Korean American-ness” within their undivided “Korean American” identity. Key factors affecting this identity development process are a degree of diversity reflected within both the school and residential environments where they grew up, the degree of their parents’ attachment to Korean culture, and the degree of desire to solidify their own sense of belonging. With Sunny (1.5G1) and Mrs. Choi (1.5 G4), where they lived when their families first settled in Minnesota, appears to affect their American identity development. They both lived in small rural cities distant from the Korean community in the Twin Cities and a Korean ethnic church. Without these two strong reference groups to Korean culture, their American-ness developed rapidly, regardless of their arrival age (Sunny at 5 year old and Mrs. Choi at 15 year old). With Jung (1.5G2) and CJ (1.5 G3), their having 114 grown up in the Twin Cities with close ties to Korean ethnic religious organization appears to affect their continued interest in Korean-ness. The parents of these two participants attached themselves to the Korean community in the Twin Cities upon their arrival in Minnesota. Three participants (Sunny, Jung, and CJ) utilized a visit to South Korea to redefine and restructure their Korean-ness apart from their Korean parents and the Korean community in the Twin Cities. During these visits, they discovered cultural differences between South Korean culture and what they had observed and experienced from their Korean parents and in the Minnesota Korean community. Recognition of this cultural divide helped them affirm “Korean American” identity in Minnesota. In the case of CJ (1.5G3), in pursuit of updating his Korean-ness, he studied abroad during college and took a job opportunity in Seoul. Mrs. Choi (1.5 G4) rejoined a Korean ethnic church after leaving it in her mid-20s and exploring a church in the mainstream. This process helped her to reaffirm Korean American identity. Both Jung and Mrs. Choi show a strong desire to solidify their sense of belonging by active involvement and commitment to church activities. As the second generation participants develop Korean American identity, “Korean- ness” and “Korean American-ness” appear to be added onto their American identity. Having no personal frame of reference to Korean culture based on their own memory or experiences in Korea, this leads them to define their “Korean-ness” based on their Korean immigrant parents and that generation of the local Korean community. In a way, they are the first generation of Korean Americans in Minnesota to form an English-speaking only Korean community, to fully access formal education and to enter the mainstream 115 American culture at work (or soon will). Although they grew up strongly attached to Korean ethnic churches in the Twin Cities, because of their language barrier in Korean, they went to separate congregations within churches they attended with their parents. With these second generation participants, the boundary of Korean and American was quite obvious, compared to the 1.5 generation participants, especially along the lines of language. Key factors affecting their Korean American identity development are the language barrier in Korean, the degree of social participation in the mainstream culture, the sense of religious and ethnic unity as Korean Christians, and the degree of ambivalence toward the traditional norms of Korean culture which can be a source of intergenerational conflict towards the first generation. To be more specific, all four participants have both parents strongly attached to the Korean ethnic churches in the Twin Cities. Growing up in the small Korean community in Minnesota, Korean ethnic churches have served as the only available cultural and ethnic “public” space where they could socialize with the other second generation Korean Americans in the Twin Cities outside of their own homes. The second generation participants share the experience of going through intergenerational conflict with their Korean parents while developing a personal sense of identity influenced by the larger society in the mainstream American culture. Yet, being Christian offered them the capacity to ease tension and clashes between the American and Korean value systems as well as between traditional Korean morality and conservative Christian principles. Thus, being Korean and Christian is inseparable with the second generation participants as it provides them with a strong sense of group identity and solidarity as Korean American. Three second generation participants (Kelly, Bryn, and Matt) are actively involved with 116 their church activities and carried out important functions at the Korean ethnic churches where they are members. Kaitlin (2G3) is also an active member but does not have a leadership position due to demands from her professional job and raising young children. With regard to social participation in the mainstream American culture, all four participants show upward class mobility apart from their parents’ generation. Kaitlin (2G3) and Matt (2G4) have achieved a professional occupation in the mainstream and Kelly (2G1) and Bryn (2G2) are preparing for such a career in college by focusing more academics or choosing a major in medical science. Finally, with the Korean adoptee participants, the process of developing Korean American identity takes a separate path from the three in-group participants mentioned above. Their “American-ness” is ingrained in them as they grew up fully assimilated in the mainstream American culture with their Caucasian adoptive parents and surrounded by Whiteness within a full circle of socio-cultural environmental networks, i.e. residential neighborhoods, schools, friendship networks. As result, American identity takes complete presence over Korean identity and the boundary of Korean and American is the most visible and obvious, compared to the three previous in-groups of Korean Americans in Minnesota. Their American-ness, however, appears to be questioned by the other Americans in the mainstream based on their physical appearance once they step outside their immediate adoptive families. Thus, the Korean adoptee participants develop separate ‘Korean adoptee’ identity that is unique to an adopted person of color living in an all white community and different from the rest of Korean American in-groups. Key factors affecting their Korean adoptee identity are being adopted from Korea, adopted to 117 a white family, the prevalent white social geography, and a degree of ambivalence toward “Korean-ness.” All four Korean adoptee participants grew up within the boundary of their Caucasian parents’ white culture. They grew up with limited or no Korean cultural and ethnic references and resources available to them. They went to schools with their white peers and lived in predominantly white neighborhoods. They shared about incidents where whiteness or their being all-American was questioned by other white Americans. To build Korean-ness onto their adoptive American identity, they have made conscious choices and efforts in developing Korean-ness from understanding who Koreans are and defining what Korean culture is. When they began the pursuit of building “Korean-ness” onto their adopted Korean identity shows individual variation. With Ryan (KA1) and Brittney (KA2), this identity exploration started while they were in college. They both went to colleges located in Minneapolis where ethnic and cultural diversity is more visible. With Jason (KA3) and Amy (KA4), the college experience did not influence their motivation. While the location of the college these two attended was different (Jason at a small city in the Southern Minnesota and Amy at a vocational school in a northeastern suburb in Minneapolis), the college they attended lacked a visible presence of ethnic and cultural diversity. Their exploration started after life altering experiences – divorce, to be specific. At the time of interview, Brittney and Amy had made trips to Korea sponsored either by a Korean adoptee organization in Minnesota (Brittney) or by a foundation for overseas Koreans in Korea (Amy). 118 3.1.2. Subsequent Question A: How do different generations of Korean Americans identify Korean-ness and American-ness in their ethnic identity? In defining Korean-ness, the three in-groups of Korean Americans (1st, 1.5, and 2nd generation) show a primordial notion of Korean-ness based on South Korean ethnic nationalism. This notion of Korean-ness shows “substantial overlap between the levels of race, ethnicity, and nation” (Shin, p.4, 2006) with an emphasis on “the same blood-line or fate” (An, p.49, 1992). This notion did not appear to change much regardless of the length of residence in the U.S. and the level of exposure to the mainstream American culture. The differences among these three groups were found in two ways; first, delineation in terms of compositional elements in defining Korean-ness, and second, a mental shift in terms of the frame of reference from the South Korean context to the Korean American community in Minnesota, particularly noted among first generation Korean immigrants. With the first generation participants, Korean-ness is grounded in the South Korean context, their home country. They define Korean-ness in the South Korean way of grouping people based on the commonalities of similar personal backgrounds and experiences from Korea, as well as physical manners respecting elders and the opposite sex, knowledge of the Korean language and South Korean history, conformity to the group represented in thinking and pursuing academic excellence, and their birth in South Korea. Identifying commonalities include the geographic place of origin in Korea and a similar educational background in Korea often associated with the name of their academic institutions in Korea. Physical mannerisms include ways of respecting elders represented by using both hands to hand an object to an elder as well as to receive one 119 from an elder, and bowing to the elders when they meet older Koreans. It also includes the use of different gestures toward men and women. Handshaking is acceptable between men, but not between a man and a woman and greater physical distance is kept between men and women. With the 1.5 generation participants and the second generation, some of the South Korean-specific components used in defining Korean-ness were no longer meaningful in the Minnesota context – such as geographic origin – and thus were not part of the generational transmission. This also includes grouping Koreans by commonalities based on similar personal backgrounds from Korea, by their recent immigration experiences in Minnesota and knowledge of South Korean history. These two in-groups define Korean- ness as having Korean blood in a Korean household, having Korean parents, and showing respect to elders in physical manners such as bowing. There were two elements that showed individual variation in these participants. These elements are some knowledge or understanding of the Korean language and continuing their Korean heritage (Korean blood) by marrying another Korean American. With regard to having some knowledge or understanding of the Korean language, the 1.5 generation participants showed a higher understanding and receptive skills in Korean speaking than the 2nd generation participants. At the time of interview, there was only one second generation participant who did not show any level of proficiency in Korean (Matt, 2G4). These eight participants understood the importance of the Korean language as a part of their heritage, yet showed individual differences in terms of making personal efforts to learn and use Korean, particularly when it involved extra effort and a commitment to learn and continue to use it within their environment. For example, CJ 120 (1.5G3) was the only participant who has made extra efforts to update his Korean and returned to South Korea. Jung (1.5G2), Mrs. Choi (1.5G4), Bryn (2G2) and Kaitlin (2G3) have maintained their proficiency in Korean in a close relationship with their Korean parents either by living with them (Jung, Bryn, and Kaitlin) or keeping a close relationship with them (Mrs. Choi). Second, with regard to continuing the Korean blood by marrying another Korean American, all of the 1.5 generation participants and the two older 2nd generation participants (Kaitlin and Matt) mentioned feeling pressure from their parents. The three participants (Mrs. Choi, Kaitlin, and Matt) married to another 1.5 generation Korean American and the two 1.5 generation participants (Jung and CJ) showed strong personal interest in finding a Korean spouse. The two participants (CJ and Bryn) mentioned that it would be their choice regardless of their parents’ expectations. Kelly (2G1) has been in a steady relationship with a second generation Korean American man and recently started taking a formal Korean language class at the University of Minnesota. In defining Korean-ness, the Korean adoptee participants mentioned these two major components: being born in South Korea and having Korean blood (having Korean biological parents). These participants mentioned that ‘being adopted’ is a personal identifier to local Koreans in the community since it defines their Korean-ness by birth and American upbringing in the U.S. Being adopted Korean growing up in a Caucasian family and predominantly white community appears to set them apart from the rest of the Korean Americans since their growing-up experiences were neither relatable nor applicable to the rest of the Korean American participants. None of the Korean adoptee participants defined themselves as Korean American. 121 In defining American-ness, all of the four in-groups showed one commonality. They referred to the notion of White-ness and White culture based on middle class white Americans as a reference group. There was variation among these groups in regard to what it entails, how it is perceived, and when they apply it to another Korean American participant group. With first generation participants, American-ness includes having more access to the mainstream American culture at work, speaking more English, adjusting their life style by accommodating American food and having more interactions with non Koreans outside of the Korean churches. With the 1.5 generation participants, American-ness includes having a proficient command of English with no Korean accent, entering a mainstream profession, less formal and more open communication, more individual freedom, less group conformity, friendly and warm interpersonal relationships compared to the first generation Korean Americans. With the 2nd generation participants, there was a notable difference between the two younger second generation and the two older second generation participants. Kelly and Bryn mentioned having participated in social activities outside of the Korean community in Minnesota and having more contacts with non-Koreans from people of other cultures than Korean and Korean American. Kaitlin and Matt who have already entered a mainstream profession emphasize personal skill sets capable of operating in a White dominant work setting and competing with Caucasian Americans in the mainstream work culture. 3.1.2. Subsequent Question B: How do different immigration and assimilation experiences affect ethnic identity development and identity negotiation? Among first generation participants, the voluntary choice of immigration appears to affect the level of assimilation efforts by the individual. Three participants (Dr. Kim, 122 Mrs. Lee, and Mrs. Fisher) came to the U.S. with a strong motivation to pursue higher education. After receiving advanced degrees from U.S academic institutions, they entered the mainstream work setting and advanced in their careers. Dr. Kim and Mrs. Lee have adapted to the mainstream American culture they encounter at work and have branched out to participate further through their volunteer work in the communities where they live. They both have become leaders serving the local Korean community by connecting it to the mainstream community in the Twin Cities through their professional associations and volunteer work. In the case of Mrs. Fisher, both her advanced degree in the U.S. and her marriage to a Caucasian American paved the way to assimilating in all aspects of her life: work, family life, and religious, until reconnecting to the local Korean community. In the case of Mr. Park, having arrived later and having access to the Korean community appears to have been beneficial in his early adjustment process. He settled into the Korean community in the Twin Cities through a Korean ethnic church and entered a mainstream profession. These four participants have developed “American- ness” in crossing the boundary of both cultures and operating in them: as Koreans in their Korean culture, through their work and community involvement with mainstream American culture. With the 1.5 and 2nd generation participants, choice was not an option. Either they came here with their parents or they were born in the U.S. Although immigration was not voluntary, these participants have benefited from their parent generation’s immigrations strategies: academic excellence and upward mobility. To these two groups of Korean Americans, maintaining and affirming their Korean American identity appears to be a significant issue needing self-awareness and personal development. Growing up in the 123 U.S. with more access to the mainstream culture through schooling and work opportunities, they have reached or acquired “American-ness” as an integral part of their personal identity. Through attending Korean ethnic churches, these participants have maintained “Korean-ness” in their personal and family lives. For the three participants who have already entered the mainstream through professional careers competing with whites at their work (Jung, Kaitlin, and Matt), or by successful entrepreneurship (Mrs. Choi), their American identity is no longer an issue. It appears that it is their Korean-ness that needs constant reaffirmation. How much and the kind of personal efforts was what showed individual variation. At the time of interview, Sunny showed ambivalence towards reconnecting to her Korean identity. CJ, after updating his Korean-ness by living in South Korea, was preparing to reenter the mainstream culture through advanced education. The two youngest second generation participants were still in college but showed strong interest in continuing their ties to the Korean ethnic churches they were attending. With the Korean adoptee participants, the involuntary and unique nature of their immigration through adoption appears to impact their identity development. Having grown up with Caucasian parents in almost all white communities was an advantage to them. Their American upbringing has made them inseparable from the mainstream culture. Yet all of the participants mentioned personal incidents where they felt their American-ness was not fully accepted or recognized by the other Americans because of their physical appearance. Reconciling themselves towards their adoption and making efforts to attain “Korean-ness” varied according to the individual adoptee. At the time of interview, Ryan was at college just starting to explore both the Korean adoptee and 124 Korean community in the Twin Cities and planning to visit South Korea soon. Brittney exhibited an ambivalent and self-critical attitude toward the Korean adoptee community and the Korean community in the Twin Cities. Yet she was cautious of falling into two extremes: rejecting her Korean-ness and the Korean community or denying her adoptive identity and fully immersing herself in Korean culture in South Korea. Jason appeared to have found a community of his own as both a person of color and as a Korean adoptee by attending local organizations in the Twin Cities (a Korean adoptee support organization and an Asian American professional organization). Amy has been a member of a religious-oriented Korean adoptee support organization in the Twin Cities. She has developed a close circle of Korean adoptee friends with whom she can share her Korean adoptive identity and experiences. In 2006 after a vain attempt to find her biological parents in South Korea, she appeared to reaffirm her Korean adoptive identity by accepting her life as a Korean adoptee in Minnesota and raising her own biological child. She continues to remind herself and her child of her Korean heritage by enjoying Korean food, meeting Korean adoptee friends, and volunteering for the Korean adoptee support organization of which she is a member. 