A Model of Spaces and Access in the Construction of Asian and Asian American Identities: “Blood Only Takes You So Far”

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Great research. Could be expanded and developed into a book length manuscript. 

The paper brings forward questions of identity, its construction and fluidity which previous scholarship sidelined; hence the paper contributes to evolving research on identity, social construction, and fluidity. This is an important contribution to the scholarship on identity and race theory. 

Author Response

Comment 1:

Great research. Could be expanded and developed into a book length manuscript. 

The paper brings forward questions of identity, its construction and fluidity which previous scholarship sidelined; hence the paper contributes to evolving research on identity, social construction, and fluidity. This is an important contribution to the scholarship on identity and race theory. 

Response 1: Thank you for the encouraging comments. I have revised my submission and will consider a book length manuscript. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review Report(genealogy-3915431)

 

The manuscript explores the identity construction processes of Asian and Asian American (AAA) students enrolled in Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs), offering notable originality and theoretical contribution. Whereas most previous research has focused on Asian American identity within predominantly White institutions (PWIs), this study uniquely situates its inquiry in a minority–minority context, expanding the conventional “White vs. non-White” framework in racial discourse. The author further proposes an innovative conceptual model, the Access to Asian Identity Spaces (AAIS), illustrating how identity is constructed through three interrelated spaces—culture, race, and relationships. This framework advances beyond linear stage models (e.g., Kim, 1981) by capturing the non-linear and interactive nature of identity formation. Methodologically, the study applies Charmaz’s Constructivist Grounded Theory (CGT) to foreground participants’ voices and generate theory from lived experiences, thus contributing meaningfully to qualitative inquiry. Overall, the study demonstrates clear contextual and conceptual originality and makes a valuable scholarly contribution.

The author employs CGT and conducts unstructured interviews with 24 participants, which is appropriate for exploring complex identity construction processes and contextual meanings. However, several methodological issues require attention to strengthen the rigor and transparency of the research design and analysis.

First, temporal validity poses a limitation. Data were collected in spring 2017, yet the analysis and theoretical framing are connected to discussions current in 2025. Significant sociopolitical developments, such as the rise in anti-Asian racism during the COVID-19 era and evolving HSI policies, may have altered AAA identity experiences substantially. The study should explicitly acknowledge this temporal gap as a limitation and, if possible, update the analysis through follow-up or supplemental sampling reflecting more recent contexts.

Second, theoretical saturation and sampling rationale are insufficiently substantiated. While the author describes adherence to CGT procedures (initial, focused, and theoretical coding), the point at which no new codes emerged, and the criteria for determining saturation, remain unspecified. The statement that earlier and later interviews were compared iteratively lacks clarity regarding sampling decisions. It is recommended to include saturation logs or theoretical sampling memos (e.g., “Category X not saturated → recruited participants with Y characteristics”) to demonstrate analytic completeness.

Third, coding and analytic transparency should be enhanced. Although the author states that interviews were self-transcribed and coded, the manuscript does not provide information about the coding framework, codebook, inter-coder agreement, discrepancy resolution, or software use. These omissions limit the reproducibility and confirmability of findings. A codebook excerpt, coding snapshot, and one or two examples tracing raw data → initial code → focused code → category → theoretical model would greatly strengthen transparency.

Fourth, interview design and procedural consistency need clarification. While the use of unstructured interviews aligns with CGT, the manuscript lacks details on follow-up question repertoires, interview duration, location, language, translation or interpretation, and ethical safeguards when discussing sensitive racial issues. The mention of an “aide-mémoire” does not sufficiently ensure cross-interview consistency. A semi-structured guide, metadata (e.g., duration, setting, language), and a brief description of translation/back-translation procedures are recommended for future work.

Fifth, researcher reflexivity and relational ethics are underdeveloped. CGT assumes interpretive engagement by the researcher, yet the manuscript does not discuss how the author’s racial/cultural identity, positionality within the field, or preconceptions may have influenced data collection and interpretation. Beyond the assertion that “participants’ voices were prioritized,” there is little evidence of critical self-reflection. A positionality statement detailing the researcher’s identity, motivation, potential biases, and field journal excerpts illustrating how intersubjectivity was managed would enhance methodological integrity.

Sixth, trustworthiness procedures are not systematically reported. There is no mention of triangulation (across data sources, investigators, or theoretical perspectives), member checking, peer debriefing, thick description, or negative case analysis. Although some institutional documents and statistics were reviewed, these were not explicitly integrated into a triangulation framework. To improve credibility, the author should report a cross-validation matrix, participant verification summaries, and a section discussing disconfirming evidence.

