“Asian” Is a Problematic Category in Research and Practice: Insights From the Bamboo Ceiling

This article spotlights a widespread problem in research and practice: Asians are commonly categorized as a monolithic group in the United States. Regarding research, my 24-year archival analysis of Psychological Science shows that most U.S. studies did not specify which Asian subgroup(s) were examined. Regarding practice, my analysis of the diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) webpages and latest diversity reports of S&P 100 companies finds that none of them differentiated between Asian subgroups. Such use of the generic category “Asian” is problematic because it masks important differences among Asian subgroups: (a) Of all ethnic groups in the United States, socioeconomic inequality among Asian subgroups is the highest and fastest growing; (b) U.S. studies show that East Asians (e.g., ethnic Chinese)—but not South Asians (e.g., ethnic Indians)—experience a “bamboo ceiling” in consequential contexts, including leadership attainment, academic performance in law and business schools, and starting salaries. Thus, lumping Asians together can obscure the challenges faced by certain Asian subgroups and jeopardize the attention and resources they need. More broadly, this article demonstrates the importance of differentiating between ethnic subgroups in research (e.g., theorization, surveys, and data analysis) and practice (e.g., diversity reports) to foster DEI.