3.1.3. Subsequent Question C: What other factors influence the ethnic identity of Korean Americans? In developing Korean American identity, additional factors influenced the participants. These factors were sometimes intentionally selected by some participants or at times were involuntarily given to them. How much they decided to utilize these factors was what showed individual variation and ultimately led to be where they were at the time of the interview. In the case of the first generation participants, the following 125 factors stood out for each participant: the location of residence and distance to the Korean community in the Twin Cities (Dr. Kim), and child rearing experiences in the U.S. (Mrs. Lee). Individual characteristics – independence, gender equality, and less group conformity were important to (Mrs. Fisher), and dwelling n the existing Korean ethnic enclave in the Twin Cities for Mr. Park. In the case of the 1.5 and second generation participants, parenting style as well as a parent and child communication style were a predominant factor, frequently mentioned by all the participants. This is because their Korean immigrant parents were a major source of their Korean-ness. Also, these participants saw their Korean parents as a main reference point in comparing and contrasting their American-ness when they experienced a cultural clash between their parents’ Korean culture and their American culture. In addition to the above factors, the following factors were mentioned: different gender treatment (1.5G1, 1.5G2, 1.5G3, 1.5G4, and 2G3), gender role reconfiguration in the family (1.5G4, 2G3), and adoption of U.S. mainstream cultural practices in a household (2G2 and 2G3). In the case of the Korean adoptee participants, the parent and child communication style factor was also mentioned by all of the participants. However, it showed a more complicated aspect because of their Caucasian parents’ “color-blind” approach toward racial differences. All of the adoptee participants commented on their parents’ reluctance or failure to address racial differences and to provide strategies to help them handle racism that they experienced within their White communities. 3.2. Thematic Analysis: A List of Emerging Themes After listening to the 30 interviews with the 16 participants, interview responses were coded to identify regularities among the coded responses. The following seven themes 126 were identified: shared experiences, participation or membership in Korean ethnic church, contested Korean-ness, intergenerational clash, mixing of two cultures, I AM American, and Koreanization. Each theme will be explained further with the relevant excerpts from the interviews. 3.2. 1. Shared Experiences; united or divided? Among the components of South-Korean based Korean-ness mentioned by first immigrant generation participants, the habit of grouping people based on the commonalities of similar personal backgrounds and experiences from Korea appears to impact Korean community integration here in Minnesota. Identifying commonalities include the geographic place of origin in Korea and similar educational backgrounds in Korea, often associated with the names of academic institutions. Although this tendency of grouping Koreans in the Minnesota Korean community based on shared experiences in Korea help Koreans to identify each other here in Minnesota, it appears to affect community integration in particular between the earlier immigrants and later immigrants. Dr. Kim shared keen insights on these divisions based on socioeconomic class among first generation Korean Americans immigrants in Minnesota. 1G1: I think early immigrants from Korea have built a good image about Koreans so Korean immigrants who came later have benefited from it. But now that situation has changed. Interviewer: What change are you referring to? 1G1: For example, a later group of immigrants are mainly working class, unlike the first wave of immigrants who were mostly doctors and professors. So I think Americans had known Koreans as professionals with higher educational backgrounds. But a later generation of Korean immigrants was Korean women who got married to American G.I.s and immigrants who came here for better economic opportunities who were from the working class in Korea. Because of these changes in the community, I found that American are starting to have a different perception of Koreans. Interviewer: It doesn’t have to be accurate, but from when do you think the Korean community started having more working class immigrants in Minnesota, if you can recall? 1G1: Let’s see. I’ve been living here for the last 40 years. I think it has been the last 20 years that we starting having more working class Koreans in the community. Interviewer: In the 1980s, you mean? 127 1G1: I think it has been the last 20 to 25 years that we started having this change in the community. According to Dr. Kim, this division occurred by what immigrants shared or didn’t share in common when they were in Korea, mostly along the lines of educational and social background. What they did, where they lived, and which schools they graduated from when they were in Korea, affected their bonding and forming of a cliquish network among themselves after arriving in Minnesota. Differentiating one another based on “homogeneous” background itself is not a problem to the community. It becomes a problem when this differentiation serves as a basis of discrimination against each other because of these personal “differences.” Dr. Kim elaborated this problem below: 1G1: Yes, I think there were [some effects on the Korean community due to class difference]. I think Koreans tend to differentiate people by different backgrounds or social settings where others grew up. I think that tendency has been kept among the local Koreans unlike the U.S. society. Koreans have a divide between blue collar working class and white collar workers and this impacted the Minnesota Korean community as well, especially church related activities and social interactions among Koreans. Koreans ignored or disregarded other Koreans based on different educational and social backgrounds. I don’t think Koreans have kept a good image or perception toward fellow Korean immigrants. I have a Ph. D. but I don’t discriminate [against] other Koreans that way. I think this tendency of discriminating other Koreans based on differences has to be stopped. This has been problematic here in the Korean community as well. This tendency of differentiating other Koreans appears to be reinforced and continued among Korean immigrants in the community within the local Korean ethnic churches. Dr. Kim explains it further: 1G1: For example, religious faith empowers recent Korean immigrants to get over economic hardships during the early stage of their settlement in Minnesota. I think church leaders should have embraced them just like everybody else and led them to become good Christians. Unfortunately, immigrants who settled in Minnesota screened the new church members by the following informal standards: what this new immigrant did in Korea, what kind of work place he/she had worked in before immigration, and how wealthy this person is. From a new immigrant’s perspective, they could not do anything about this kind of treatment from so-called old timers in Minnesota. I don’t know whether Church leaders couldn’t or didn’t do anything about this divide among their church members since this is a delicate matter. I don’t think newly arrived immigrants felt accepted by their church members. 128 As result, some Korean immigrants currently form separate groups of their own outside the Korean church communities. Once their group reaches a sizable community, then they tend to form another Korean church of their own. This phenomenon can be evidenced by an increasing number of new Korean churches formed within the local Korean community in the Twin Cities areas. For example, from 2002 to 2008, seven additional Korean churches were newly established and registered in the Directory of the Minnesota Korean Association. In addition, there are even more Korean religious groups operating that are small in number and aiming to become independent religious institutions. Dr. Kim explains this phenomenon below. Interviewer: Are there any personal groups or organizations that are formed by new immigrants in working class outside of Korean churches in the community? I’m just curious whether they formed a separate group for themselves outside of the Minnesota Korean Association, for instance. 1G1: I heard of several sub-groups formed outside of the existing Korean churches. These groups are not that big enough to become an independent church but I heard that they are meeting for a Bible study. For instance, a small group of 5 or 10 people gets together on their own because they feel uncomfortable in being with other Koreans or are afraid of exposing themselves to the Korean community. Some people reluctantly go to church because they know it is the only way of meeting other Koreans in the community. In addition to a divide based on socio-economic class within the first generation, there is a divide based on value systems or standards reflecting a recent societal change in South Korea. Mrs. Lee comments on newcomers’ value systems below: 1G2: People nowadays tend to be more individualistic. They don’t consider others that much. Also gender roles are not that distinctive any more. Men and women share a lot of roles. In our generation, gender roles were so clearly divided. I am not saying it looks bad. I am just saying the difference seems to be caused by a change in the value system. Another example is the way people raise their children. I don’t think they educate their children that much. Interviewer: You mean etiquettes or public manners? 1G2: I mean they just adore their children so much they don’t discipline their children. This observation about parenting and a lack of discipline of children was also pointed out by one second generation participant (Kaitlin, 2G3) as well. 2G3: You know sometimes actually the funny thing is at the Korean church, some of the parents of international Korean students, they let their kids do whatever and talk however. It is so 129 wild, I mean some of young kids at the Korean church, they are so out of control sometimes, how they treat adults. And I am thinking, ‘I would never allow my kids to behave like that towards elders. And even when I was young, we weren’t allowed to, I was never allowed to act like that. If I did, I would get into trouble, like I would get a spanking, you know.’ And I am thinking, ‘Is that changed from how it was in my parents’ generation?’ She continues to describe her observations of a later generation of Korean Americans, mostly Korean-speaking at the church, compared to her parents’ generation of Korean immigrants: 2G3: Oh, I definitely think they are, I don’t know whether friendly is the right word, but they are not as polite. Maybe that’s just how Korea is, I don’t know. But it just seems like my mom and dad’s generation, if there is somebody who just came from Korea, they are much more likely, ‘Oh, here we will help you to do this. We will help to get ‘set-up’ or whatever. Or when new people came to church, they were much more like, ‘Oh, I am from here’ and they want to make friends. But this church, maybe because it’s so big, I see none of that. And the people that I’ve met that have come like the Korean Sunday school staff, amongst themselves, they are fine, I think. But they don’t really branch out. So it is very difficult for us, EM [English Ministry, referring to English-speaking Korean Americans], to merge with like the KM group [Korean Ministry, referring to Korean-speaking Korean Americans] or young Korean couples. It’s very hard. And I don’t know if it’s because they are embarrassed about their English and they don’t use English or they just don’t care. They don’t want to have anything to do with us. I kind of wish that it would be a little different. It’s kind of, I wish they would try to make us do more things together as a Church but they don’t. It’s always EM is doing this, the T group is doing this, adult KM [Korean Ministry, referring to Korean-speaking Korean Americans] is doing this… There isn’t a lot of cohesiveness, you know. So it’s sad. And we wish we could do more with the T group because they are a younger group. But they don’t seem to be very receptive towards us. They don’t want to… [Bold added by the interviewer] This tendency of dividing people and the phenomenon of forming separate groups based on similarities can be also witnessed within another sub-community, the student community at the University of Minnesota. Until 1998 there was only one Korean Student Association that served Korean students on campus. Currently, there are four separate student organizations on campus, serving different groups of Korean students: MKGSA (Minnesota Korean Graduate Student Association, serving Korean graduate international students from South Korea), KISO (Korean International Student Association, serving Korean undergraduate international students from South Korea), 130 KASO (Korean Adoptee Student Organization, serving adopted Koreans), and KSA (Korean Student Association, serving all of the above). How does this tendency of dividing people based on commonalities affect the first generation Korean Americans in living their new life in Minnesota? How do the fine schisms within the first generation Korean Americans affect their interactions with later generations of Korean Americans on the individual level? Do their in-group members help each other deal with cultural differences as a cultural guide? How does this tendency affect cultural exchanges and interactions between the Korean and Korean adoptee community? Mrs. Lee (1G2) shared her keen insights below: 1G2: I understand where it [attitude] is from. It is because people tend to approach differences with judgmental attitudes. If they find something different in another culture, they think it is primitive or ignorant. I think people should get over such attitudes. It is the same in both cultures. When Koreans see adoptees, they may think adoptees are rude because they don’t know how to show respect to elders. But what can you do about it? It is [because of the] adoptees’ culture and upbringing in American culture. You just have to accept it. If you start looking at differences with your own cultural measures, you keep making errors. Another thing in learning another culture is related to your own self-esteem. I think people with positive and strong self-esteem tend to be less resistant to differences. I have seen this is the case of many first generation Korean Americans. They are very interested in how others treat them; have others shown them respectful attitude or rude attitude? I don’t think so. Even so, why is it so important however they treat you? Even though they treat you with less respect, it does not change who you are. But many 1st generation Koreans are very sensitive to that. I attribute it to a lack of self-esteem and che-myon culture in Korea. I think they miss more important things while they are making such mistakes. I’ve seen it affect many Koreans: husband and wife relations, parent and child relationships in Korean families, and interrelationships among Koreans in the community. [Bold added by the interviewer] 3.2.2. The Korean Ethnic Church; a safe haven or a mixed blessing All of the participants in this study have participated in the local Korean ethnic institutions in the Twin Cities. The predominant affiliation is with Protestant churches except for CJ who attends the Korean Catholic church. From interviews with these participants, it is obvious that the Korean ethnic churches have played a dominant role in their quest for Korean American identity development and for a sense of belonging. 131 Korean ethnic religious organizations serve as the only “public” place for them to feel accepted as Korean and to maintain their Korean-ness outside of their personal residence. From the pressure of fitting in and assimilating to the mainstream American society, Korean ethnic religious institutions offer a cultural and ethnic haven. Sunny (1.5G1) explained the comfort she felt at the Korean church: 1.5G1: Um, it seems like… I was more comfortable . . . around church where there are mostly Korean people. I think I was more comfortable being around Korean people because you know, you are Korean. You are all the same. So they can’t make fun of you. They can’t really tease you. And then when you go to an American school, then you want to… It’s hard because . . . like the pressure. Because you don’t want to be teased. You want to fit in. So, yeah, maybe that did play a role, me wanting, because I was wanting to fit in. . . Maybe I wasn’t really acting like myself, being my whole self. But in Korean culture, I could be, at church. On the other hand, a strong attachment to Korean culture through the Korean ethnic religious institutions has an impact on Korean Americans’ adaptation to the larger society. CJ (1.5G3) reflects his mixed opinion of the strong attachment to the Korean ethnic church growing up, in particular with regard to lack of exposure to a wider range of the mainstream culture: 1.5G3: I had friends from church and I had friends from school. But they didn’t collide. They kept separate. To be honest, my friends from church were probably more, I spent more time with them than that I did friends from school. Depending or not, for the most part, I had like close friends from school. But generally speaking, Korean American Church life was pretty… and my parents were very involved with the church as well. Interviewer: You spent more time with your church friends during the weekend? 1.5G3: Yes, I think, looking back on, it’s kind of like a mixed blessing. I mean it was good the way it turned out like that. But at the same time, maybe it was not helpful because if you are 1.5 and grew up in America, there is still some kind of internal Korean memories. You’re always trying to navigate your sense of identity. So yes, I think it helped me, because it allowed me to scratch that itch so to speak of my “Korean-ness” to be a part of Korean church. So I think that was good. But at the same time, it hindered me too because as a citizen of America, I think it was kind of, you know, slowed down. I remember when I got my first job, you know in America, it took me a while to address my boss by his first name because I was so used to the Korean church method of addressing the elder by Mr. or position and the last name like Kim chang-no-nim. So in that sense, it was like here I am living in America, I am having like, recreating myself as American in work environment. Things like that, I realize now… Interviewer: Limited exposure to American culture? 1.5G3: American work culture. And yeah, in a sense of American culture in general, I guess. [Bold added by the interviewer] 132 Despite mixed views on the role of the Korean ethnic religious institutions, later generations of Korean Americans agree on the mediating impact that “Korea Christianity” has on them. Several participants (1.5G4, 2G2, 2G3, and 2G4) commented on Christianity as a mediating value system between Confucianism-based collectivistic Korean culture and individualistic American culture. Mrs. Choi (1.5G4) explains it using her parenting situation and Bryn (2G2) explains Christian values trumping the potential conflict between Korean and American culture: 1.5G4: This is what I tried to teach him, that is respect elders, uh, and treat others the way you want to be treated, and mainly I want him to be happy. I am more of, whatever he wants to do, I am all for it as long as it is within the boundary of, you know, God’s leading the way. So once again, I can’t think beyond that. I have to go with my values as Christian. 2G2: My Korean ethnicity doesn’t affect my American nationality or my American nationality affects my Korean, it’s not separated. I think it overlaps each other. It’s my third identity trumps and fulfills the identity, which is being Christian trumps those two. And I am definitely Korean American for a reason but if any of those two, Korean or American conflicts with Christian identity, the Christian identity is the [highest] priority. 3.2.3. Contested Korean-ness; given but unattainable? As the 1.5 and 2nd generation grow up influenced by individualistic American culture, this primordial notion of Korean-ness, especially Confucianism-based aspects are often contested by them. One pivotal domain that brings out two opposing views from the first generation and the 1.5 and 2nd generation is related to selecting a spouse. The two 1.5 participants (Sunny and Mrs. Choi) and the two older 2nd generation participants (Kaitlin and Matt) shared their experiences about feeling pressured to marry a Korean from more “traditional” parents or anecdotal stories involving their sibling’s ordeal to break away from this norm. Kaitlin (2G3) described her argument with her father below: 2G3: My dad didn’t believe in marrying a non-Korean. So when I was growing up in high school, my parents actually… I don’t know whether they knew that I had a boy friend, but they knew I talked to boys on the phone. And they didn’t say too much about it. But my dad, what he would 133 say is, ‘When you get married, you have to marry someone who is Korean.’ And then I am like, ‘I am not marrying a Korean.’ He said, ‘Yes, you have to.’ And then I said, ‘No, I don’t have to. I am not marrying a Korean guy. All they do is come from work and expect beer and watch TV. I am not marrying a Korean man.’ Then he would go like, ‘I don’t do that.’ I go like, ‘Most of time, you do.’ But my dad actually does cook. He would cook breakfast every Sunday morning. And he would bring it to us in bed, every Sunday morning while I was growing up. So that’s not something a Korean guy would do. I mean back then I don’t think any Korean guys would do that. And he said, ‘No, there are no Korean guys who would do that.’ So I said, ‘I am not marrying a Korean guy.’ Also, he didn’t want me to marry someone who is adopted. He said, ‘You need to know your family’s blood line.’ When I actually did date someone who is an adopted Korean, he didn’t say too much about it while I was dating. But he said, ‘Are you guys getting married?’ I said, ‘Yeah.’ And he said, ‘No, absolutely not. I will not have you marry somebody who is an adopted Korean.’ So we got into some big fights. [Bold added by the interviewer] In this study, separate gender roles and different expectations for females are the two major aspects of Confucianism-related Korean-ness contested by later generations of Korean Americans. Four female participants (1.5G1, 1.5G4, 2G1, 2G3) and male participants with a female sibling (1.5G2, 1.5G3, and 2G2) commented on gender roles and different expectations from their parents. As these participants grew older and had more access to the mainstream American culture, they appeared to recognize this difference and were influenced by gender equality in the mainstream American culture. They contested their parents’ Korean-ness as they argued with their parents for their independence. Sunny’s (1.5G1) story illustrates the conflict between a Korean parent and a child surrounding different gender role expectations: 1.5G1: I would get in trouble a lot because in the minister’s family, and I don’t know why, I had a harder time. Like I wanted to dress in a certain way and my mom was like so strict about the way I can dress and the stuff. And even behavior, like [if I were] I were just talking to anybody, my mom would seem like, ‘Why don’t you act like more gentle? More like lady-like?’ Because she thinks the way I behave around other people, is not so nice. My mom has this like, yeah her ideal female image. So I got into trouble a lot because of my behavior and the way I dressed. And that was more because like we are in the ministry. I ask myself, ‘Gosh, if we never came to America, if we just stayed in Korea, I wonder if I would be this way…’ Unlike the 1.5 and 2nd generation participants who contested the Confucianism-based aspects of Korean-ness, the Korean adoptee participants appear to challenge more 134 fundamental elements of Korean-ness: Korean-ness as a given heritage through birth or as attainable skill-sets acquired through learning. Is Korean-ness teachable? In addition to having Korean blood and being born in Korea, is it possible for them to learn to be more Korean-like through their own personal efforts? As cultural hybrids, Korean adoptees in Minnesota contest many silent assumptions about the way Koreans have defined Korean ethnicity. Several Korean adoptee participants shared anecdotal stories reflecting being caught in the middle between the Korean community and the larger society in navigating lines of culture, race, and ethnicity. Brittney (KA2) shares her doubt and frustration: KA2: I can be a very critical person some times, but when I heard this Korean lady asking me ‘Where are you from?’ and I said, ‘I am adopted from Korea.’ Then she would ask me again, ‘How come you don’t speak Korean?’ And I am like ‘because I am adopted?’ My answer couldn’t satisfy her because she gave me a second look trying to figure out what it means… I am like, I know she probably had no exposure to Korean adoptees before, but still I am thinking like ‘How could you not know? We’ve been here as long as you are.’ Then, I had this weird expectation that I was kind of like or I wanted to be Korean to the extreme like to a weird extreme. But you know, it is unrealistic excitement. Will I ever be able to identify me with anything in Korean? It is unattainable, I know. So, it is a source of frustration and fear in a way because I feel this huge wall toward Koreans and Korean culture… 3.2.4. Intergenerational Clash: It is stamped on my head vs. we are not in Korea! As Korean immigrant progresses in Minnesota, because of generational dynamics a cultural clash becomes inevitable between the two dominant cultural influences, Korean and American. The first generation and the two later generations of Korean Americans (1.5 and 2nd generation) shared their perspectives on this cultural clash using examples of Korean parenting and life style in terms of traditional and modern aspects. Mrs. Lee (1G2) as a Korean immigrant mother, shared her challenges as she experienced cultural differences raising her second generation children: 135 1G2: I actually took many classes in parenting from local community centers because I thought I needed to keep consistency or stableness between school and home. I didn’t want to confuse my children at home because of my seemingly different behaviors or treatment toward them. Also, I took these parenting classes because of my job at the day care. Just like nurses take continuing education in nursing, I studied a lot about family relationship, parenting, and diversity issues. I went to many conferences as well. Considering this background and experience, I think I know more about the areas of parenting and family relationships in American culture than the average Korean immigrant wife. I think I had more exposure to American culture in that regard. I thought I had, at least. I tried to apply what I learned from those experiences to my own family and children. But at the end, I think the results don’t seem to support my efforts and motivation. The first 32 years of my life, I spent in Korea. Confucius values and philosophy were stamped in my head as the very foundation, or basis of my thinking. So my children picked on obvious differences that I had with them, that are Korean and Confucianism-based. They did not see that I used American ways from what I had learned in the above classes. My American behaviors didn’t stand out to them because these were natural to them; nothing to pick on. The differences that they saw between themselves and me resulted in some problems later on. [bold added by the interviewer] On the other hand, some traditional aspects of Korean parenting style are perceived strict and authoritarian from the later generations’ perspective. Some participants of this study recall their memory of frustration not knowing or understanding the cultural basis of their parents’ thinking. Jung’s comment (1.5G2) illustrates this point: 1.5G2: Yeah, I think my parents still uphold like… I mean they are not…they still uphold, they are still very very much traditional Korean. And, in a way that was a little bit hard to kind of like live with that kind of ideology. Because I remember thinking though, ‘You are in the U.S. Why are you still so Korean?’ I remember thinking that a lot. ‘Why do you still go to a Korean church? Why do you still demand speaking Korean so much? Why do you still feel so comfortable speaking Korean?’ That’s what I wondered. You know I am like, ‘We live in America. Don’t you want to do what Americans do?’ But you know, I think it is the language for them. Because when you come here at a later age, it is harder for you. It is harder to learn English. So I think that’s why my parents went to a Korean church. [bold added by the interviewer] 3.2.5. Mixing the two cultures; taking the good sides only? As the 1.5 and 2nd generation participants get older, they appear to gain an understanding and awareness of the benefits of their bicultural background. When they discover positive results of Korean and American influences either within themselves or their family members, they appear to reaffirm the value of preserving their bicultural 136 heritage. Sunny’s (1.5G1) recognition below illustrates the importance of this realization: 1.5G1: You know what? I feel like I am going through, kind of like identity, it is not a change but just like self-realization. Like should am I Korean? I’m like who am I as a person? Um, like my parents kept telling me, ‘You’re Korean, You’re Korean.’ What the heck does that mean that you’re Korean? Um, like why do I have to marry a Korean person? Like what is this all mean? Why is it so important, you know? It made me kind of think about like why is it so important to hold onto your heritage, your culture? But I think what it does is it makes a person more rich if you know more. So I think the older I get I think I am beginning to kind of realize that foremost I am Korean. And this is where I choose to live, you know. Interviewer: You really didn’t choose because your parents brought you here. Now you can. 1.5G1: Yeah, now I can choose, I know. Back then I didn’t choose. I am not going to forget Korean language. I am not going to forget Korean holidays. And if I have children, I want them absolutely to have that identity part of them. [bold added by the interviewer] Another second generation (Kaitlin, 2G3) also shares this realization and her efforts to raise her children grounded on the positive aspects of the two cultures, Korean and American. She comments on her recognition and efforts to teach her children aspects of Korean culture: Interviewer: Looking at both sides, how are you trying to embrace the two aspects in your own experiences raising your own kids? 2G3: One day I am Korean and one day I am American. [Laugh] My children will grow up having probably a lot of psychological needs. [Laugh] You know some days I am like, ‘you are going to do this because this is what we do’ I don’t feel much choice. And some days, I am like, ‘maybe I should allow them to…’ So I am like okay what do I want them to do today?’ Then I always revert back to, ‘No, we are going to just like this.’ Because I figure, you know, if I turned out like this, it can’t be that bad. You know it can’t be that bad to expect them to do. I think [it is] definitely nice if they could understand Korean, even if it is hard for them to speak, I’d like at least for them to be able to hear it and understand it with my parents. And I think it is good to respect your elders. I think it is good to have that knowledge of their heritage because it helps them to understand where they came from and who they are or a part of who they are. So I think the tradition that they learned, the view that we teach, you know like Saebae [New Year’s Day bowing to elders] and doing Insa [greetings], I think that’s good. I think that’s good for them to learn about their culture. And that’s technically their culture even though they don’t live there. Interviewer: Okay. What about the down side that you don’t want to get into or you want to maybe disconnect from Korean culture? 2G3: Well, it’s funny. I am not so big on emphasizing age difference among siblings like, I am your older sister or I am your older brother so you have to do this or that. But yet I still teach them to call their sister or brother using Korean terms like, Nuna [older sister in Korean] or Hyong[older brother in Korean]. But then I think if I do that, I am instilling that hierarchy which I don’t know whether it’s good. But I do it because it is so cute. [Laugh] So I don’t know, I mean I don’t know if it’s negative but it’s cute. You know we don’t live there so I don’t think they will experience that hierarchy. You know they don’t understand quite the essence of it. 137 3.2. 6. I AM American – as White as snow With the adopted Korean participants, their share the common experiences of having their cultural identity and White upbringing being challenged by other Americans based on their Asian appearance, even though they have no ties to Asia or Korea except a birth connection. All of the participants grew up in predominantly white neighborhoods and experienced teasing at school when they were growing up. Once they stepped outside of their adoptive family network, they encountered random incidents with people asking ‘Where are you from?’ or ‘Which country in Asia are you from?’ This question was perceived as challenging their American White-ness, which is at the core of their adoptive identity. Amy (KA4) shares one of these experiences: KA4: I was walking down on a street with my two Korean adoptee girl friends to grab a bite. I think we were walking to a restaurant in St. Paul. This guy, a White guy saw a group of us walking and he asked us, ‘Hey, girls, where are you from?’ I was like, ‘Why is this guy asking us?’ Then, I heard one of my friend quickly said, ‘We are from Minnesota.’ And he was like, ‘No, where are you from? Which country are you from? Are you a Hmong?’ I was thinking like, ‘Oh, yeah, there it goes again…’ As the Korean adoptee participants explore the local community, they experience similar encounters with first generation Korean immigrants. As for the adoptee participants, this is perceived as lack of acceptance from the Korean community and hinders them from having further interactions with Koreans in the community. Jason (KA3) recalls his encounter at a local Korean restaurant: KA3: Yeah, I am the 1st generation but I don’t have an understanding of Korean culture. The Korean community here in Minnesota is very strange. It’s almost kind of like the White community doesn’t really accept you in that the Minnesota Korean Nice, the people who have come from Korea to live here and work and do whatever they do, they don’t really accept you either because you don’t speak Korean and you don’t have any traditions or you know you don’t have any of the, what would you say, just the basic like customs that Koreans have. And it’s kind of like that they treat you in a certain way but it’s like you can’t ask for anything different because we are totally two different cultures, you know. Even though I am Korean, I am still American, I am still Western, you know. They are Korean and they are always going to be Korean, you know. Just because they came over here doesn’t mean that Korean people become 138 American. They live here and prosper here but they are still Korean. Even though I am full blooded, or I don’t know at least a half Korean or a ¾ Korean, there is just different disparity you can tell. Like when you go to a Korean restaurant here, it’s just different if you don’t speak the language. You know they just treat you in a certain way. You know they treat you like a White person. It’s just weird. But not in a good way, you know what I mean. It makes me deter, it makes me not even want to learn Korean. Because I am like thinking they have like, their essence is like, I don’t know their aura, I don’t want to even call it that, but there seems kind of snobby. You know what I mean? They know what I am saying but they don’t want to respond. It’s kind of like that privilege of knowing Korean. They have like a different attitude about it. If I were Korean, I would want to help somebody to understand what I am trying to say. But, you know it’s just my perception of how the world treats me and I thought about everybody else. So that’s just my perception of it. [bold added by the interviewer] 3.2. 7. Koreanization; I want to be more Korean! Three 1.5 generation participants (Sunny, Jung, and CJ) as well as the two younger Korean adoptee participants show a deep sense of desire in adding Korean-ness. With the 1.5 generation participants, their desire appears to be associated with reaffirming their Korean American identity. With the two younger Korean adoptee participants, it appears to be connected to reconciling adoptive identity and validating Korean-ness beyond their biological birth as Korean. CJ (1.5G2) comments on his desire of wanting to know more “Korean culture” distinct from his Korean American culture: 1.5G2: As I get older, I do feel more drawn towards the Korean culture, not the Korean American culture. And those two cultures for me are more and more distinct as I get older. Korean American culture versus actual Korean culture like what you see in KBS [a Korean media network company in South Korea] and you know international students I run into. I am more drawn to and fascinated by that more than ever before now, which is interesting you know and less and less kind of Korean American culture. Just coming to a better understanding, I am just really fascinated by Korea including culture. Brittney (KA2) also shares her experience of facing her adoptive identity and finding more interest in Korea: KA2: I think like in a way I did kind of an extreme 180, maybe. Because if you think about it, before 2001, I wasn’t all that aware of like the Korean community at all. And then once I did introduce to it, I was excited and got more involved. And going to Korea two years later, I think like those two years, 2001 and 2002, I became more and more interested in and more searching. So going to Korea was actually like, ‘Wow, I am actually…’ I think it was just like confirmation of a lot of questions in myself and I think from that first trip, I think I had sort of 139 a lot of expectations of what life had for me and answers for all these questions that I had for my whole life as an adoptee. And I think that coming out of that trip, I think I had this weird expectation that I was kind of like or I wanted to be Korean to the extreme, like to a weird extreme. But you know even though it was kind of an extreme moment for me or extreme time for me, I think I was really excited. You know, kind of unrealistic excitement. For me, it went for a while. And it gave me a lot to, like you know, invest myself in for… And I think that trip really did, when I think about it, to me, to my identity as adoptee, not that I was becoming Korean . . . 4. Integration of Qualitative and IDI Data According to the IDI results, the mean developmental score of intercultural sensitivity (ICS) for the 16 participants was 93.72, placing these participants in Minimization. This means that for these 16 participants they recognized cultural differences but cultural similarity was central to their world view and the reality they perceived (Hammer & Bennett, 2001b). It appears that Korean ethnic church culture emphasizing similarity that people are all God’s children contributes to this world view. Four participants (1G1, 1.5G1, 1.5G4, and KA2) were placed in Defense. Following Hammer & Bennett’s IDI interpretation guide, these participants tend to think cultural differences as psychologically threatening to their own cultural identities or they might express the superiority of their own culture and denigrate other cultures. This view might be caused by an incomplete understanding or some negative stereotypes about the host culture. Matt (2G4) was the only one classified in Acceptance. According to Hammer & Bennett’s guide, he moved from the ethnocentric level to the ethnorelative level with the level of awareness that people from different cultures are as complex as themselves, and their own culture is just one of the many cultures in the world. This section provides a synthesis of the IDI scores and qualitative data about each participant with regard to Korean American identity development. Table 24 shows 140 personal profiles of these participants with regard to intercultural experiences in further detail. Table 24. Personal IDI Profiles of the 16 Participants Participant- Gender IDI Score- Stage Arrival Age in U.S. Length of Stay in U.S. Terminal Degree *Amount of Previous Experience living in another culture 1G1-Male 77.57-D late 20s 40 yrs Ph. D over 10 yrs in the U.S. 1G2-Female 96.86-M early 30s 33 yrs Masters over 10 yrs in the U.S. 1G3-Female 101.50-M early 20s 20 yrs Masters over 10 yrs in the U.S. 1G4-Male 92.03-M early 20s 19 yrs B.A. over 10 yrs in the U.S. 1.5G1-Female 84.54-D 5 yr old 31 yrs B.A. over 10 yrs in the U.S. 1.5G2-Male 96.14-M 9 yr old 28 yrs Masters over 10 yrs in the U.S. 1.5G3-Male 98.82-M 11 yr old 20 yrs B.A. over 10 yrs in the U.S. 1.5G4-Female 84.05-D 15 yr old 28 yrs A.S. never lived in another culture 2G1-Female 85.78-M born 18 yrs in College never lived in another culture 2G2-Male 91.07-M born 23 years in College less than 3 months 2G3-Female 89.09-M born 37 years Professional Degree never lived in another culture 2G4-Male 126.66-A 11 months 41 years Masters never lived in another culture KA1-Male 113.49-M 7 months 23 years in College 1-2 years in central America KA2-Female 80.04-D 2 yr old 24 years B.A. 3-6 months in Korea KA3-Male 87.06-M 3 yr old 19 years A.S. 3-5 years in Korea KA4-Female 94.75-M 4 yr old 33 years B.A. 3-5 years in Korea What is notable in the participants’ responses was how each participant defines ‘culture’ in relation to their Korean American-ness. The first and 1.5 generation participants consistently refer to their U.S. living experience as their previous experience living in another culture on the IDI background information. This is interpreted as their having ‘Korean-ness’ and ‘Korean identity’ as their major of reference and the center of their world view in opposition to the rest, including non-Korean, Korean-American, and American culture. 