Seventh, ethical and IRB procedures are insufficiently documented. Although pseudonyms are used, there is no mention of IRB approval number, informed consent process, data storage and disposal policies, or measures to minimize potential psychological harm. Given the sensitivity of topics such as race, immigration, and discrimination, ethical compliance details must be explicitly reported, including informed consent elements and participant support resources.

Finally, conceptual operationalization and model clarity require elaboration. The three AAIS domains (culture, race, relationships) are richly illustrated with qualitative excerpts, yet the operational boundaries between them remain blurred—for instance, whether language proficiency constitutes a cultural or relational indicator. Moreover, Figure 1’s visual variables (size, transparency, intersection) are not sufficiently explained in analytic terms. An operational definition table and explicit mapping rules between empirical evidence and model components would increase interpretive precision and transferability.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

I truly appreciate the constructive feedback you provided as it allowed me to clarify my process and strengthen the paper. I have expanded sections (noted throughout my responses) and included additional supplementary materials. 

Comment 1: First, temporal validity poses a limitation. Data were collected in spring 2017, yet the analysis and theoretical framing are connected to discussions current in 2025. Significant sociopolitical developments, such as the rise in anti-Asian racism during the COVID-19 era and evolving HSI policies, may have altered AAA identity experiences substantially. The study should explicitly acknowledge this temporal gap as a limitation and, if possible, update the analysis through follow-up or supplemental sampling reflecting more recent contexts.

Response: Thank you for noting the limitation. I have updated the manuscript to include a Limitations section which discusses the COVID-19 pandemic. It is now section 6 of the manuscript. 

Comment 2: Second, theoretical saturation and sampling rationale are insufficiently substantiated. While the author describes adherence to CGT procedures (initial, focused, and theoretical coding), the point at which no new codes emerged, and the criteria for determining saturation, remain unspecified. The statement that earlier and later interviews were compared iteratively lacks clarity regarding sampling decisions. It is recommended to include saturation logs or theoretical sampling memos (e.g., “Category X not saturated → recruited participants with Y characteristics”) to demonstrate analytic completeness.

Response: I have included supplementary material that includes a sample of my codebook and the theoretical saturation log for the concept of access. 

Comment 3: Third, coding and analytic transparency should be enhanced. Although the author states that interviews were self-transcribed and coded, the manuscript does not provide information about the coding framework, codebook, inter-coder agreement, discrepancy resolution, or software use. These omissions limit the reproducibility and confirmability of findings. A codebook excerpt, coding snapshot, and one or two examples tracing raw data → initial code → focused code → category → theoretical model would greatly strengthen transparency.

Response: I included a sample of my codebook along with a sample of research memos in the supplemental materials. 

Comment 4: ourth, interview design and procedural consistency need clarification. While the use of unstructured interviews aligns with CGT, the manuscript lacks details on follow-up question repertoires, interview duration, location, language, translation or interpretation, and ethical safeguards when discussing sensitive racial issues. The mention of an “aide-mémoire” does not sufficiently ensure cross-interview consistency. A semi-structured guide, metadata (e.g., duration, setting, language), and a brief description of translation/back-translation procedures are recommended for future work.

Response: I expanded my section on participant recruitment which discussed the interview process (lines 463-537) and data collection (lines 650-662). 

Comment 5: Fifth, researcher reflexivity and relational ethics are underdeveloped. CGT assumes interpretive engagement by the researcher, yet the manuscript does not discuss how the author’s racial/cultural identity, positionality within the field, or preconceptions may have influenced data collection and interpretation. Beyond the assertion that “participants’ voices were prioritized,” there is little evidence of critical self-reflection. A positionality statement detailing the researcher’s identity, motivation, potential biases, and field journal excerpts illustrating how intersubjectivity was managed would enhance methodological integrity.

Response: I included a Researcher Positionality section (lines 394-419) as well as some researcher memos in the supplemental materials.

Comment 6: Sixth, trustworthiness procedures are not systematically reported. There is no mention of triangulation (across data sources, investigators, or theoretical perspectives), member checking, peer debriefing, thick description, or negative case analysis. Although some institutional documents and statistics were reviewed, these were not explicitly integrated into a triangulation framework. To improve credibility, the author should report a cross-validation matrix, participant verification summaries, and a section discussing disconfirming evidence.

Response: I included a section on the use of institutional data in the methods section (lines 672-695) as well as a theoretical saturation log for "access," a sampling of my codebook, and researcher memos.

Comment 7: Seventh, ethical and IRB procedures are insufficiently documented. Although pseudonyms are used, there is no mention of IRB approval number, informed consent process, data storage and disposal policies, or measures to minimize potential psychological harm. Given the sensitivity of topics such as race, immigration, and discrimination, ethical compliance details must be explicitly reported, including informed consent elements and participant support resources.

Response: I have included a section on IRB (lines 433-436); additionally I included a statement at the end of the manuscript as part of MDPI's required sections. There are also more details on the interview process.

Comment 7: Finally, conceptual operationalization and model clarity require elaboration. The three AAIS domains (culture, race, relationships) are richly illustrated with qualitative excerpts, yet the operational boundaries between them remain blurred—for instance, whether language proficiency constitutes a cultural or relational indicator. Moreover, Figure 1’s visual variables (size, transparency, intersection) are not sufficiently explained in analytic terms. An operational definition table and explicit mapping rules between empirical evidence and model components would increase interpretive precision and transferability.

Response: I replaced the previous figure 2 with another that outlines the properties of each identity space for clarity. 

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This research has the potential to contribute to the field in significant ways, but the current manuscript is deficient in many aspects of “race” and racism. The harm caused by the creation of “race” is never fully explored and this raises considerable doubts as to how informed the authors. Please see comments attached to the accompanying Word doc of this manuscript.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comment: This research has the potential to contribute to the field in significant ways, but the current manuscript is deficient in many aspects of “race” and racism. The harm caused by the creation of “race” is never fully explored and this raises considerable doubts as to how informed the authors. Please see comments attached to the accompanying Word doc of this manuscript.

Response: Thank you for your feedback. I have worked to update a number of sections to address the issues with terminology. I updated my introduction to more clearly outline the impact of racialization and racism. I have included additional analysis examining the experiences of participants which highlight racism in this context. Additionally I have included a section on the use of terminology (lines 318-332). I did not make significant changes as it would result in a complete rewrite of this manuscript.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper is an interesting investigation into some aspects of self-identified race and ethnicity, and how these interface with emergent aggregated attributions, labelled with contested terms such as “Asian” and “Asian American” which serve to conceal the underlying diversity within such aggregations.  As such it invokes important processes such as ethnic mobility and ethnogenesis and the interaction between ethnic identification and emic/etic complexities.  One strength in this paper is the overt recognition of multiple ethnic self-identification and multi-racial identification within the context of emergent AA/AAA labelling, as well as the fluidity of dimensions of identity.

Given the significance of the underlying concepts, it is interesting that the author seems not to have engaged with the major, and voluminous, work on the topic of both race and ethnicity.  The important work of Omi and Winant is cited, as is Bonilla-Silva, but important work by people such as Miri Song, Michael Banton, and Ann Morning (except indirectly via Pierce’s review of her main book) seem overlooked. 

Also given that so much depends for this study on the validity and promotion of terms derived from administrative processes such as census, and a prescribed selection criterion of self-identification as Asian or Asian American (line 327) it might useful to at least ponder whether people who might otherwise have formed part of the subject population but actively rejected this ascription may hold different perspectives.  The age constraint (line 333) seems very odd since the participants were (as expected) of various ages – unless this should read “at least 18 years and one day”.  Nonetheless, the description of methods and the background is sound.

It might be unfortunate that the sample contained one “Indian” only (not revealed what her ethnicity was beyond this … Punjabi? Gujarati? Bengali?) because this means that the survey is otherwise very much East Asian and Southeast Asian focused. Moreover, it is clear from lines 974-982 that there are dimensions of identity formation in her case which differ from the others – suggesting that there is more nuanced work that could follow from this paper. The outcome is a partial view and the complexity of AA and AAA. However, good to see that multi-racial identifications are clearly spelled out since, as noted, people may have multiple identifications and these may change over time and according to context.

The paper recognises well that the specific environment (Sun Valley) differs markedly from other parts of the US and the voices of the participants come through very clearly. Section 4 is a good overview. My own preference would be to see ethnicities treated equitably rather than as “subethnic Asian” (lines 409-410) since this tends to reify the aggregation of the Asian grouping of ethnicities (and/or racial descriptor), inadequately respecting people’s own identification – a further consequence is that it makes analysis of those who choose specifically to identify as Asian American difficult if they are subsumed within the category (along with all others with ethnicities within the grouping) because of the way in which official administrative data is output as large aggregated putative groups.

The data analysis approach is well described – important since how data is analysed matters.  One point that is worth considering in the light of lines 462-463 – scrutinising data specifically for details that support a theory risks missing details that do NOT support the theory (i.e. confirmation bias). Section 5 is overall extremely interesting and a thorough reporting of the findings.  Figure 2 seems to not quite fit – it could be omitted or, if retained, it would need some more detailed explanation of the components and their relationship to social context and identity.  The text seems to cover these topic well enough without the diagram – but if retained the labelling of the diagram would need more work.

The concluding section, although rather short, is well written and follows well from the body of the paper. There is much in this section that could, and should, be developed further, if not here, then in subsequent papers.

Author Response

Thank you for the constructive feedback. I appreciated the recommended readings as well as notes on terminology used. 

Comment 1: Given the significance of the underlying concepts, it is interesting that the author seems not to have engaged with the major, and voluminous, work on the topic of both race and ethnicity.  The important work of Omi and Winant is cited, as is Bonilla-Silva, but important work by people such as Miri Song, Michael Banton, and Ann Morning (except indirectly via Pierce’s review of her main book) seem overlooked. 

Response: I am very appreciative of the suggestions to include Song, Banton, and Morning. I had not been exposed to their work and enjoyed reading what I could during this short interval. As there was not extensive time to dive deeply into their work, I cited Morning and Song's work where I could (lines 49-42; 1635-1665; 1663-1665). 

Comment 2: Also given that so much depends for this study on the validity and promotion of terms derived from administrative processes such as census, and a prescribed selection criterion of self-identification as Asian or Asian American (line 327) it might useful to at least ponder whether people who might otherwise have formed part of the subject population but actively rejected this ascription may hold different perspectives.  The age constraint (line 333) seems very odd since the participants were (as expected) of various ages – unless this should read “at least 18 years and one day”.  Nonetheless, the description of methods and the background is sound.

Response: I updated my section on participants to discuss how they were able to enter their identity in an open-ended question on the demographic survey (lines 492-495) and outlined how my participants described their identity (lines 495-514). I also changed the typo regarding the inclusion criteria of age (now line 462). 

Comment 3: It might be unfortunate that the sample contained one “Indian” only (not revealed what her ethnicity was beyond this … Punjabi? Gujarati? Bengali?) because this means that the survey is otherwise very much East Asian and Southeast Asian focused. Moreover, it is clear from lines 974-982 that there are dimensions of identity formation in her case which differ from the others – suggesting that there is more nuanced work that could follow from this paper. The outcome is a partial view and the complexity of AA and AAA. However, good to see that multi-racial identifications are clearly spelled out since, as noted, people may have multiple identifications and these may change over time and according to context.

Response: Thank you for your kind words. Geeta mentioned Telegu during the interview. I also included a limitations of the study outlining the heavy representation of East Asian participants.

Comment 4: The paper recognises well that the specific environment (Sun Valley) differs markedly from other parts of the US and the voices of the participants come through very clearly. Section 4 is a good overview. My own preference would be to see ethnicities treated equitably rather than as “subethnic Asian” (lines 409-410) since this tends to reify the aggregation of the Asian grouping of ethnicities (and/or racial descriptor), inadequately respecting people’s own identification – a further consequence is that it makes analysis of those who choose specifically to identify as Asian American difficult if they are subsumed within the category (along with all others with ethnicities within the grouping) because of the way in which official administrative data is output as large aggregated putative groups.

Response: I removed "subethnic" from this section. Thank you for pointing this out to me. 

Comment 5: The data analysis approach is well described – important since how data is analysed matters.  One point that is worth considering in the light of lines 462-463 – scrutinising data specifically for details that support a theory risks missing details that do NOT support the theory (i.e. confirmation bias). Section 5 is overall extremely interesting and a thorough reporting of the findings.  Figure 2 seems to not quite fit – it could be omitted or, if retained, it would need some more detailed explanation of the components and their relationship to social context and identity.  The text seems to cover these topic well enough without the diagram – but if retained the labelling of the diagram would need more work.

Response: I replaced figure 2 with another that details the properties associated with each identity space. Additionally I included a sample of my codebook, the theoretical saturation log for "access", and researcher memos in the supplementary materials. 

Comment 6: The concluding section, although rather short, is well written and follows well from the body of the paper. There is much in this section that could, and should, be developed further, if not here, then in subsequent papers.

Response: I expanded the conclusion. 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I would like to sincerely thank the authors for their careful and thorough revisions, which clearly demonstrate a strong commitment to addressing the previous review comments with diligence, intellectual rigor, and professionalism. The newly added components—such as the expanded positionality statement, enhanced methodological transparency, explicit IRB documentation, clarified interview procedures, and the inclusion of supplementary materials including the codebook, saturation log, and research memos—significantly strengthen the credibility, clarity, and trustworthiness of the study. These revisions have greatly improved the theoretical grounding of the manuscript, the transparency of constructivist grounded theory procedures, and the richness with which participants’ identity constructions are situated within their sociocultural contexts. While the manuscript is now substantially strengthened and is suitable for publication, I offer two minor suggestions for refinement: a few sentences in the Introduction and Methods sections may still benefit from light smoothing for improved readability, and the authors might consider briefly clarifying how the proposed model could be applied or adapted to institutional contexts beyond the U.S. Southwest. These are modest recommendations that do not detract from the overall quality of the manuscript. I deeply appreciate the authors’ thoughtful engagement with the feedback and commend their significant effort in producing a much stronger and meaningful scholarly contribution.

Author Response

Comment: I offer two minor suggestions for refinement: a few sentences in the Introduction and Methods sections may still benefit from light smoothing for improved readability, and the authors might consider briefly clarifying how the proposed model could be applied or adapted to institutional contexts beyond the U.S. Southwest. 

Response: Thank you for the supportive and kind words regarding my work. I have updated sections of my introduction and methods for improved readability (lines 27, 28, 38-51, 70-76, 518, 706-711, 722-726, 784-786). I also included additional subheadings in the methods to better organize my Participants Recruitment section (subheading 4.2). Regarding the recommendation to discuss how the proposed model could be applied or adapted to other contexts, I included additional text (lines 1613-1646) which details how the model might be used beyond the U.S. Southwest. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The changes that the author has made to this manuscript strengthens this research significantly. I still have one or two minor concerns:

• One being not seeing a stronger and more direct discussion/emphasis on the role 'power' has and still plays in the construction and maintenance of 'race'.
• I also disagree in the strongest of terms with the sentiment behind the in-text citation of Song (2017), asserting that "race is not a term we can fully decouple from racism, and racialization. The participants’ reflections in this study reaffirm that entanglement." (Ln 2452).  I wholeheartedly believe via my own research and scholarship that indeed "race" and racism CAN be decoupled...in fact, it is imperative that we MUST decouple them in order to get out of the  predicament "race's" construction has placed us in. The author accurately points out the corroboration of the participants to Song's assertion, yet they fail to note that the participants themselves are victims of a system that has convinced them and scholars alike of the realness and permanence of "race" (it is neither).
• The new addition to the Introduction is quite strong and set me up to read a completely different paper than the initial version.
• The addition of the "Researcher Positionality" is quite powerful and effective
• Addition of Limitations section strong
• Discussion section is greatly improved with additions and changes
• Check line 2518... it still has "AA" instead of "AAA" 

Author Response

Comment 1: One being not seeing a stronger and more direct discussion/emphasis on the role 'power' has and still plays in the construction and maintenance of 'race'.

Response 1: Thank you for helping me to strengthen my work as it relates to racism and racialization. I have included additional text highlighting the power in the maintenance of race in lines 38-51, 209-210, 214-216, 249-250, 274-278, 350-355, 389-400, and 849-867.

Comment 2: I also disagree in the strongest of terms with the sentiment behind the in-text citation of Song (2017), asserting that "race is not a term we can fully decouple from racism, and racialization. The participants’ reflections in this study reaffirm that entanglement." (Ln 2452).  I wholeheartedly believe via my own research and scholarship that indeed "race" and racism CAN be decoupled...in fact, it is imperative that we MUST decouple them in order to get out of the  predicament "race's" construction has placed us in. The author accurately points out the corroboration of the participants to Song's assertion, yet they fail to note that the participants themselves are victims of a system that has convinced them and scholars alike of the realness and permanence of "race" (it is neither).

Response 2: I appreciate the strength this perspective has added to my paper. I updated the section to note that while participants connected race and racism, the decoupling of the two is necessary. I included references and this can be found in lines 1682-1710. 

Comment 3: Check line 2518... it still has "AA" instead of "AAA" 

Response 3: The version sent back for updates did not contain line 2518, however I reviewed the manuscript and made changes for consistency.