141 Among these two groups, there were three participants who are classified in the category of Defense: 1G1, 1.5G1, and 1.5G4. In the case of Dr. Kim (1G1), he appears to operate in the reversal scale of IDI with an orientation that the host culture is superior to one’s own culture. Dr. Kim expressed his critical views of Korean culture in comparison to American culture that he had exposure to at his academic work setting. During the interview, he explained his views on American culture in comparison to Korean culture: 1G1: Main differences I see are about the family system, respect toward people, independence, and isolation among people influenced by independence, where as in Korean culture there is more interdependence and homogeneity among people. American culture has a different foundation than Korea following its unique historic course of development, you know, with various ethic groups. When I think of American culture, there are so many strengths that I favor. Interviewer: For example? 1G1: For example, fostering independence on an individual level therefore people don’t have to depend on others. And people tend to believe in a concept that they can do whatever in life with their efforts and hard work. But in Korea, because of the family structure and family network, they tend to rely on others early on. [Bold added by the interviewer] In the case of Sunny (1.5G1), she appears to ‘suppress’ her Korean-ness under the pressure she felt to ‘conform’ to the mainstream American culture. During the interview, she recalls part of her early childhood wanting to be like her American friends and as result, her Korean-side was disappearing: 1.5G1: But that was what happened growing up here. I must say I did grow up kind of differently then. Kind of trying to… what is the word? Um, trying to merge with like my American friends’ ways…I think Korean part was just disappearing. I think I was like conforming more to the American life style to try to fit in. Interviewer: Okay. How about right now? Do you think somehow you restored that Korean side and you feel very comfortable in retaining that? 1.5G1: Yeah. It’s surprising to me because I know more Korean than [what I thought ]t I knew. And so it shocks my parents too. Because like to my parents, for some reasons, I don’t, even though I did know a lot of Korean, I didn’t want to speak Korean to them. Because I don’t know…I just didn’t want them to know. I don’t know why. But I can speak a lot of Korean. I think my Korean side is coming out more and more now. Interviewer: As you get older? 1.5G1: Yeah. Interviewer: Is that more of age factor that you feel? 1.5G1: Maybe it is more like, you know what? I have no reason to conform, you know. Individuality is more unique than conforming now. Because back in school, you want to conform. 142 Interviewer: Right, peer pressure. 1.5G1: Exactly! And you want to be liked. But now it’s like the more different you are, the more… That’s kind of what’s in now, you know individuality. So it’s like I know Korean. Yeah, I feel like I speak more Korean now even with my Korean friends, more Korean comes out. [Bold added by the interviewer] In the case of Mrs. Choi (1.5G4), she appears to operate within her Korean-ness and Korean identity grounded in Korea. She perceived her Minnesota living experience as an extension of her Korean-ness and this was evidenced in her answer marking, ‘never lived in another culture’ on the IDI. During the interview, she commented on her network of friends mostly with ‘a lot of 1.5 generation Korean American’ and consideration of herself as ‘foremost Korean.’ With the second generation participants, their cultural orientation appears to switch from Korean to Korean American in Minnesota as a unitary reference point. It is notable that the three participants (2G1, 2G3, and 2G4) marked their response as ‘never lived in another culture.’ Bryn (2G2) was the only one with a short-term cross-cultural encounter in Central America on a mission trip this past summer. Matt (2G4) who shows the highest developmental score of IDI explained environmental factors contributing his higher adaptation in the mainstream culture including the location of residence in a white residential area, early entry to the American work culture including working at his parents’ restaurant in a white residential area with mostly white customers, and a more westernized/modernized approach of his parents’ parenting style. He explains: 2G4: I think so, growing-up environments have more impact on one’s cultural orientation. We lived in X [a northeast suburb to Minneapolis] and there weren’t Asians, that many, back then. And my parents’ restaurant, pretty much all White customers. So that way, they made White friends, too. My dad also worked at the university so he was more westernized than my friends’ parents. I grew up very independent. I started working when I was 16, pretty much on my own, since then. After one year at an Ivy League School, when I came back to Minnesota, I mean my mom had a problem with it, I took a semester off. I worked at a management company as an intern and since then I’ve been working at the mainstream work environment all of my life. 143 With the Korean adoptee participants, Ryan (KA1) shows the highest score. He was also the only one with living experiences in a third culture other than in Korea and Minnesota. He did a study abroad learning Spanish in three countries located in Central America. Brittney’s (KA 2) IDI result classifies her to be in Defense. Although she has made several short-term visits to Korea, her ambivalent attitude toward Korean culture in relation to her adoptive identity appears to hinder her from moving further in intercultural development and an acceptance of cultural differences. Jason (KA3) and Amy (KA4) used their stay in Korea before their arrival in the U.S. through adoption as their previous experience living in another culture on the IDI. Both have exposure to different ethnic groups, one having a marital spouse other than a Caucasian group (Jason with a Mexican American and Amy with African American). However, these two participants do not show much difference in terms of their developmental score on the IDI being both in the Minimization category of intercultural development. 5. Identification of Protean Individuals Based on Lifton’s work in The Protean Self (1993), this study attempted to identity and understand some successful cases of Korean Americans with protean identity. According to Lifton, there are three indicators of the protean self: first, a healthy capacity for fluid transformations with coherent morality; second, a tendency towards self- exploration on multiple levels of identification including personal, family, ethnic, religious, occupational and national; and third, the development of a deep awareness of human connectedness across cultures. Based on these indicators, it was assumed that protean Korean American participants would show a fluid identity between the four in- 144 groups and the U.S. mainstream culture by navigating the cultural borders of Korean-ness and American-ness. Protean Korean Americans would have cultural behaviors that would be interchangeable between both cultures and flexible in various social settings. The in-depth interviews and observations of the research participants reveal that none of the research participants in this study showed fluid transformations, self-exploration on multiple levels of identification, and connectedness between the Korean and mainstream American culture. Most of the participants operated between the two opposite cultural boundaries of Korean and American and showed a mixed range of cultural and linguistic proficiencies in both cultures. Their transformations were neither “fluid” nor “healthy” enough to identify them as protean individuals. It appears that the wide range of proficiencies in the two cultures and languages was a factor affecting the development of the protean identity. There was also limited self-exploration on the three levels of identification: their Korean family, Korean ethnic religious institutions, and their work setting. It was often the case that either the transformation was delayed after a long period of suppression of Korean-ness or limited by a selective adaptation of American- ness at work due to individual patterns of immigration and assimilation. These participants did not appear to show a deep level of connectedness within their group in the Korean American community or in the mainstream American culture. A lack of connectedness was prevalent across all four groups of research participants, regardless of their length of stay in Minnesota. The 1st generation and 1.5 generation participants expressed their difficulty in feeling connected to Caucasian Americans. The Korean adoptee participants expressed the difficulty of feeling connected to both Korean and the mainstream American culture. The second generation participants revealed the challenge 145 of being connected to their parents’ Korean culture in Minnesota. Three participant stories (Dr. Lee, Sunny, and Mrs. Choi) illustrate this point well: 1G1: Well, I think [the] American way of interaction with people is casual and yet formal. I mean the friendship, for example, doesn’t seem to go much deeper like Korean people do. You know Koreans share a deeper level of affection toward each other, what we call, ‘Cheong.’ So I don’t find many Americans to develop a friendship with. I found it different. Also, no matter how long I have lived in the U.S. or how well I speak English to them, there is still a sense of unfamiliar zone to me such as sharing jokes related to every day American life or having small talk at work related to football or weather. I mean I can engage in these with Americans but it doesn’t go any deeper than the surface level. They are friendly toward me but they don’t share any deeper affection from their heart with me. I don’t feel their ‘Cheong.’ That’s what I think it is still difficult for me. 1.5G1: Well, I can joke around more with my Korean friends because there is something about Korean friends. I don’t know if it is just the friends that I have, but I feel like I joke more honestly with them without hurting them. We talk in English. But then with my American friends, no, we kick back and joke around too. But with Korean friends because you are Korean, I feel like there is more of an understanding in so many different things; our culture, our food, just like my parents, you know. Whereas with American friends, you don’t have that. I mean you can still be friends. Interviewer: But you think the depth of friendship is the same? 1.5G1: No, I think it’s deeper with Koreans, with your own culture. Yeah, culture places it deeper and has a greater impact. 1.5G4: One thing I noticed is that I don’t have a best friend either in Korean or in American. I do have one best friend who is American but it’s different. Their level of friendship is different than the Koreans would or I used to have or that would be. I mean my expectation of friendship was a lot deeper. But then when I met this American friend, I couldn’t get any deeper though. It’s… That’s when I did feel the cultural difference because I feel like I want to but I can’t really express myself. I can’t really be myself 100% if an outsider is with me, I am always there. I mean I can be open about it. You know I don’t have anything to hide or anything. But anything above that or beneath that, you can’t. They don’t get you. I don’t know how to explain it even at this time… It’s not that they don’t understand. It’s like I am the one who didn’t… I just assume that they are not going to understand. So I kind of block myself or I pull myself out. [Bold added by the interviewer] 146 Chapter 5 Summary and Discussions 1. Summary and Discussions of the Findings This chapter summarizes the findings to the research questions and gives the results of the data analysis. Results and discussion begin with the Intercultural Development Inventory for the 16 participants. Next, findings related to the primary research questions are presented followed by a thematic analysis. The chapter concludes with the implications of the research findings and recommendations for future research. Findings and Discussions for the IDI Results In comparing the group IDI score profile of the 1st and 1.5 generation participants, it is notable that the mean score of the 1st generation participant is higher than that of the 1.5 generation. Considering the wide range of exposure to the mainstream culture through schooling, work settings, and no language barrier, it was assumed that the 1.5 generation participant would show a higher score on the IDI indicating more adaptability to the mainstream culture and recognition of cultural differences. However, in the case of the 1.5 participants, the three factors of early arrival age in the U.S., more access and participation in the mainstream culture, and more opportunity to experience diversity do not appear to affect intercultural development. Table 25 compares the participants in these two groups. 147 Table 25. Group IDI Score Comparison between 1st and 1.5 Generation Participants Mean Score Participa nt- Gender IDI Score- Stage Arrival Age in U.S. Length of Stay in U.S. Terminal Degree *Amount of Previous Experience living in another culture 91.99 1G1-M 77.57-D late 20s 40 yrs Ph. D over 10 yrs in the U.S. 1G2-F 96.86-M early 30s 33 yrs Masters over 10 yrs in the U.S. 1G3-F 101.50-M early 20s 20 yrs Masters over 10 yrs in the U.S. 1G4-M 92.03-M early 20s 19 yrs B.A. over 10 yrs in the U.S. 90.89 1.5G1-F 84.54-D 5 yr old 31 yrs B.A. over 10 yrs in the U.S. 1.5G2-M 96.14-M 9 yr old 28 yrs Masters over 10 yrs in the U.S. 1.5G3-M 98.82-M 11 yr old 20 yrs B.A. over 10 yrs in the U.S. 1.5G4-F 84.05-D 15 yr old 28 yrs A.S. never lived in another culture In comparing the group IDI score profile of the 2nd and Korean adoptee participants, it is notable that the mean score of the 2nd generation is higher than that of Korean adoptee participants. It should be noted that the 2G4 participant’s (Matt) high score affects the group average. However, calculating the group average without the highest score in each group (excluding Ryan, KA1 and Matt, 2G4) the 2nd generation participants sill show a slightly higher group average. With these two groups, arrival age and length of stay do not appear to be significant factors affecting their intercultural development since they were both immersed in the mainstream culture early on in their lives either by schooling or family composition (Caucasian parents with the Korean adoptee participants). Perhaps environmental factors including socio-cultural environmental networks (friendship), family composition (Korean parents), and parenting may affect the participants’ exposure to cultural differences and their intercultural development. In particular, the type and range of social contact with the mainstream culture may explain the different levels on the cognitive aspect of intercultural development. For example, in the case of the two participants with the highest IDI scores (Matt with 126.66 and Ryan 148 with 113.49), a genuine and deep level of social contact stands out that may explain their cognitive intercultural development beyond their age difference. Matt had the longest and greatest amount of exposure to U.S. mainstream culture and Caucasian Americans in a variety of settings compared to the rest of the second generation participants. He experienced independence and individual responsibility by working part-time at his parents’ restaurant with predominantly Caucasian customers. He also left the Minnesota Korean community to study at an Ivy League university, entered the mainstream professional work culture, and has experienced social contact with the mainstream culture in a variety of social settings. Ryan had true and serious social contact outside of his adoptive family network in Minnesota and the mainstream American culture in the U.S. when he did a study abroad in a Central American country. In this regard, Allport’s (1954) social contact theory is worth mentioning to explain these two participants. These two participants appear to have a type of sustained and positively valued social contact which leads to a higher level of cognitive intercultural development. Table 26 compares the participants in these two groups. 149 Table 26. Group IDI Score Comparison between 2nd and Korean Adoptee Participants Mean Score Particip ant- Gender IDI Score- Stage Arrival Age in U.S. Length of Stay in U.S. Terminal Degree *Amount of Previous Experience living in another culture 98.15 2G1-F 85.78-M born 18 yrs in College never lived in another culture 2G2-M 91.07-M born 23 years in College less than 3 months 2G3-F 89.09-M born 37 years Professional degree never lived in another culture 2G4-M 126.66-A 11 months 41 years Masters never lived in another culture 93.84 KA1-M 113.49-M 7 months 23 years in College 1-2 years in central America KA2-F 80.04-D 2 yr old 24 years B.A. 3-6 months in Korea KA3-M 87.06-M 3 yr old 19 years A.S. 3-5 years in Korea KA4-F 94.75-M 4 yr old 33 years B.A. 3-5 years in Korea 1.2. Findings and Discussions for the Research Questions In-depth interviews with the three groups of Korean Americans in the Twin Cities reveal that a different degree and orientation to Korean-ness are delineated as each generation progresses in Minnesota. With the first generation participants, South- Korean-based Korean-ness was ingrained in them so strongly that their later development in American-ness appears to be added onto their Korean identity. The 1.5 generation shows a mixed range and differing degree of Korean-ness influencing the development of Korean American identity. Feeling pressured to conform to the mainstream culture, the Sunny (1.5G1) suppressed her Korean side during her developmental years in Minnesota. Jung (1.5G2) and CJ (1.5G3) developed Korean American identity with more orientation and attachment to Korean-ness. Mrs. Choi (1.5G4) has shown the strongest orientation and attachment to Korean-ness. Her late arrival in the U.S. (15 years old) and her close social network with other 1.5 generation Korean Americans through the Korean ethnic 150 church may explain his maintaining more Korean-ness in his Korean American identity. With the second generation participants, their American-ness was dominant in the development of Korean American identity and a differing degree of Korean-ness was manifested in the wide range of cultural and linguistic proficiencies in Korean. With the Korean adoptee participants, their unique and distinctive adoptive identity was so dominant that their identity development took a noticeably different path than the rest of the Korean American participants in this study. Another consistent finding among the three groups of Korean Americans (1st, 1.5 and 2nd generation) in this study was separation and boundary where they maintain and assert their Korean American identity. The manifestation and preservation of ethnic identity shows a work and social dichotomy. In particular, in the two later generations (1.5 and 2nd generation), the American identity was dominant at work, whereas their Korean-ness was manifested in the personal and social dimensions of their lives. With regard to the Korean adoptee participants, when questioned about their identity by strangers, their responses reveal their subjective and different interpretation of racism. This question on the one hand was perceived as challenging or questioning their all American upbringing and American identity, and on the other hand, as challenging their Korean-ness. Random strangers who cannot tell the difference between immigrant Asian Americans and later non-immigrant generations, asking this question could merely reflect cultural curiosity. To local Koreans who have limited exposure to the mainstream culture, asking an individual about his or her adoptive Korean status could be a reflection of the South-Korean manner of social interaction, attempting to identify common experiences with the Korean adoptees. Perhaps the responses of Korean adoptees reflect 151 their double-task of developing their identity both as adopted Korean and mainstream American, navigating the two cultural reference groups in Minnesota. 1.3. Findings and Discussions for Thematic Analysis With the three groups of Korean Americans, the generation gap was a dominant and recurrent theme in the interview data. This generation gap and resulting clash of cultures was often illustrated by the issue of interracial marriage. Between the first generation and the two later groups of participants, this culture clash often reached its peak in the selection of a marriage spouse. The Korean parents revealed that they expected their children to continue their Korean heritage by marrying another Korean American. Their notion of Korean-ness was defined by an (ethnically) all-Korean household. For all three groups of Korean American participants, the influence of Korean ethnic religious institutions (Protestant churches) on their Korean identity development was obvious. Local Korean churches have played a significant role in becoming a “public” cultural and ethnic space for these participants to assert and maintain their Korean American identity. However, with the South-Korean based notion of Korean-ness and the difference in SES among first generation Korean immigrants, later development of Korean ethnic churches in Minnesota show a rather complicated aspect affecting community integration as a whole. These churches reflect cultural schisms within the first immigrant generation that may cause later groups of Korean Americans to break away from the confines of the existing Korean ethnic churches. As each generation progresses, it will be interesting to see how the Korean ethnic churches affect the identity development of the third generation of Korean Americans growing up in Minnesota. Interactions between third generation Korean Americans and 152 the Korean adoptee community will be different from previous generations as the South- Korean based Korean-ness may diminish or change in Minnesota. Would there be more open and genuine interactions and social contact between these two communities? Considering a relatively short history of the local Korean community, it would be premature to make an early projection. That would be a task for the second generation Korean Americans and adult Korean adoptees to work toward the community integration and embrace each other in the future in Minnesota. 2. Conclusion and Implications of the Study The purpose of this study is three-fold: first, to describe the process of ethnic identity development of Korean Americans at the border of two cultures; second, to describe a range of subjective notions of “Korean-ness” and “American-ness” in their Korean American identity; and third, to find out how these different notions of their Korean American identity affect their interactions with one another in the Korean community in Minnesota. As each generation progresses in Minnesota, the South-Korean-based notion of Korean-ness appears to lose its dominance among the later generations of Korean Americans. This could reflect the contextual and geographic differences between South Korea and Minnesota. Among the first generation Korean immigrants, subjective notions of Korean-ness and American-ness appear to affect their interactions with other fellow Korean immigrants. There appeared more cultural divides among the first generation Korean Americans. The tendency to differentiate other Koreans by SES and previous experiences in Korea appears to cause friction and tension among community members. The data from this study noted among the research participants strong biculturally- oriented protean individuals operating and navigating among the three reference cultural 153 groups: Korean, Korean American, and mainstream American culture. This bicultural mode persisted with the later generations of Korean Americans as well. With regard to identifying protean Korean Americans with more fluid identity in crossing two cultural borders, all 16 participants showed a limited degree of fluidity, predominantly operating in bicultural modes, and lacking healthy transformations in navigating in-group dynamics as well as a lack of facility in adapting to the mainstream American culture. Their development showed a wide range of bi-cultural development resulting in a dichotomy operating between the Korean and the mainstream Caucasian cultural framework. This shows the strong influence and force of the assimilation model implemented in the early years of U.S. immigration. Under the powerful force of this assimilation model, balancing the two cultures appears to be a complex task for later generations of Korean Americans facing the pressure to conform from the larger society. The study participants showed the complexity of the double-task of maintaining both cultural and linguistic proficiency while struggling to integrate cultural dissimilarities of the two cultures while living in Minnesota. This resulted in delayed intercultural development regardless of the length of their stay in Minnesota. This might be due to a higher level of cultural dissimilarity between the ethnic Korean culture and the host culture (Paige, 1993). 3. Recommendations for Future Research The establishment and development of the Korean community in Minnesota shows the dominant influence of the assimilation model still impacting the adjustment of later immigrant groups to the U.S. Due to this dichotomous model, later immigrant groups do not appear to benefit from having multicultural intercultural relationships beyond the two cultural frameworks. The Korean American community in Minnesota 154 shows evidence of the powerful force of the assimilation model and illustrates the challenges of realizing cultural pluralism and moving beyond the two-culture framework. The local Korean community has the double-task of embracing cultural pluralism by moving beyond both the bicultural modes of Korean and mainstream American as well as Korean cultural democracy, while expanding the primordial notion of Korean-ness in defining Korean ethnicity. In realizing Korean cultural democracy, a new model of Korean ethnicity education is needed in the study of the Korean diaspora. As evidenced in the Minnesota Korean community, the South-Korean based notion of Korean-ness has affected community integration creating fine schisms among its members in their new home in Minnesota. It is important for them to develop both a democratic notion that is more embracing, integrating, and future-oriented than the current model which is defined by a shared culture from their past in South Korea, and to transcend the borders of both ethnic and national boundaries defined by Tambiah (1988) as the trans-national movement of diaspora populations. It is necessary to broaden the understanding of Korean-ness and to develop a broader typology of the Korean diaspora. This will deepen an understanding of the Korean cultural diaspora beyond political ideology, especially relevant to possible unification of the two Koreas in the future. The South-Korean based notion of Korean- ness should be renegotiated if South Korea is to utilize overseas Koreans as vital resources in the reunification process. The unique history of the Korean community in Minnesota also shows the significant role that Korean ethnic religious institutions have played in developing the community itself as well as their role in ethnic identity development on an individual level. During 155 the adaptation process, Korean American participants have relied on Korean ethnic religious institutions, mostly Protestant churches, as a buffer zone to maintain their Korean identity relieving some of the pressure to assimilate. These religious institutions have also served as a public space where their Korean identity can be asserted and enjoyed with fellow Koreans in Minnesota outside of their private homes. As the generations progress, the participants of this study showed mixed views toward Korean ethnic churches relating to their Korean American identity development. Is maintaining ethnic identity through religious institutions a Korean specific phenomenon in the U.S. compared to other ethnic groups? Does the high presence of ethnic churches affect the scope of genuine social contact with the host culture as well as other ethnic cultures? If so, how does it influence ethnic identity development of Korean Americans in relation to intercultural adaptation to the host culture in the U.S.? For example, high participation in the Korean ethnic churches among the later generations of Korean Americans was evident in this study. Perhaps a future study can look into the relationship between Korean Protestant churches and ethnic identity development among the later generations, particularly U.S. born second and third generations, investigating their cultural adaptation and intercultural development. From this study, there are several practical implications for immigration, cross- cultural education, and multicultural education. First, if there is a pattern and relationship between the immigrant community development and their ethnic religious institutions in regards to their adaptation to the U.S. mainstream culture, perhaps the mainstream community educators can utilize ethnic religious institutions as a medium of cultural integration. Religious leaders from the mainstream culture can cooperate with leaders 156 from the ethnic religious institutions to increase and maximize genuine and positive social contact between the cultures as well as among other ethnic cultures. Utilizing ethnic religious institutions as a setting for cross-cultural education could help incoming immigrants to settle into the host society and adapt to the mainstream culture in the U.S. Multicultural education can maximize its educational benefits when supported by a shared belief system. Second, from this study it appears that ethnic religious institutions function as major ethnic socialization places to assert ethnic identity. Since having more public ethnic space helps to maintain linguistic and cultural aspects of ethnic identity as shown by the Korean community, perhaps educators can offer students of ethnic groups more inclusive curricula in educational environments so these students can “remain identified with the values, languages, and beliefs of their own ethnic and racial group, as they learn about and affirm other cultures and languages” (Goduka, 1999, p. 47 ). Educators can include culturally inclusive content in the instructional resources used in the classroom and use meaningful instructional examples applicable to the experiential background of students of ethnic groups. This could be realized, for instance, by creating more ethnic space through language immersion education. Public education educators can invite the community resources of an ethnic group to create a school within a school by offering more language immersion programs within a school district. With regard to cross-cultural education, this study attempted to identify successful protean individuals based on Lifton’s work in the Protean Self (1993). However, the protean identity is a conceptual construct with simple indicators, lacking clear operational or measurable definitions. Without having these dimensions, it was difficult to explore a deeper dimension of identity integration and assess intercultural development. More 157 research should be done to offer a conceptual construct with operational definitions. In that way, comprehensive research on successful individuals with a higher level of cultural sensitivity and adaptability can be conducted. Those individuals being capable of healthy and fluid transformations with cultural sensitivity are in the higher demand than ever due to increasing intercultural contact in business and technology. Can our technology help us to identify and conduct a tracer study on these protean individuals? Perhaps we are only one click away from this discovery. 158 REFERENCES Alba, R. (1990). Ethnic Identity: The transformation of white America. New Haven: Yale University Press. Alba, R., & Nee, Victor (1997). Rethinking assimilation theory for a new era of immigration. International Migration Review, 31, 826-874 Albach, P. G., & Lotomotney, K. (Eds) (1991). The racial crisis in higher education. Albany: State University of New York Press. Almirol, E. (1985). Ethnic identity and social negotiation: A study of a Filipino community in California. New York: AMS Press. Allport, G. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading: Addison-Wesley. Alstein, H., & Simon, R. J. (Eds). (1991). Intercountry adoption: A multinational perspective. New York: Praeger. An, Hosang. (1992). Monjok sasang ui chongtong kwa yoksa (Legitimacy and History of Nationalist Thought). Seoul: Hanppuri. Ancheta, A. (1998). Race, rights, ands the Asian-American experience. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press. Anthias, F. (2001). New hybridities, old concepts: The limits of 'culture'. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 24, (4), 619-641. Arredondo, P., Toporek, R., Brown, S. P., Jones, J., Locke, D.C., Sanchez, Z., & Standler, H. (1996). Operationalization of the multicultural counseling competencies. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 24, 42-78. Atkinson, D. R., Morten, G., & Sue, D. W. (1983). Counseling American minorities: A cross- cultural perspective. Dubuque: W. C. Brown, Co. Barth, F., Ed. (1969). Ethnic groups and boundaries: The social organization of culture difference. Prospect Heights: Waveland Press. Be Bruin, J. H. (1998). Self-representation and choice among Korean-Americans and Japanese- Americans: Toward an interdisciplinery theory of bi-racial identities. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Boston: Boston University. Belay, G. (1996). The (Re)construction and negotiation of cultural identities in age of globalization. In H. B. Mokros, Interaction and Identity 5 (pp. 319-346). New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers. 159 Benet-Martinez, V., Leu, Janxin, and Lee, F. (2002). Negotiating Biculturalism: Cultural frame switching in biculturals with oppositional versus compatible cultural identities. Journal of Cross- Cultural Psychology, 33(5), 492-516. Bergquist, K. (2000). Racial identity and ethnic identity in Korean adoptees. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. The College of William and Mary. Berry, J. W., & Annis, R. C. (Eds). (1987). Ethnic psychology: Research and practice with immigrants, refugees, native peoples, ethnic groups and sojourners. Berwyn: Swets North America Inc. Berry, J. W. (1997). Immigration, acculturation, and adaptation. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 46(1), 5-68. Berry, J.W., & Sam, D. (1997). Acculturation and adaptation. In J.W. Berry, M.H. Seagull, & C. Kagitçibasi (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (pp. 291-326). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Bochner, S., Ed. (1982). Cultures in contact: Studies in cross-cultural interaction. International Series in Experimental Social Psychology. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Bohannan, P., & Elst, D. V. D. (1998). Asking and listening: Ethnography as personal adaptation. Prospect Heights: Waveland Press. Brodzinsky, D. M. (1993). Long-term outcomes in adoption. The Future of Children 3(1), 153- 166. Brodzinsky, D. M., Smith, D. W., & Brodzinsky, A. B. (1998). Children’s adjustment to adoption: Developmental and clinical issues. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Brown, C., & Knight, K. (1999). Introduction to self-awareness inventories. In S. M., Fowler & M. G., Mumford, Intercultural sourcebook: Cross-cultural training Vol 2. (pp. 19-30). Yarmouth: Intercultural Press, Inc. Campbell, A. (2000). Cultural identity as a social construct. Intercultural Education, 11(1), 31- 39. Carlson, G. (2002). March 2002, Asians in Minnesota 2000, Minnesota State Demographic Center, Retrieved from http://www.demography.state.mn.us/DownloadFiles/pdf/AsiansMN2000.pdf Carstens, C., & Julia, M. (2000). Ethnoracial awareness in intercountry adoption. International Social Work, 43(1), 61-73. Chang, S. C. (1988). The nature of self: A transcultural view. Transcultural Psychiatric Research Review, 25, 169-203. 160 Chang, E. T. (1993). The Los Angeles Riots: A Korean American perspective. Korean and Korean American Studies Bulletin, 4, 3-13. Chang, E. T. (2000). Korean Kaleidoscope: An overview of Korean immigration to the U.S. Korean and Korean American Studies Bulletin, 11(2), 5-20. Charmaz, K. (2005). Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis, Thousand oaks: Sage Publications. Chau, K. L. (1991). Social work with ethnic minorities: practice issues and potentials. Journal of Multicultural Social Work, 1(1), 23-39. Cheng, L. E., Y. L. (1989). Korean business in Black and Hispanic Neighborhoods: A study of intergroup relations. Sociological Perspectives, 32, 521-534. Chong, K. H. (1998). What it means to be Christian: The role of religion in the construction of ethnic identity and boundary among second-generation Korean Americans. Sociology of Religion, 59(3), 259-286. Chun, K. T. (1980). The myth of Asian American success and its educational ramifications. IRCD Bulletin, 15(1), 1-12. Clarence, L. (1999). Living in the hyphen: Race and identity in transition in the United States. SAGE Race Relations Abstracts, 24(2), 5-31. Coles, R. (1997). The moral intelligence of children. New York: Random House. Conzen, K. N., Gerber, D. A., Morawska, E., Pozzetta, G. E., & Vecoli, R. J. (1992). The invention of ethnicity: A perspective from the U.S.A. An International Journal of Migration Studies, 26(105), 3-41. Cornell, S. (1988). The return of the native: American Indian political resurgence. New York, Oxford University Press. Cornell, S.,& Hartmann, D. (1998). Ethnicity and race: Making identities in a changing world. Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge Press. Creswell, J. W. (2002). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Method Approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Cross, W. E. J. (1971). The Negro-to-Black conversion experience: Toward a psychology of Black liberation. Black World, 20, 13-27. Cross, W. E. J. (1978). The Thomas and Cross models of psychological nigrescence: A review. Journal of Black Psychology, 5, 13-31. Cross, W. E. J., Parham, T. A., & Helms, J. E. (1991). The stages of Black identity development: Nigresence models. In R. L. Jones., Black Psychology (pp. 319-338), Berkeley: Cobb & Henry. 161 Dalal, F. (1999). The meaning of boundaries and barriers in the development of cultural identity and between cultures. Psychodynamic Counseling, 5(2), 161-171. Davis, O. I., Nakayama, T. K., & Martin, J. N. (2000). Current and future directions in ethnicity and methodology. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 24, 525-539. Dey, I. (1999). Grounding Grounded Theory: Guidelines for Qualitative Inquiry. San Diego: Academic Press. De Vos, G. A., & Romanucci-Ross, L., Ed. (1995). Ethnic Identity: Creation, conflict, and accommodation. Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press. Denzin, N. K. (1978b). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods. New York: McGraw-Hill. Denzin, N. K. (1989). Interpretive interactionalism. Newbury Park: Sage. Dien, D. S. (2000). The evolving nature of self-identity across four levels of history." Human Development, 43, 1-18. Dorow, S. K. (2006). Transnational adoption : a cultural economy of race, gender, and kinship. New York : New York University Press. Duffy, M. E. (1987). Methodological triangulation a vehicle for merging quantitative and qualitative methods. Image, 19(3), 130-133. Eisner, E. W. & Peshkin, A., Ed. (1990). Qualitative inquiry in education: The continuing debate. New York and London: Teachers’ College Press. Erickson, E. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York: Norton. Espirtu, Y. L. (1992). Asian American panethnicity: Bridging institutions and identities. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Feigelman, W. (2000). Adjustments of transculturally inracially adopted young adults. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 17(3), 165-183. Fenton, S. (1999). Ethnicity: Racism, class and culture. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Fetterman, D. M. (1998). Ethnography: Step by Step. 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Fisher, Michael M. J. (1986). Ethnicity and the Post-Modern Arts of Memory. In J. Clifford and G. Marcus (Eds.), Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography (pp. 194-233). Berkley: University of California Press. Fisher, W. C., Gerber, D. A., Guitart, J. M., & Seller, M. S., Ed. (1997). Identity, community, and pluralism in American life. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 162 Fond, T. P., & Shinagawa, L. H. (1999). Asian Americans: Experiences and perspectives. New Jersey: Prentice Halls. Foner, N. (1997). The immigrant family: Cultural legacies and cultural changes. International Migration Review, 31(4), 961-974. Fong, T. P. (2008). The contemporary Asian American experience: Beyond the model minority. 3rd edn. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Prentice Hall. Friedlander, M. L. (2003). Adoption: Misunderstood, mythologized, marginalized. The Counseling Psychologist, 31(6), 745-752. Gay, G. (1985). Implications of the selected models of ethnic identity development for educators. Journal of Negro Education, 54, 43-55. Glaser, N., & Moynihan, D. (1970). Beyond melting pot. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company. Gordon, M. (1964). Assimilation in American life. London: Oxford University Press. Guidieri, R., Pellizzi, F., & Tambiah, S., J. (1988). Ethnicities and nations. Austin: University of Texas Press. Hall, Stuart. (1990). Cultural Identity and Diaspora. In J. Rutherford (ed.), Identity: Community, Culture, Difference. London: Lawrence and Wishart. Hammer, M. R. (1999). A measure of intercultural sensitivity: The intercultural development inventory. Intercultural Sourcebook: Cross-cultural training methods. S. M. F. M. G. Mumford. Yarmouth, Intercultural Press, Inc. 2: 61-72. Hammer, M. R., & Bennett, M. J. (2001a). The Intercultural Development Inventory. [Instrument]. Portland: Intercultural Communication Institute. Hammer, M. R., & Bennett, M. J. (2001b). The Intercultural Development Inventory Manual. Portland: Intercultural Communication Institute. Han, G. (1994). Social sources of church growth: Korean churches in the homeland and overseas. Lanham: University Press of America. Harp, A. (1999). A life known and a history lost: Korean adoptees communicating identities and negotiating the hyphens between selves and others. Unpublished Master’s Thesis. San Diego: San Diego State University. Harris-Hastick, E. F. (1990). Korea and its voices in New York City: An ethnographic study of a small Asian-American community. New York: Teachers’ College Press. Helms, J. E. (1986). Expanding racial identity theory to cover counseling progress. Counseling 163 psychology, 33, 62-64. Helms, J. E. (1990). Black and White racial identity: Theory and research. Westford: Greenwood Press. Helms, J. E. (1995). The conceptualization of racial identity and other “racial” constructs. In E. J. Trickett, R. J. Watts, & D. Birman (Eds.), Human diversity: Perspectives on people in context (pp. 285-311). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Hesse-Biber, S. N., & Leavy, P. (2004). Approaches to qualitative research. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hirschman, M. R., Kasinitz, P., & Dewind, J. (1999). The handbook of international migration: The American experience. New York: Russel Sage Foundation. Hoare, C. H. (1991). Psychological identity development. Journal of Counseling and Development, 70, 45-53. Hogg, M. A., & Vaughan, G. M. (2002). Social psychology: An introduction. London: Pearson Education. Hong, J., & Min, P. G. (1999). Ethnic attachment among second generation Korean adolescents. Amerasia, 25(1), 165-178. Hurh, W. M., & Kim, K. C. (1984). Korean immigrants in America: A structural analysis of ethnic confinement and adhesive adaptation. Rutherford: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press. Hurh, W. M., & Kim, K. C. (1989). The "success" image of Asian Americans: Its validity and its practical and theoretical implications. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 12(4), 512-538. Hurh, W. M. (1990). The 1.5 generation: A paragon of Korean American. Korean Culture, 11, 21-31. Hurh, W. M. (1998). The Korean Americans. Westport: Greenwood Press. Hutnik, N. (1991). Ethnic minority identity: A sociological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ishii Kuntz, M. (1997). International relationships among Chinese, Japanese, and Korean Americans. Family Relations, 46(1), 23-32. Jaeyop, K. (1999). Marital conflicts and violence in Korean American families. Asian Journal of Women's Studies, 5(2), 47-68. Jessor, R., Colby, A., & Shweder, R., Ed. (1996). Ethnography and human development: Context and meaning in social inquiry. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Jo, M. H. (1992). Korean merchants in the black community. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 15(3), 395-411. 164 Jo, M. H. (1999). Korean immigrants and the challenge of adjustment. Westport: Greenwood Press. Jo, H. Y. (2002). Negotiating ethnic identity in the college Korean language classes. Identities: Global Studies in Culture and Power, 9, 87-115. Joh, Y. J. (1998). Independent and interdependent self-construals of Korean and Korean Americans: The effects of gender and the level of acculturation, (January 1, 1998). ETD Collection for University of Connecticut. Paper AAI9906704. http://digitalcommons.uconn.edu/dissertations/AAI9906704 Jones, J. M. (1991). The concept of race in social psychology. Black psychology. R. L. Jones. Berkeley, Cobb & Henry, 441-467. Kang, S. S. (2002). Unveiling the socioculturally constructed multivoiced self. Lanham: University Press of America. Kertzer, D. I., & Arel, D. (2002). Census and identity: The politics of race, ethnicity, and language in national censuses. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kibria, N. (1997). The construction of ‘Asian American’: Reflections on intermarriage and ethnic identity among second-generation Chinese and Korean Americans. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 20(3), 522-543. Kibria, N. (1999). College and notions of ‘Asian American’: Second-generation Chinese and Korean Americans negotiate race and identity. Amerasia, 25(1), 29-51. Kibria, N. (2000). Race, ethnic options, and ethnic binds: Identity negotiations of second- generation Chinese and Korean Americans. Sociological Perspectives, 43(1), 77-95. Kibria, N. (2002). Becoming Asian American: Second-generation Chinese and Korean American identities. Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Kim, H. C., Ed. (1977). The Korean diaspora: Historical and sociological studies of Korean immigration and assimilation in North America. Santa Barbara: ABC-Clio Press. Kim, D. S. (1978). Issues in transracial and transcultural adoption. Social Casework, 59, 477- 486. Kim, B. K. (1978). The Asian Americans: Changing patterns, changing needs. Motclair: Association for Korean Christian Scholars in North Americas. Kim, J. (1981). The process of Asian-American identity development: A study of Japanese American women’s perceptions of their struggle to achieve positive identities. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Amherst: University of Massachusetts. Kim, K. J., & Jurh, W. M. (1983). Korean Americans and the ‘success’ image: A critique. Amerasia, 10(2), 3-21. 165 Kim, K. C., & Hurh, W. M. (1985). Ethnic resources utilization of Korean small businessmen in the United States. International Migration Review, 19, 82-111. Kim, K. C., Kim, S., & Hurh, W. M. (1991). Filial piety and intergenerational relationship in Korean immigrant families. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 33, 233- 245. Kim, M. H. (1992). Korean-American Identity in the postmodern condition: Narrative accounts of the politics of identity. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Amherst: University of Massachusetts. Kim, I. (1993). Beyond assimilation and pluralism: Synthetic sociocultural adaptation of Korean immigrants in the U.S. Ethnic and racial studies, 16, 696-713. Kim, U., Ed. (1995). Individualism and collectivism: A psychological, cultural and ecological analysis. Njalsade: NIAS Publishing. Kim, Y. Y. (1996). Identity development: From cultural to intercultural. In H. B. Mokros, Interactional and identity (pp. 347-369). New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers. Vol 5. Kim, Y. Y., & Lujan, P., & Dixon, L. D. (1998). “I can walk both ways”: Identity integration of American Indians in Oklahoma. Human Communication Research, 25(2): 252-274. Kim, S. (1998). Psychological identity development of Korean-American adolescents. Houston: University of Houston. Kim, L. (1999). The 1.5 Generation and its self-identity development. Korean and Korean American Studies Bulletin, 10(1 & 2), 27-41. Kim, T. A. (2000). Korean American Youth: A relational study of ethnic identity, assertiveness and depression. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Alameda: California School of Professional Psychology. Kim, J. H. (2001). Asian Americans: Refuting the myth, changing faces. In B. M. Merchant & A. I. Willis, Multiple and Intersecting Identities in Qualitative Research (pp. 103-134). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Kim, Y. Y. (2001). Becoming intercultural: An integrative theory of communication and cross- cultural adaptation. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc. Kim, E. (2004). Gathering “roots” and making history in the Korean adoptee community. Local actions: cultural activism, power, and public life in America (pp. 208-230). New York: Columbia University Press. Kirton, D. (2000). Race, ethnicity and adoption. Buckingham: Open University Press. Kitayama, S., Markus, H. R., Matsumoto, H., & Norasakkunkit, V. (1997). Individual and 166 collective processes in the construction of the self: Self-enhancement in the United States and self-criticism in Japan. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(6), 1245-1267. Koh, T. H. (1994). Ethnic identity in first, 1.5 and second generation Korean-Americans. In . H. Y. Kwon, Korean Americans: Conflict and Harmony (pp. 43-54). Chicago: Covenant Publications. LaFromboise, T., Coleman, H.L.K., & Gerton, J. (1993). Psychological impact of biculturalism: Evidence and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 114(3), 395-412. Landis, D., & Bhagat, R. S., Ed. (1996). Handbook of intercultural training. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc. Larsen, E. (2007). January 2007. Asian Fusion. Minnesota Monthly. Retrieved from http://www.minnesotamonthly.com/media/Minnesota-Monthly/January- 2007/Asian-Fusion/ Lee, M. P. (1990). Quiet Odyssey: A pioneer Korean woman in America. Seattle: University of Washington Press. Lee, J. C., & Veh, C. (1991). Issues in counseling 1.5 generation Korean Americans. In C.C. Lee & B. L. Richardson, Multicultural issues in counseling: New approaches to diversity (pp. 127-140). Alexandria: American Association for Counseling and Development. Lee, D. C. (2000). Ethnic perspective-taking ability and ethnic attitudes in development of Korean-born adoptee youth. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. University of Wisconsin. Lee, J., & Z., Min, Ed. (2004). Asian American youth: culture, identity, and ethnicity. New York: Routledge. Lewin, K. (1948). Resolving social conflicts. New York: Harper. Lieberman, K. (2001). The process of racial and ethnic identity development and search for self in adult Korean transracial adoptees. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Massachusetts School of Professional Psychology. Lien, P. T. (2001). The making of Asian America through political participation. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Lien, P. T., Conway, M. M., &Wong, Janelle (2003). The contours and sources of ethnic identity choices among Asian Americans. Social Science Quarterly, 84(2), 461-481. Lifton, R. J. (1993). The protean self: Human resilience in an age of fragmentation. New York: Basic Books. Lifton, B. J. (1994). Journey of the adopted self: A quest for wholeness. New York: Basic Books. 167 Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. New York: Sage. Liu, E. (1998). The accidental Asian: Notes of a native speaker. New York: Random House. Lowe, L. (1991). Heterogeneity, hybridity, multiplicity: Marking Asian American differences. Diaspora, 1(1), 24-44. Lowe, L. (1996). Immigrant Acts: On Asian American Cultural Politics. Durham: Duke University Press. Malik, K. (1996). The meaning of race: Race, history, and culture in Western society. New York: New York University Press. Manalansan IV, M. F., Ed. (2000). Cultural compass: Ethnographic explorations of Asian America. Philadelphia: Temple University. Mancini, K. S. (1995). A study of Korean-born adoptees: Identity, self-esteem, and relationship with adoptive parents. Unpublished Master’s thesis. University of California at Los Angeles. Marcia, J. (1966). Development and validation of ego-identity status. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3, 551-558. Marcia, J. (1980). Identity in adolescence. In J. Adelson, Handbook of adolescent psychology (pp. 159-187). New York: Wiley. Marcus, G. E. (2001). From rapport under erasure to theaters of complicit reflexivity. Qualitative Inquiry, 7(4), 519-528. Markus, H. R. & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224-253. McClain, P. D., & Stewart, J. J. (1995). Can we all get along?: Racial and ethnic minorities in American politics. Boulder: Westview Press. McLoyd, V. C., & Steinberg, L. (1998). Studying minority adolescents. Mahwah, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. McRoy, R. H., C. (1996). Transracial adoptions: In whose best interest? In M. Root, The Multiracial experience: Racial borders as a significant frontier in race relations (pp. 63-78). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, Inc. Meier, D. I. (1999). Cultural Identity and place in adult Korean-American intercountry adoptees. Adoption Quarterly, 3(1), 15-48. Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. 2nd edn. San Francisco : Jossey-Bass Publishers. Min, P. G. (1990). Problems of Korean immigrant entrepreneurship. International Migration Review, 24, 436-455. 168 Min, P. G. (1991b). Children's education and problems in the Korean immigrant community. Koreans in the United Staes [in Korean]. P. G. Min. Seoul: Yurim Publishing Company. Min, P. G. (1992b). Korean immigrants’ wives overwork. Korean Journal of Population and Development, 21, 121-143. Min, P. G., & Choi, Y. (1993). Ethnic attachment among Korean-American. Korean Journal of Population and Development, 22, 167-179. Min, P. G. (1993b). Korean immigrants marital patterns and marital adjustment. In H. McAdoo, Family ethnicity: Strengths in diversity (pp. 287-299). Newsbury Park: Sage. Min, P. G., Ed. (1995). Asian Americans: Contemporary trends and issues. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications. Min, P. G. (1996a). Caught in the middle: Korean merchants in America’s multiethnic cities. Berkley: University of California Press. Min, P. G. (1997). Korean immigrants wives’ labor-force participation, marital power, and status. Women and work: Race, ethnicity, and class. E. H. M. Romero. Newsbury Park: Sage. Min, P. G., & Song, Y. I. (1998). Demographics of post-1965 immigrants. Korean American women: From tradition to feminism. Westport: Praeger, 45-63. Min, P. G. (1998). The Korean-American family. In C. H. Mindel, R. W. Habenstein, & R. Wright, Jr. (eds.), Ethnic Families in America (pp. 223-253). Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall. Min, P. G., & Kim, R., Ed. (1999). Struggle for ethnic identity: Narratives by Asian American professionals. Walnut Creek: AltaMira press. Ministry of Health and Welfare, Ibyangôbmujongsajaban [A group of people engaged in adoption work], Seoul, 1998. Mitchell, R. W. (1994). Multiplicities of self. In M. S. T. Parker, R. W., and M. L. Boccia, Self- awareness in animals and humans (pp. 81-107). New York: Cambridge University Press. Moon, A. (1998). Attitudes toward ethnic identity, marriage, and familial life among women of Korean decent in the United States, Japan, and Korea. In Y. I. Song & A. Moon (Eds.), Korean American women: From tradition to modern feminism (pp. 65-74). Westport: Praeger. Moon, A., & Song, Y. I. (1998). Ethnic identities reflected in value orientation of two generations of Korean American women. In Y. I. Song & A. Moon (Eds.), Korean American Women: From tradition to modern feminism (pp. 139-148). Westport: Praeger. Morse, J. (1991). On the evaluation of qualitative proposals. Qualitative Health Research, 1(2), 147-151. Moustakas, C.E. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Mullen, M. (1995). Identity Development of Korean adoptees. In W. L. Ng, S. Y. Chin, J. S. 169 Moy, & G. Y. Okihiro (eds.), Reviewing Asian America: Locating diversity (pp. 61-74). Pullman: Washington State University Press. Myers, L. J., Speight, L., Highlen, P.S., P. S., Cox, C. I., Reynolds, A. L. Adams, E. M., & Hanley, C. P. (1991). Identity development and worldview: Toward an optimal conceptulization. Journal of Counseling and Development, 70, 54-63. Nagel, J. (1994). Constructing identity: Creating and recreating ethnic identity and culture. Social Problems, 41(1), 152-176. Nakanishi, D. T., & Nishida, T. Y. (1995). The Asian American educational experience: A sourcebook for teachers and students. London: Routledge. Naroll, R. (1964). On ethnic unit classification. Current Anthropology, 5, 283-291, 306-312. O’Brien, K. M. Z., K. P. (2003). Understanding adoptive families: An integrative review of empirical research and future directions for counseling psychology. The Counseling Psychologist, 31(6), 679-710. Okihiro, G. Y. (1994). Margins and mainstreams: Asians in American history and culture. Seattle: University of Washington Press. Omi, M., & Winant, H. (1986). Racial formation in the United States: From the 1960s to the 1980s. New York: Routledge. Ong, A. (1996). Cultural citizenship as subject-making: Immigrants negotiate racial and cultural boundaries in the United States. Current Anthropology, 37(5), 737-762. Pai, J. Y. (1993). Caught between in the middle: From ambivalence to resolution. In H. Y. Kwon, & S. Kim (eds.), The emerging generations of Korean-Americans (pp. 17-27). Seoul: Kyung Hee University Press. Paige, R. M., Ed. (1993). Education for intercultural experience. Yartmouth: Intercultural Press. Paik, Y. J. (1999). Imagining Asian American identities: An anthropological study of race and ethnicity through growing-up, coming of age, dating, and marriage among Chinese and Korean Americans. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Yale University. Palumbo-Liu, D. (1999). Asian-American: Historical crossings of a racial frontier. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Parham, T., & Helms, J. (1985). The influence of Black student's racial identity attitudes on preference for counselor’s race. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 28, 250-257. Parham, T. (1989). Cycles of Psychological Nigrescence. The Counseling Psychologist 17(2), 187-226. Park, S. S. (1996). Generational transition within Korean churches in Los Angeles. Unpublished Master’s Thesis. University of California at Los Angeles. 170 Park, K. (1997). The Korean American dream: Immigrants and small business in New York City. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press. Park, K. (1999). I really do feel I’m 1.5. Amerasia, 25(1): 139-163. Patton, S. (2000). Birthmarks: Transracial adoption in contemporary America. New York: New York University Press. Patton, M. Q. (2001). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc. Phinney, J. S. (1989). Stages of ethnic identity development in minority group adolescents. Journal of Early Adolescence, 9(1-2), 34-49. Phinney, J. S. (1990). Ethnic identity in adolescents and adults: Review of research. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 499-514. Phinney, J. S. (1992). Ethnic identity and self-esteem: an exploratory longitudinal study. Journal of Adolescence, 15, 271-281. Phinney, J. S. (1992). The multigroup ethnic identity measure: A new scale for use with diverse groups. Journal of Adolescent Research, 7(2), 156-176. Phinney, J. S. (1996). When we talk about American ethnic group, what do we mean? American Psychologist, 51(9), 918-927. Phinney, J. S. (1996). Understanding ethnic diversity: The roles of ethnic identity. American Behaviorial Scientist, 40(2), 143-152. Phinney, J. S., & Alipuria, L. L. (1996). At the interface of cultures: Multiethnic/multicultural high school and college students. The Journal of Social Psychology, 136(2), 139-158. Pollard, K. M., & O'Hare, W. P. (1999). America’s racial and ethnic minorities. Population Bulletin, 54(3), 1-48. Pope-Davis, D. B., Liu, W, M., Toporek, R. L., Brittan-Powell, S. C. (2001). What’s missing from multicultural competency research: Review, introspection, and recommendations. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 7(2), 121-138. Portes, A., & Zhou, M. (1993). The new second generation: Segmented assimilation and its variants. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 530, 74-96. Rhee, H. C. (1995). The Korean-American experience: A detailed analysis of how well Korean- Americans adjust to life in the United States. New York: Vantage Press. Rios-Kohn (1998). Intercountry adoption: An international perspective on the practice and standards. Adoption Quarterly, 1(4), 3-32. 171 Rogler, L., Cooney, R., & Ortiz, V. (1980). Intergenerational change in ethnic identity in the Puerto Rican family. International Migration Review, 14, 193-214. Rokeach, M. (1985). Inducing change and stability in belief systems and personality structures. Journal of Social Issues, 41(1), 153-171. Root, M., Ed. (1996). The Multiracial Experience: Racial Borders as the New Frontier. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, Inc. Rue, D. S. (1994). Shame and confusion among Korean-American youths. Korean Americans: Conflict and harmony. H. Y. Kwon. Chicago: Covenant Publications, 23-30. Rumbaut, R. G. (1994). The Crusible within: Ethnic identity, self-esteem, and segmented assimilation among children of immigrants. International Migration Review, 28(4), 748-794. Sampson, D. L., & Smith, H. P. (1957). A scale to measure world-minded attitudes. The Journal of Social Psychology, 45, 99-106. Shin, G. W. (2006). Ethnic nationalism in Korea. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Shiao, J. L., Tuan, M., & Rienzi, E. (2004). Shifting the Spotlight: Exploring Race and Culture in Korean-White Adoptive families. Race and Society, 7, 1–16. Sidel, R. (1994). Battling bias: The struggle for identity and community on college campuses. New York: Penguin Books. Silverman, A. R. (1993). Outcomes of transracial adoption. The Future of Children, 3(1), 104- 118. Simon, R. J., & Altstein, H. (1987). Transracial adoptees and their families: A study of identity and commitment. New York: Praeger. Simon, R. J., & Altstein, H. (2000). Adoption across borders. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. Simon, R. J., & Altstein, H. (2002). Adoption, race & identity: From infancy to young adulthood. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers. Singh, V. (1977). Some theoretical and methodological problems in the study of ethnic identity: A cross-cultural perspective. New York Academy of Sciences: Annals, 285, 32-42. Smedley, A. (1999). “Race” and the construction of human identity. American Psychologist, 100(3), 690-702. Song, Y. I., & Moon, A. (1998). Korean American women: From tradition to modern feminism. Westport: Praeger. Spickard, P. R. (1997). What must I be?: Asian American and the question of multiethnic identity. Amerasia, 23(1), 43-60. 172 Standen, B. (1996). Without a Template: The biracial Korean/White experience. In M. Root, The Multiracial Experience (pp. 245-259). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Steinberg, G., & Hall, B. (2000). Inside Transracial Adoption. Indianapolis: Perspectives Press. Steinberg, S. (2001). Ethnic myth: Race, ethnicity, and class in America. Boston: Beacon Press. Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. W. (1985). Intergroup anxiety. Journal of Social Issues 41(3), 157-175. Stephan, C. W., & Stephan, W. C. (2000). The measurement of racial and ethnic identity. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 24, 541-552. Sue, D. W., Arredondo, P., & McDavis, R. J. (1992). Multicultural counseling competencies and standards: A call to the profession. Journal of Counseling and Development, 70, 477-486. Sue, D. W., & Sue, D. (1999). Counseling the culturally different: Theory and practice. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Sunoo, H. H., & Kim, D. S., Ed. (1980). Korean women in a struggle for humanization. Memphis: Association of Korean Christian Scholars in North America, Inc. Tagagi, D. Y. (1994). Post-civil rights politics and Asian American identity: admissions and higher education. In S. S. Gregory, Clamor at the gates: The New American Immigration (pp. 229-242). San Francisco: ICS Press. Tajfel, H. (1978). The social psychology of minorities. New York: Minority Rights Group. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of social conflict. In S. Worchel & W. Austin (eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations. Monterey: Brooks/ Cole, Publishing Co. Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. Psychology of intergroup relations. In S. Worchel & W. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations. Chicago: Nelson-Hall. Takaki, R. (1998). Strangers from a different shore: A history of Asian Americans. Boston: Little Brown. Tamayo Lott, J. (1998). Asian Americans: From racial category to multiple identities. Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press. Thomptson, C. E., & Carter, R. T., Ed. (1997). Racial Identity Theory: Applications to individual, group, and organizational interventions. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 173 Tizard, B. (1991). Intercountry adoption: A review of the evidence. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 32(5), 743-756. Trenka, J. J., Oparah, J. C., & Shin, S. Y. (Eds). (2006). Outsiders Within: Writing on Transracial Adoption. Cambridge: South End Press. Tsai, J. L., Ying, Yu-wen, & Lee, P. A. (2000). The meaning of “being Chinese” and “being American”: Variation among Chinese American young adults. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31(3), 302-332. Tse, L. (1998). Seeing themselves through borrowed eyes: Asian Americans in ethnic ambivalence/evasion. Multicultural Review, 7(2), 28-34. Tse, L. (1999). Finding a place to be: Ethnic identity exploration of Asian Americans. Adolescence, 34(133), 121-138. Tuan, M. (1999). Forever foreigners or honorary whites?: The Asian ethnic experience today. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press. Ty, E. R., & Goellnicht, D. C. Ed. (2004). Asian North American Identities: beyond the hyphen. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Verkuyten, M., & Lay, C. (1998). Ethnic minority identity and psychological well-being: The mediating role of collective self-esteem. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28(21), 1969- 1986. Volkman, A. (Ed). (2005). Cultures of Transnational Adoption. Durham: Duke University Press. Wallerstein, I. (1987). The construction of peoplehood: Racism, nationalism, ethnicity. Sociological Forum, 2(2): 373-389. Walters, S. (1986). Ethnicity and boundary process in context. Theories of Race and Ethnic Relations. In J. R. D. Mason. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 226-245. Waterman, A. S. (1982). Identity development from adolescence to adulthood: An extension of theory and a review of research. Developmental Psychology, 18(3), 341-358. Waters, M. (1990). Ethnic options: Choosing identities in America. Berkley: University of California Press. Wegar, K. (1996). Adoption, identity, and kinship: The debate over sealed birth records. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. Weil, R. H. (1984). International adoptions: The quiet migration. International Migration Review, 18(2): 276-293. Weitzer, R. (1997). Racial prejudice among Korean neighborhoods. Sociological Quarterly, 38(4): 587-606. 174 Wicks, K. L. (1993). Transracial adoption: Cultural identity and self-concept of Korean adoptees, Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Ball State University. Wilkinson, H. S. (1985). Birth is more than once: The inner world of adopted Korean children. Bloomfield Hills: Sunrise Ventures. Wolcott, H. F. (1994). Transforming qualitative data: Description, analysis, and interpretation. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Wolcott, H. F. (1999). Ethnography: A way of seeing. Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press. Wolcott, H. F. (2008). Ethnography: A way of seeing. 2nd edn. Lanham: Altamira Press. Won, Y. J. (1994). “Model Minority” strategy and Asian-American’s tactics. Korean Journal(Summer): 57-66. Woo, D. (1992). The ‘overrepresentation’of Asian Americans: Red herrings and yellow perils. In F. L. Pincus & H. J. Ehrlich (eds.), Race and Ethnic Conflict (pp. 314 – 325). Boulder: Westview Press. Yeh, C. J., & Huang, K. (1996). The collective nature of ethnic identity development among Asian-American college students. Adolescence, 31(123), 645-661. Yeh, C. J., & Hwang, M. Y. (2000). Interdependence in ethnic identity and self: Implications for theory and practice. Journal of Counseling and Development, 78(4), 420-429. Yetman, N. R. (1991). Majority and minority: the dynamics of race and ethnicity in American life. 5th edn. Boston : Allyn and Bacon. Yi, K., & Shorter-Gooden, K. (1999). Ethnic identity formation: From stage theory to a constructivist narrative model. Psychotherapy, 36(1), 16-26. Yoon, D. P. (1997). Psychological adjustment of Korean-born adolescents adopted by American families. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Yoon, D. P. (2001). Causal modeling predicting psychological adjustment of Korean-born adolescent adoptees. In N.G. Choi (Ed.), Psychosocial aspects of the Asian-American experience: Diversity within diversity (pp. 65-82). Philadelphia: The Haworth Press, Inc. Yu, K. H., & Kim, L. (1983). The growth and development of Korean-American children. In G. Powell, The psychological development of minority group children. New York: Brunner/Mazel, 147-158. Yu, E. Y., & C, Peter (2003-2004). Korean population in the United States as reflected in the year 2000 U.S. Census. Amerasia, 29(3), 2-21. Zamostny, K. P., O’Brien, K. M., Baden, A. L. & Wiley, M. O. (2003). The Practice of adoption: 175 History, trends, and social context. The Counseling Psychologist, 31(6), 651-678. Zelditch, M. (1962). Some methodological problems of field studies. American Journal of Sociology, 67(5), 566-576. Zeon, S. Y. (1994). What it means to be Korean American in the Midwest: Eight Korean American college students tell their stories, Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. University of Illinois. Zhou, M. (1997). Segmented assimilation: Issues, controversies, and recent research on the new second generation. International Migration Review, 31(4), 975-1008. Zhou, M. (1997). Growing up American: The challenge of confronting immigrant children and children of immigrants. Annual Review of Sociology, 23, 63-95. Zhou, M. (1999). Coming of age: The current situation of Asian American children. Amerasia, 25(1), 1-27. 176 APPENDICES Appendix A Consent Form (in English) Negotiating Ethnic Identities: A Study of Korean Adoptees and the Other Korean Americans in Minnesota You are invited to be in a research study of ethnic identity negotiation of Korean Americans in Minnesota. You were selected as a possible participant because of your demographic profile as the first generation (or second, 1.5, Korean adoptee) Minnesotan Korean American. We ask that you read this form and ask any questions you may have before agreeing to participate in the study. This study is being conducted by: Haesook Koo, Ph. D Candidate, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, 55414 Background Information: The purpose of this study is to explore in-group dynamics of Korean Americans in Minnesota. I would like to look at differences in Korean American identity among the four in-groups; first immigrant generation, 1.5 generation, U.S. born second generation, and Korean adoptees in Minnesota. Procedures: If you agree to be in this study, I would ask you to do the following things: Interview- this will take no more than one hour. A follow-up interview will be asked for only when necessary. Questions relate to your identity as a Minnesotan Korean American, its development, and cultural negotiation. Interviews will be audio-taped only with your given permission. Otherwise, notes will be taken during the interview for maintaining accuracy. Demographic questionnaire- you can complete a brief demographic questionnaire at your convenience. This will take no more than 20 minutes. Observation- I would like to observe how you interact with other Korean Americans. You can select a time and a place at your convenience. I will make observational notes only, if necessary, on site. Other forms of recording such as video-taping and picture-taking will not take place. Intercultural Development Inventory- This will take no more than one hour in length and you will be asked to fill this out under the supervision of a certified cross-cultural trainer of this instrument. Risks and Benefits of Being in the Study: The study may have possible risks. In discussing personally sensitive issues regarding your Korean American identity, you might possibly have uncomfortable feelings and thoughts. A follow-up meeting to discuss and confirm my findings and specific contributions made by you 177 will be provided to ensure that your views are accurately reflected. There are no direct benefits of participation. Compensation: As a token of thank-you, small gifts imported from Korea will be given to those who complete full participation in the study. Anyone who may withdraw prior to the completion of the study, will also receive a gift as appreciation of their time and efforts. Small gifts will represent my appreciation for participation. Confidentiality: The records of this study will be kept completely private. In any sort of report we might publish, we will not include any information that will make it possible to identify a subject. Research records will be kept in a locked file; only the researcher will have access to the records. To insure accuracy some interviews may be taped only with your permission. Tape recordings will be listened to only by me. You will not be personally identified in any way—only by a number. The information and data you give will be used only in a way that cannot identify you, if used in academic presentations or publications to protect total confidentiality and to preserve anonymity. Voluntary Nature of the Study: Participation is entirely voluntary. Your decision whether or not to participate will not affect your current or future relations with the University. If you decide to participate, you are free to withdraw at any time without affecting those relationships. You may refuse to answer any individual question and have the right to withdraw from this study at any point. If you decide to withdraw, all the data related to you will be immediately destroyed. Contacts and Questions: The researcher conducting this study is Haesook Koo. You may ask any questions you have now. If you have questions later, you may contact me at phone; 612-275-4315or by e-mail at koox0015@umn.edu. You may also contact my academic adviser, Dr. Gerald Fry at (612) 624- 0294 or by his e-mail at gwf@umn.edu. If you have any questions or concerns regarding the study and would like to talk to someone other than the researcher(s), contact Research Subjects’ Advocate line, D528 Mayo, 420 Delaware Street S.E., Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455; telephone (612) 625-1650. You will be given a copy of this form to keep for your records. Statement of Consent: I have read the above information. I have asked questions and have received answers. I consent to participate in the study. Signature ________________________________________ Date ___________________ Signature of Investigator ____________________________ Date ___________________ 178 Appendix B Demographic Questionnaire 1. Age (Date of birth) 2. Place of birth a. In the U.S. (City, State): b. In South Korea (City, Province): c. Number of siblings (List gender and age) 3. Year of immigration (if applicable): 4. Age of immigration (if applicable): 5. Parents’ year of immigration: Father- Mother- 6. Parents’ occupation and level of education a. Before immigration in Korea: Father- Mother- b. After immigration in the U.S.: Father- Mother- 7. Participant’s level of education (Be specific, e.g. B.A., M.A.) 8. What country is your country (ies) of citizenship? 9. Place of origin in the U.S. you have lived (Time of stay, City, State). List in chronological order. 179 10. How long have you lived in Minnesota (since when and where in the state)? 11. Where do you currently work? Have there been occupational changes? (Below for adopted Korean adoptees) 1. Age (Date of birth) 2. Adopted age 3. Place of birth (if applicable) a. In South Korea (City, Province, if you know): 4. Number of siblings (List gender and age, if you know your birth order in your biological family include them, too) 5. What is racial/ethnic make-up in your family? (e.g. Caucasian, Norwegian American) 6. Do you know any information about your birth parents in Korea? 7. Have you visited Korea to search for your birth parents? (If yes, specify when) 8. Have you made normal visits to Korea (for travel, for example)? 180 Appendix C Interview Guide * Interview Guide—1st & 1.5 Generation [On acculturation] 1. Growing up in the U.S., did you speak mostly Korean or English at home? 2. Growing up in the U.S., what was the diversity of your friends? Who constituted your close social network in terms of racial/ethnic make-up? (Koreans, non-Koreans; whites, other Asian friends)? When and how often did you see them? * K-8 school years/college years/after college 3. Growing up, where did you mostly meet local Korean Minnesotans (1st, 2nd, Korean adoptees) and in what settings? 4. What are your parents’ values, beliefs, or understanding concerning Korean heritage and tradition? 5. What are your parents’ values, beliefs, or understanding about American culture? 6. What is your understanding of American culture, compared to Korean culture? (e.g. values, beliefs, heritage, and tradition) * Are there any traits/characteristics/values of American/Korean culture that you particularly like? 7. How do you describe yourself culturally, ethnically, and racially, in relation to both Korean and American culture? [On cultural adjustment & immigration experience] 1. Growing up in the U.S., what was your school life like? Were there issues (difficulties, challenges) that you had as an immigrant child at school, differently from your American peers? * If you had such difficulties at school, how did you try to resolve those? 2. Growing up in the U.S., what was your daily life like (after school)? * How did you spend your time after school? * What did you do mostly at home and differently from other non-immigrant friends of your age? 181 3. Growing up in the U.S., what was your relationship with your parents like? Reflecting on your developmental years in the U.S., were there any challenges in your parent-child relationship? (If possible, compared to your family’s life in Korea?) * If you had such difficulties at home, how did you try to resolve those? 4. Reflecting on your family’s life as immigrants to America, how much of the American cultural aspects were adopted by your family and practiced in your household? (e.g. family life, friendship, participation in American cultural events, etc.) 5. Reflecting on your family’s American life, what areas/aspects of the Korean culture were preserved and practiced in your family? (e.g. cultural events, etiquettes, social/ethnic behaviors, etc.) 6. Growing up in the U.S., what was the diversity of your family’s social network? Who constituted your close social network in terms of racial/ethnic make-up (as different from peers)? 7. Growing up as immigrant, what were main sources of your learning about mainstream American culture? (e.g. through watching American media, from other Korean American friends, from school, at work places, etc.) [On assimilation & racial integration] 1. How do you assess or describe your English language ability and your familiarity with American culture? * Do you think you are still learning American culture? If so, what are main sources of your learning about mainstream American culture? (e.g. though watching American media, from other Korean American friends, from school, at work places, etc.) 2. What areas/aspects of American culture do you think you have adopted or embraced in your current life? In what way do you think you practice American culture in your every day activities? * Are there any aspects of American life that are still difficult for you to adapt to or embrace? If so, describe what these are and explain why you think this is so. 3. What is the current diversity of your friends? Who constitutes your close social network in terms of racial/ethnic make-up? When and how often do you see them? 4. How often do you interact with non-Korean Americans; other racial/ethnic groups including whites? Please list groups. Describe what those interactions are like and in what settings they take place. (e.g. business, personal, etc.) * Which racial/ethnic group do you feel closest to or more comfortable in interacting with? Why? 182 5. Have you experienced any level of racial discrimination as a non-white? If so, would you mention some examples of discriminatory actions? 6. Are you currently a member of any Korean organization or Korean social clubs? Why or why not? 7. What are your thoughts and feelings about interracial marriage between Korean Americans and other non-Korean Americans? 8. What are your thoughts and feeling about Korean adoptees and interracial adoption? [On within-group attitude & awareness of cultural change] 1. How much of the Korean culture do you think you still preserve and practice in your current life? (e.g. family life, friendship, participation in Korean events, etc.) 2. Are there situations where you feel culturally more American /Korean compared to other Korean Americans? If yes, please describe these situations. * What do you think are aspects that make you feel culturally more American/Korean in the above situations? 3. How do you assess or describe your Korean language ability, compared to your English language ability? Are you able to switch between the two? 4. Do you keep up with what is going on in South Korea politically, economically, socially, and culturally? If so, from what sources and how frequently? (e.g. reading Korean newspapers, internet, magazines; watching Korean news, movies, TV programs, videos; listening to Korean radio/music, and etc.) 5. Have you been to Korea to visit? How often do you visit your relatives in Korea? What are your reasons for these visits? * During your last visit or from watching recent Korean media productions, have you noticed changes in the current Korean culture compared to how you were raised or what you had known previously? 6. Where and how often do you meet other Korean Americans in the community? * Comparing your generation of immigrants to immigrants who came to Minnesota in more recent years, have you noticed any differences in terms of settlement patterns or their ethnic Korean behaviors? If so, what are they? 7. Have you had any experiences interacting with adopted Koreans? If so, have you experienced any of difficulty in interacting with them? If so, could you discuss these experiences? 183 8. Have you ever heard of 1.5 generation Korean Americans? Do you know what they are? * Do you consider yourself 1.5 generation? * Were you ever recognized as a 1.5 generation by the other Korean Americans in the local Korean community? * What do you think is the basis of their identification? * Why do you think such a label exists in the Korean American community? 9. In your close social network, do have you have 1st, 1.5, 2nd generation Korean American friends (or Korean adoptee)? * What do you have in common between you and your Korean American friends, compared to your non-Korean American friends? * Which group of Korean Americans (1st, 1.5, second, and Korean adoptees) do you feel closest to or have connections with? Why do you think this is so? 10. In your opinion, is there cultural variation among the above four groups in both Korean and American culture? * What parts of Korean culture do you see in 1st, 1.5, 2nd generation, and Korean adoptee? * What aspects of American culture do you see in 1st, 1.5, 2nd generation, and Korean adoptee? * In your experience, are there distinguishable markers among the four groups that set part from each other? If so, what are cues, markers, indicators that help you tell such? -- 1st generation immigrants from 1.5 generation: -- 1.5 generation immigrants from 2nd generation: -- 2nd generation from Korean adoptee 11. Have you observed/heard issues raised by your generation of Korean Americans about the nature of their interaction with Korean adoptees (1stor 2nd generation)? 12. Have you observed/heard issues raised by Korean adoptees about their interactions with other Korean Americans? [On self-identification] 1. Do you identify yourself as Korean, Korean American, American, Asian American, or other? * For example, when presented with documents/forms that ask you to check your race/ethnicity, how do you answer? Have you consistently answered that way? Why or why not? 2. Has your self-identification changed at times depending on time and context (e.g. when, where, and who you’re with)? 3. How have other people perceived and identified you as ____ (e.g. Asian American, American, Korean, Korean American, etc.)? * What do you think is the basis of their identification? 4. Have other Koreans perceived and identified you as 1.5 generation Korean American? 184 * What do you think is the basis of their identification? 5. Do you live every day conscious of being Korean here? * Are there times /situations when you feel ethnically more/less Korean than other times? Why? 6. Do you ever think of yourself as Asian (all the time or in what situations)? Why or why not? * Are there times /situations when you feel ethnically more/less Asian than other times? Why? 7. How do you describe yourself personally and culturally (e.g. compared to your second generation Korean American children if you’re married or compared to your immigrant parents generation)? * What makes you feel ethnically Korean American in a personal way? 185 *Interview Guide—2nd Generation [On cultural adjustment & acculturation] 1. Growing up in the U.S., did you speak mostly Korean or English at home? 2. Growing up in the U.S., what was your school life like? Were there issues (difficulties, challenges) that you had as a child of immigrants that were different from your non-Korean American peers? * If you had such difficulties at school, how did you try to resolve these? 3. Growing up in the U.S., what was your daily life like (after school)? How did you spend your time after school? What did you do that was different from other non-Korean Americans friends at your age? 4. Growing up in the U.S., what was the diversity of your friends? Who constituted your close social network in terms of racial/ethnic make-up? (Koreans, non-Koreans; whites, other Asian friends)? When and how often did you see them? * K-8 school years/college years/after college 5. Growing up in the U.S., what was your relationship with your parents like? Reflecting on your developmental years, were there any challenges in your relationship with your parents? * If you had such difficulties at home, how did you try to resolve these? 6. Reflecting on your family’s American life as immigrants to America, how many of the American cultural aspects were adopted by your family and practiced in your household? (e.g. family life, friendship, participation in American cultural events, holidays, etc.) 7. Growing up as a child of immigrants, what were your main sources for learning about mainstream American culture? (e.g. through watching American media, from other Korean American friends, from school, at work places, etc.) 8. Growing up in the U.S., what was the diversity of your family’s social network? Who constituted your family’s close social network in terms of racial/ethnic make-up? 9. Reflecting on your family’s American life, what areas/aspects of the Korean culture were preserved and practiced in your family? (e.g. cultural events, etiquettes, social/ethnic behaviors, etc.) 10. Growing up as a second generation Korean American, what were your main sources for learning about Korean culture? (e.g. from Korean parents, friends, church, etc.) * Where did you mostly meet other local Korean Minnesotans (1st, 2nd, Korean adoptees) and in what settings? 186 11. What are your parents’ values, beliefs, or understanding concerning Korean heritage and tradition? 12. What are your parents’ attitudes, values, beliefs, or understanding about American culture? 13. What is your understanding of Korean culture, compared to mainstream American culture? (e.g. values, beliefs, heritage, and tradition) * Are there any traits/characteristics/values of Korean culture that you particularly like? 14. How do you describe yourself culturally, ethnically, and racially, in relation to both Korean and American culture? [On assimilation & racial integration] 1. How do you describe or assess your value orientation compared to mainstream American culture? * Is there any difference between you and other whites (European American) in your social network? 2. Do you feel/think that you are fully accepted as American by the mainstream society? Why or why not? 3. Are there any situations where you feel culturally more white (or American) than Korean? * If yes, please describe those situations; * What do you think are aspects that make you feel more/less white (or American)? 4. What is the current diversity of your friends? Who constitutes your close social network in terms of racial/ethnic make-up? When and how often do you see them? 5. What is the racial/ethnic make-up at your work place? * Do you socialize with your co-workers outside of work? Why or why not? 6. How often do you interact with non-Korean Americans; other racial/ethnic groups including whites? Please list groups and describe what those interactions are like and in what settings (e.g. business, personal, etc.) 7. Which racial/ethnic group do you feel closest or more comfortable interacting with? Why? 187 8. Are you currently a member of any Korean organizations or Korean social clubs? Why or why not? 9. Have you experienced any level of racial discrimination as a non-white? If yes, could you mention some examples? 10. What are your thoughts and feelings about interracial marriage between Korean Americans and non-Korean Americans? 11. What are your thoughts and feeling about Korean adoptees and interracial adoption? [On within-group attitude & awareness of cultural change] 1. How much of the Korean culture do you think you still preserve and practice in your current life? (e.g. family life, friendship, attendance in Korean cultural events, etc.) 2. Are there situations where you feel culturally more American /Korean compared to other Korean Americans? If yes, please describe these situations. * What do you think are aspects that make you feel more American/Korean in the above situations? 3. How do you assess or describe your Korean language ability compared to your English language ability? Are you able to switch between the two? 4. Do you keep up with what is going on in South Korea politically, economically, socially, and culturally? If so, from what sources and how frequently? (e.g. reading Korean newspapers, internet, magazines; watching Korean news, movies, TV programs, videos; listening to Korean radio/music, and etc.) 5. Have you been to Korea to visit? How often have you gone? What are your reasons for visiting? Is it important for you to visit Korea? If so, why? * During your last visit or from watching recent Korean media productions, have you noticed changes in the current Korean culture compared to how you were raised or what you had known previously? 6. Where and how often do you meet Korean Americans in the community? 188 7. Comparing your parents’ generation of immigrants to immigrants who came to Minnesota in more recent years, have you noticed some differences in terms of settlement patterns or their ethnic Korean behaviors? If so, can you describe these differences? 8. Have you had any experiences interacting with adopted Koreans? If so, what were your experiences like? * Can you tell they are Korean adoptee, distinguishable from other Korean Americans? * What any traits/characteristics do they display that tell you that? 9. Have you ever heard of 1.5 generation Korean Americans? Do you know what they are? Have you had any experiences interacting with them? * Why do you think such a designation exists in the Korean American community? * Are there any differences between 1.5 generation and 1st generation in terms of their social/ethnic/Korean behaviors? * What sets 1.5 generation apart from 1st generation/2nd generation? 10. In your close social network, do you have 1st, 1.5, 2nd generation Korean American or Korean adoptee friends? * What do you see in common between you and your Korean American friends, compared to your non-Korean American friends? * Which group of Korean Americans (1st, 1.5, second, and Korean adoptees) do you feel closest to or have connections to? Why or why not? 11. In your opinion, are there cultural variation among the above four groups? * What parts of Korean culture do you see in 1st, 1.5, 2nd generation, and Korean adoptees? * What aspects of American culture do you see in 1st, 1.5, 2nd generation, and Korean adoptees? * In your experience, are there distinguishable markers among the four groups that set them apart from each other? If yes, what are cues, markers, indicators that help you tell such? -- 1st generation immigrants from 1.5 generation: -- 1.5 generation immigrants from 2nd generation: -- 2nd generation from Korean adoptee 12. Have you observed/heard issues raised by your generation of Korean Americans about the nature of their interaction with 1st generation (1.5 or Korean adoptee)? 189 13. Have you observed/heard issues raised by Korean adoptees about their interactions with other Korean Americans? [On self-identification] 1. Do you identify yourself as Korean, Korean American, American, Asian American, or other? * For example, when presented with documents/forms that ask you to check your race/ethnicity, how do you answer? Have you consistently answered that way and why or why not? 2. Has your self-identification changed at times depending on time and context (e.g. when, where, and who you’re with)? 3. Have other people perceived and identified you as ____ (e.g. Asian American, American, Korean, Korean American, etc.)? * What do you think is the basis of their identification? 4. Have other Koreans perceived and identified you as 2nd generation Korean American? * What do you think is the basis of their identification? 5. Do you live every day conscious of being Korean, here in Minnesota? * Are there times /situations when you feel ethnically more/less Korean than other times? Why? 6. Do you ever think of yourself as Asian (all the time or in what situations)? Why or why not? * Are there times /situations when you feel ethnically more/less Asian than other times? Why? 7. How do you describe yourself personally and culturally (e.g. compared to your first generation Korean American parents)? * What makes you feel ethnically Korean American in a personal way? 190 *Interview Guide—Korean Adoptee [On assimilation] 1. Growing up in the U.S., what was the diversity in your family and community in terms of racial make-up and cultural heritage? (e.g. white dominant, homogeneous, Scandinavian, etc.) 2. What were your parents’ values, beliefs, or understanding concerning your birth culture; Korean heritage and tradition? 3. Growing up, were you ever exposed to Korean culture? * If yes, types of exposure; camp participation, books, Korea visit * If no, please explain any circumstances; 4. Growing up, what was your school life like? Were there issues (difficulties, challenges) that you had as a minority or non-white at school that were different from your white peers? * If you had such difficulties at school, how did you try to resolve those? 5. Growing up, what was the diversity of your friends? Who constituted your close social network in terms of racial/ethnic make-up? * K-8 school years/college years/after college 6. In the past, was there any particular time that you tried to learn about another culture other than your own? * If yes, please describe how it was and what types of efforts you have made; * If no, please describe any circumstances; 7. In the past, were there any situations where you felt more/less white than others? * If yes, please describe situations; * What do you think are aspects that made you feel more/less white in the above situations? 8. What are your current values, beliefs, or understanding about mainstream American culture? 9. How do you describe yourself culturally, ethnically, and racially, in relation to both Korean and American culture? [On cultural adjustment & racial integration] 1. What is the current diversity of your friends? Who constitutes your close social network in terms of racial/ethnic make-up? When and how often do you see them? 191 2. What is the racial/ethnic make-up at your work place? * Do you socialize with your co-workers outside of work? Why or why not? 3. How often do you interact with non-whites? Please list groups and describe what those interactions are like and in what settings (e.g. business, personal, etc.) 4. Which racial/ethnic group do you feel closer to or more comfortable in interacting with and why? 5. Do you feel/think that you are fully accepted as American in the mainstream society? Why or why not? 6. Have you experienced any level of racial discrimination as a non-white? If yes, could you mention some examples? 7. Are there any situations where you feel culturally more white (or American) than Korean? * If yes, please describe those situations; * What do you think are aspects that make you feel more/less white (or American)? 8. Are you currently a member of any ethnic organizations or ethnic social clubs? Why or why not? 9. What are your thoughts and feelings about interracial marriage? 10. What are your thoughts and feeling about interracial adoption? 11. Being adopted from Korea, have you ever experienced any level of discomfort or misunderstanding from others? If yes, could you mention some examples? * From other whites or non-Koreans; * From local Korean Americans in the community; [On within-group attitude & awareness of cultural change] 1. How much of the Korean culture do you think you know or understand currently? * What are main sources of your learning Korean culture/society politically, economically, socially, culturally? (e.g. reading Korean newspapers, internet, magazines; watching Korean news, movies, TV programs, videos; listening to Korean radio/music, and etc.) 2. How much do you know about the local Korean community? * Where do you meet other Korean adoptees/local Korean Americans? 192 3. Do you feel/think that you are fully accepted as Korean by other Korean Americans in the community? Why or why not? 4. Have you observed/heard issues raised by other adopted Koreans about the nature of their interaction with other Korean Americans? (1st, 1.5, or 2nd generation)? * If yes, can you mention some examples? 5. Have you observed/heard issues raised by Korean Americans about their interactions with adopted Koreans? * If yes, can you mention some examples? 6. Have you been to Korea to visit? If yes, what were your reasons for the visit? * During your stay, did you hear Koreans’ perceptions on adopted Koreans overseas? * Did you experience any level of discomfort about your being adopted Korean while there? * Did you notice any difference between Koreans in Korea and Korean Americans in Minnesota in terms of behaviors, attitudes, communication styles, manners, etc.? 7. Are you aware of generational differences among Koran Americans such as 1st immigrant generation, 1.5, U.S.-born 2nd generation? * Why do you think such divide exists in the Korean American community? * Are there any differences between 1st and 2nd generation in terms of their social/ethnic/Korean behaviors? What sets 1st generation apart from 2nd generation? 8. In your close social network, do you have adopted Korean friends as well as other Korean American 1st, 1.5, 2nd generation friends? * What do you see in common between you and your Korean adopted friends? * Which group of Korean Americans (Korean adopted, 1st, 1.5, 2nd generation) do you feel closest to or have connections to and why? 9. In your opinion, are there cultural variations among the three groups of Korean Americans? * What parts of America culture do you see in 1st, 1.5, 2nd generation? * What aspects of Korean culture do you see in 1st, 1.5, 2nd generation? * In your experience, are there distinguishable markers among the three that set them apart from each other? If so, what are cues, markers, indicators that help you tell this? -- 1st generation immigrants from 1.5 generation: -- 1.5 generation immigrants from 2nd generation: -- 1st generation from 2nd generation; 193 [On self-identification] 1. Do you identify yourself as Korean, Korean American, American, Asian American, or other? * For example, when presented with documents/forms that ask you to check your race/ethnicity, how do you answer? Have you consistently answered that way and why or why not? 2. Has your self-identification changed at times depending on time and context (e.g. when, where, and who you’re with)? 3. Have other people perceived and identified you as ____ (e.g. Asian American, American, Korean, Korean American, etc.)? * What do you think is the basis of their identification? 4. Have other Koreans perceived and identified you as adopted Korean? * What do you think is the basis of their identification? 5. Do you live everyday conscious of being Korean (or adopted Korean) here in Minnesota? * Are there times/situations when you feel ethnically more/less Korean than other times? Why? 6. Do you ever think of yourself as Asian (all the time or in what situations)? Why or why not? * Are there times/situations when you feel ethnically more/less Asian than other times? Why? 7. How do you describe yourself personally and culturally? * What makes you feel ethnically Korean American in a personal way? 194 Appendix D Sampling Guidelines The Sampling Guidelines Related to Maximum Variation Strategy 1. For First, 1.5, Second Generation Name:_________________________ Criteria The year of immigration in the U.S. 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s Length of stay in MN 40 yrs 30 yrs 20 yrs 10 yrs Level of Education Ph. D/ Professional degrees Masters B.A. High school Community Organization Affiliation Church (Christianity) Korean School Catholic Church Buddhist Temple Educational Background in Korea Elementary/ Kindergarten Middle School High School University Neighborhood in MN Mpls St. Paul Suburb(Where) Marital status, Spouse Korean Non-Korean Language Fluency More English Both More Korean Korean Other Korean relatives in the U.S. Yes (where) No: How often do they visit Korea? Occupation Professional/ Academic Company worker Your own business Employee 195 *Notes: 196 The Sampling Guidelines Related to Maximum Variation Strategy 2. For Korean adoptees Name:_____________________________ Criteria Year of adoption 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s Neighborhood Community involvement Visit to Korea Yes (when) No Contact with birth parents Yes (since when) No Marital status, Spouse Korean/Korean adoptee Non-Korean: Educational background Below B.A. More than B.A. *Notes: