An Inextricable Link: The Essential Relationship Between the Establishment and Institutionalization of Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander-Serving Institutions Programs

Abstract

As colleges and universities become more racially diverse, strategies for diversity initiatives have become more commonplace. Minority-Serving Institutions (MSI), including Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander-Serving Institutions (AANAPISI), secure federal funding to support these efforts. AANAPISIs receive funding from the U.S. Department of Education to serve their Asian American and Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander students. To ensure sustainability after funding ends, the U.S. Department of Education requires AANAPISIs to report their institutionalization efforts. This accountability measure, combined with the temporary nature of federal grants, necessitates that AANAPISIs focus on maintaining their programs beyond the funding period. This two-site case study of a community college on the west coast and a regional comprehensive university on the east coast examines how AANAPISIs begin to institutionalize their programs during their early design and establishment period. Understanding this process reveals how AANAPISIs and other MSIs can sustain their programs and transform institutions to better serve minoritized students. The findings offer implications for institutional practice, public policy, and future research.

Keywords

Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander-Serving Institutions (AANAPISI)Asian American and Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander (AA&NHPI)capacity building institutionalization Minority-Serving Institutions (MSI)

Introduction

As college campuses increasingly become more racially diverse, conversations and strategies regarding diversity initiatives have become more commonplace. Diversity initiatives comprise a wide range of curriculum, activities, agendas, and offices that work to promote positive racial identity development, cross-racial/ethnic interactions, equity in access and retention, and campus environments that support specific minoritized groups and challenge racism and oppression on campus (Bowman, 2010; Chang et al., 2006; Denson & Chang, 2009; Denson et al., 2021; Milem et al., 2005; Patton et al., 2019). Colleges and universities have increasingly relied on their status as Minority-Serving Institutions (MSI) to secure federal funding to support this important work (M. H. Nguyen, Ramirez, & Laderman, 2023). Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander-Serving Institutions (AANAPISI) are one of the most recent MSI designations established by Congress. Colleges and universities can receive funding from the U.S. Department of Education (ED) under this designation to develop programs to serve their Asian American and Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander (AA&NHPI) students. These funded AANAPISIs secure their federal resources through a competitive grant application and often use those financial resources to develop programs on their campuses with a focus on three primary and interconnected domains: (a) academic and student support services, (b) leadership, mentorship, and community-based opportunities, and (c) research and resource development (Teranishi, 2011). More often than not, colleges and universities are solely reliant on these federal funds for their AANAPISI programs, with limited funding or desire to prioritize resources from the institution to establish and maintain these services for AA&NHPI students. This situation is not dissimilar to many other diversity initiatives that are deprioritized, minimized, or would never exist without external funding (Mac et al., 2019; M. H. Nguyen, 2019; Patton et al., 2019).

Federal AANAPISI funding provides critical and necessary support “to enable such institutions to improve and expand their capacity to serve” AA&NHPI students (U.S. Department of Education, 2022, para. 1). In doing so, they provide these competitive grants over a 5-year period to design, establish, and implement AANAPISI programs. After the 5-year lifecycle of the grant, some institutions do not continue to receive federal funding for their AANAPISI programs either because they were not awarded a new grant or did not reapply during the next competitive cycle. To ensure that institutions sustain their work after federal funding ends, ED now requires AANAPISIs to report efforts to institutionalize their programs (e.g., U.S. Department of Education, 2023). This specific accountability measure, coupled with the temporary nature of federal grant funding, requires funded AANAPISIs to focus on efforts that maintain and sustain their programs in the event that they are unable to secure continued federal funding. Indeed, Hurtado (2007) noted that “external funding agencies that support undergraduate initiatives look for greater coordination across broad campus units, with a clear guiding rationale that will lead to the institutionalization of innovative approaches” (p. 187). Scholars have identified several phases when institutionalization activities emerge (Kezar, 2001, 2007). One key moment may occur during the primary design and establishment of programmatic activities (Borrego et al., 2014; Goodman & Steckler, 1989; Yin et al., 1978). Research has detailed the necessity for early conversations and coordination with multiple campus constituencies to communicate broader visions, set plans and priorities for action, and create the necessary infrastructure and support systems to begin laying the foundation for this massive undertaking (Kezar, 2007; Lee & Nguyen, 2022). Thus, the purpose of this study was to explore how funded AANAPISIs begin to institutionalize their programs, particularly during their early moments of program design and establishment. More specifically, the following questions guided this study.

How does the design and establishment of AANAPISI programs contribute to their institutionalization?

What are the programmatic components used to establish AANAPISI programs that support early institutionalization efforts?

What is the process by which these programmatic components are implemented?

What are the racialized implications of institutionalization?

Given that the AANAPISI designation was created with the expectation that colleges and universities serve AA&NHPI students in sustainable ways, it is necessary to understand how funded AANAPISIs are using these capacity-building resources to design, establish, and institutionalize their programming. Doing so will yield insights into how AANAPISIs, and all MSIs, can sustain their programs on campus to serve minoritized students, as well as how those efforts can begin to transform colleges and universities in broader ways.

Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander-Serving Institutions

As an enrollment-based MSI, AANAPISIs must (1) maintain at least a 10% undergraduate student population that identifies as AA&NHPI and (2) meet the eligibility requirements as outlined in Section 312(b) of the Higher Education Act, which is often understood as maintaining a lower-than-average educational expenditure and enrolling a significant number of low-income students, among other requirements (M. H. Nguyen et al., 2023). As discussed previously, after meeting these eligibility requirements, institutions then can apply for a competitive AANAPISI grant. These 5-year federal grants, as administered by ED, range in amounts from $1.5 to $2 million and are often used to establish AANAPISI programs to serve AA&NHPI students (M. H. Nguyen et al., 2020). Given dwindling resources to support racialized work in higher education (Hamilton & Nielsen, 2021), coupled with the temporary nature of federal grants, AANAPISI programs are organizationally precarious and look for pathways to sustain themselves, if not transform, institutional operations that incorporate this work into the campus (Lee & Tomaneng, 2020). In support of this agenda, AANAPISI programs are typically comprised of multiple and interconnected offices and units on campus, including academic departments that provide AA&NHPI-centered curriculum, student affairs units that offer academic support and cocurricular programming, and research centers that provide opportunities for students to engage in research activities (M. H. Nguyen, 2025; M. H. Nguyen et al., 2024). AANAPISIs often seek to demonstrate their added value on campus by showcasing their ability to serve and support students (Fong et al., 2022; Maramba & Fong, 2020).

Indeed, studies have demonstrated how AANAPISI programs benefit a variety of student outcomes, including grade-point average, persistence, transfer from community college to university, degree attainment, positive racial identity development, sense of belonging, and campus/civic engagement (Museus et al., 2018; National Commission on Asian American and Pacific Islander Research in Education (CARE), 2013; M. H. Nguyen, 2022; B. M. D. Nguyen et al., 2015; M. H. Nguyen et al., 2021; T. H. Nguyen et al., 2018; Teranishi et al., 2014, 2015). Some of this research also pays unique attention to specific subgroups, including Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander (NHPI) students (Cuenza-Uvas & Gogue, 2022), Southeast Asian American students (Chu, 2022; M. H. Nguyen, 2020; Yang et al., 2021), military veterans (Kiang et al., 2019a, 2019b), and community college students (Kim et al., 2023). Other studies have explored the role and impact of specific institutional agents at AANAPISIs, such as program directors, faculty, and staff (Hoang, 2022; Mac et al., 2024; M. H. Nguyen, 2023; B. M. D. Nguyen et al., 2022), collaborations between different AANAPISIs (Catallozzi et al., 2019), and science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education (Kim et al., 2023; Teranishi et al., 2013).

Much of the growing literature on AANAPISIs is practitioner focused and details specific activities that are offered through different AANAPISI programs (e.g., Fong et al., 2022; Maramba & Fong, 2020). For example, scholars have written about designing and implementing culturally relevant leadership initiatives (Gogue et al., 2021), the utility and benefits of writing programs (Kem et al., 2020), mental health and well-being of AA&NHPI students (Liu, 2022), data disaggregation (B. M. D. Nguyen et al., 2014), and the transformative nature of new pedagogical innovations, such as student-produced digital stories (Tang, 2020).

Additionally, there is also a growing body of empirical research that explores a wide range of phenomena. For example, Alcantar et al. (2019) examined how institutional agents at two community college AANAPISIs made meaning of their new MSI status. Given the harmful and persistent stereotype that Asian American students and, by racialized (mis)extension, NHPIs are misunderstood as model minorities who do not need specific attention or educational resources at AANAPISIs. Their study showcased the tensions that emerge when institutions become AANAPISIs. Despite these tensions, the study also highlighted the increased awareness of AA&NHPI students and their experiences on campus and the opportunity to develop new commitments to serve them. Museus et al. (2022) extended this work by examining how AANAPISI programs respond to structural racism and in so doing complicate the AANAPISI designation, particularly with respect to how becoming an AANAPISI can establish new and wonderful spaces for AA&NHPI students, while simultaneously demonstrating that “the model minority myth and a scarcity of resources dedicated to racial equity efforts can converge to induce competition among minoritized communities, fuel perceptions of a systemic favoring of AAPIs, and spark resentment toward AAPI-specific initiatives” (p. 469).

This new knowledge greatly contributes to the field’s understanding of the critical role that AANAPISIs play in expanding educational opportunities for AA&NHPIs, as well as the complications they face. However, given the realities of how AANAPISI programs are financed, there is a need to explicitly examine how academic curriculum, co-curricular programming, and research opportunities at AANAPISIs are institutionalized for the long term and how this may affect the broader campus community that houses them. At the moment, there appears to be limited, if any, empirical studies that explore this phenomenon. Given that prior literature, while emerging, has explored the many different programmatic facets of AANAPISI programs and how they serve students, it is critical to explore how these programs are developed, maintained, and sustained through intentional institutionalization efforts.

Institutionalization and Capacity Building

A wide range of definitions is used to understand institutionalization. However, it is often described in the literature as the “long-term viability and integration of a new program within an organization” (Steckler & Goodman, 1989, p. 34) or the “incorporation of innovative programs into the formal structure of a college or university” (Ross, 1976, p. 148). Institutionalization is a “complex process that requires sustained institutional commitment and support from key stakeholders” (Furco & Moely, 2012, p. 128), where organizational members do not perceive the program or innovation as a separate and special entity but rather as an integral part of the institution and its operations (Curry, 1992). These programs are often established with external funding sources (Colbeck, 2002), especially for racialized innovations that institutions may not necessarily prioritize or deem as valuable or necessary (Chesler et al., 2005). This seed funding is expected to provide the resources to begin building capacity for programs and initiatives that may not be prioritized by the institution as a whole but are instead valued by specific constituencies within the organization as well as the external entity providing the funding. However, in this contemporary fiscal landscape, colleges are increasingly seeking external sources of funding to sustain these types of work in the face of austerity measures (Hamilton & Nielsen, 2021). Consequently, programs such as diversity initiatives may be reduced, discarded, or left to fizzle out if external funding expires (Colbeck, 2002; Curry, 1992; Patton et al., 2019). But funding and de jure policies alone will not institutionalize programs. Changing attitudes, values, perspectives, and behaviors is also necessary for institutionalizing diversity initiatives, which can prove to be especially polarizing and politically challenging (Chesler et al., 2005; Hurtado et al., 2012). Thus, an examination of efforts to institutionalize programs requires detailed attention to both the organizational environments of colleges and universities (Bess & Dee, 2008) and the individual levels, with particular consideration to institutional leaders (Kezar, 2007), faculty (Furco & Moely, 2012), and staff (M. H. Nguyen, 2023).

Research on institutionalization often situates this final phase within the cannon of organizational change literature, among two others: implementation and capacity building (Kezar, 2007). In other words, before institutionalization of programs can occur, capacity-building efforts must be underway. Put simply, capacity building and institutionalization are linked, where innovations need resources to be provided before such programs can be fully adopted into an organization—where there remains some slipperiness and uncertainty in determining when one phase concludes and another commences (Kezar, 2007). In addition to the ambiguity of phases, capacity building, like institutionalization, has been defined in myriad ways by scholars. For example, Potter and Brough (2004) noted that capacity building often has been reduced to “merely a euphemism referring to little more than training” (p. 336). Han (2014) and Andrews et al. (2010) argued that capacity building is a process that, if conducted appropriately, can result in the institutionalization and sustainment of programs. Thus, their multidimensional framework to examine the role of capacity building for sustainable organizations serves as a useful approach to investigate the process in which AANAPISIs institutionalize their programs. Dissimilar to others, this framework is focused on process through three interconnected components: (1) public recognition, (2) member engagement, and (3) leadership development. The multi-dimensional framework of Han (2014) and Andrews et al. (2010) is ideal because it examines the process of how developing and establishing new programs contribute to institutionalization efforts, thus isolating the specific moment where federal AANAPISI funds provide the necessary capacity-building resources to develop and sustain educational programs for AA&NHPI students. Furthermore, the framework allows for the accounting of this work at the individual, program, and organization levels (Baggetta et al., 2013) while recognizing that AANAPISI programs are loosely coupled and operate in a wide variety of institutional environments that are dynamic (Cameron, 1986; Knoke & Prensky, 1984).

Racialized Organizational Change

Missing from these approaches is the racialized nature of AANAPISIs and their programs. AANAPISIs are racial projects (Park & Teranishi, 2008), and their programs are federally funded race-affirmative initiatives (M. H. Nguyen, 2022). Racial projects involve the racialized redistribution of resources (Omi & Winant, 2015), which is particularly salient for institutionalization efforts on campus. While these programs are initially externally funded, sustaining AANAPISI programs requires deliberate action (M. H. Nguyen, 2022), which can intentionally and unintentionally shape how AANAPISIs advance their work beyond the scope of a time-limited federal grant. This is especially critical because institutionalization of programs at AANAPISIs is then not a race-neutral process but instead, and similar to organizational change focused on racialized populations, is imbued with producing and reproducing racial hierarchies and inequalities (Ray, 2019). Thus, a complementary framework that details how organizations change and advance toward a multicultural context is necessary. Specifically, Chesler et al. (2005) argued that colleges and universities endeavor toward a multicultural environment through three stages—monocultural, transitional, and multicultural. And embedded within each stage are eight dimensions (i.e., mission, culture, power, membership, climate, technology, resources, and boundary management) that organizationally account for key aspects of the college environment. Indeed, AANAPISIs, as enrollment-based MSIs, are predominately White institutions that over time see a change in racial demographics to at least 10% AA&NHPI undergraduate enrollment to meet federally constructed requirements, and then intentionally secured external funds to develop programs to serve their students (M. H. Nguyen, 2022). Furthermore, “becoming an AANAPISI” can more accurately be described as developing a federally funded AANAPISI program, which is a siloed unit within the institution, whereas the institution itself continues to operate as a predominately White institution (M. H. Nguyen, 2025).

Accordingly, these frameworks provide a distinct lens to examine the process by which capacity-building efforts contribute to the design, establishment, and institutionalization of AANAPISI programs and the racialized implications of this process. Specifically, the components and dimensions of the frameworks of Andrews et al. (2010), Han (2014), and Chesler et al. (2005) were adapted into an integrated model. By doing so, careful attention to core assumptions, especially those concerning the dynamics between specific dimensions and components and the reasoning that supports these connections, is critical. Thus, the eight dimensions of Chesler et al. (2005) would be expected to be integrated into the three components of Han (2014) and Andrews et al. (2010)¹ in the following ways:

Public recognition: mission, culture, power, resources, and boundaries

Member engagement: mission, culture, power, membership, and resources

Leadership development: mission, culture, power, social climate/relations, technology, and resources

The conceptual framework maintains 16 discrete elements, where an explanation of each individual element can be found in Appendix A. For example, the dimensions of Chesler et al. (2005), such as mission, culture, resources, and power, are expected to be adapted to the overall direction of AANAPISI efforts and thus are applied across all three of the components of Han (2014) and Andrews et al. (2010), where each has a unique adapted element that explains the expected actions, practices, and/or operating guidelines. Specifically, the element that adapts the leadership development component and power dimension details whose voices are legitimized, whose needs are prioritized, and how decisions about the program direction, practices, and sustainability are made within an AANAPISI program.

In contrast, other dimensions may align more narrowly depending on the specific focus of each component. For example, there is only one element for an adapted membership dimension within the member engagement component because it shapes the practices that are necessary to recruit members and to achieve compositional diversity in the AANAPISI program. These frameworks are complementary when integrated into elements and offer a view into the racialized process of capacity-building efforts to institutionalize AANAPISI programs. In totality, they suggest that if AANAPISIs are sustaining their initiatives, there must be a deliberate preservation of programming that centers the racial identities, lived experiences, and cultural knowledge of AA&NHPI students.

Methodology

This study used a two-site case study approach (Yin, 2014). Both AANAPISI programs are bounded systems within the institution and are ideal for a case study design (Merriam, 2009). The first study site was Atlantic Harbor University (AHU; a pseudonym), a large and urban public regional comprehensive university on the east coast, which was in the third year of its AANAPISI grant at the time of data collection. The second study site was Pacific Valley College (PVC; a pseudonym), a very large public community college on the west coast, which was in the final year of its AANAPISI grant at the time of data collection. Both institutions were selected because of their differing characteristics in order to develop maximum variation (Merriam, 2009). Additionally, this two-tailed design, of selecting cases from both extremes, allows for potential similarities to emerge between two different institutions contrasted by institutional type and geography (Yin, 2014). Additionally, AHU and PVC mirror the national AANAPISI landscape, which is nearly evenly split between community colleges and universities, as well as their heavy concentration on both the east and west coasts (M. H. Nguyen, Gogue, et al., 2023). These methodologic approaches allowed for broader insights into the process of institutionalization and the necessary programmatic components at AANAPISIs, especially to identify “common patterns that emerge from great variation” that are “of particular interest and value in capturing the core experiences and central, shared dimensions of a setting or phenomenon” (Patton, 2002, p. 234).

Data Sources

Based on Yin’s (2014) case study approach, three sources of data were collected to facilitate triangulation and to ensure trustworthiness. The first data source was documents (30 at AHU and 33 at PVC), which consisted of the websites, syllabi, and marketing and flyers for events and activities of the institutions and AANAPISI programs, internal operations documents regarding the development and implementation of the AANAPISI program, evaluation reports, and research publications and scholarship from AANAPISI faculty, staff, and students. The second data source was observations of classes, meetings between AANAPISI staff and students, and co-curricular activities (six at AHU and four at PVC). The third data source was interviews with 30 participants (16 at AHU and 14 at PVC), where 10 were faculty members, seven were staff, five were administrators, and eight were students. Semistructured interviews were conducted using a modified Seidman (2013) approach, where the context of the participants’ experience, the details of the experience within the study context, and reflections of the participants’ experience of the context were incorporated in one interview lasting approximately 60 minutes. The audio recordings were transcribed verbatim by a third-party transcription service.

Data-collection procedures were developed to align with the components and dimensions of the conceptual frameworks. The interview protocol was developed based on the intersection of the multidimensional capacity-building components of Andrews et al. (2010) and Han (2014) with the eight dimensions of the multicultural and racialized framework of Chesler et al. (2005). For example, a question that focused on the member engagement component and resources dimension was, “Can you describe how the funding has implications for retaining personnel integral to responding to the needs of AA&NHPI students on campus?” With respect to the leadership development component and the resources dimension, a question was, “With regard to funding, does the school or other external programs/organizations contribute to the AANAPISI program?” And a question focused on the public recognition and boundaries dimension was, “How have you perceived the AANAPISI program transforming and/or impacting your school?”

Data Analysis

While data collection was ongoing and then when collection was completed, the data were organized into a navigable and systematic case study database based on the analytic coding strategies that were derived from the conceptual frameworks (Patton, 2002; Yin, 2014). Doing so allowed for the creation of a case description for both AHU’s and PVC’s AANAPISI programs. After the database was developed, six iterative steps as detailed by Yin (2014) were used to guide data analysis. They were (1) making an initial theoretical statement or an initial explanatory proposition, (2) comparing the findings of an initial case against such a statement or proposition, (3) revising the statement or proposition, (4) comparing other details of the case against the revision, (5) comparing the revision to the findings from a second, third, or more cases, and (6) repeating this process as many times as needed (Yin, 2014, p. 149). To initiate the analysis, theoretical and explanatory propositions were first created using a priori codes drawn from the components and dimensions outlined in the conceptual frameworks (Saldaña, 2016). For example, the code “shared authority to recruit and retain administrators, staff, faculty, and students at the AANAPISI program” reflected the member engagement component and integrated with the power dimension.² As the analytic process progressed, these initial codes were eventually revised and grouped into a series of themes that emerged from the codes in order to explore how capacity-building efforts contributed to the institutionalization of AANAPISI programs.

Finally, after data analysis from both AHU and PVC was completed, a cross-case analysis was conducted to establish if there were similarities between both institutions. This required two stages of data analysis, where the first stage or within-case analysis focused on treating each case “as a compressive case in and of itself” (Merriam, 2009, p. 204). Then the cross-case analysis was conducted between the two study sites. The entire data-analysis process relied on explanation building in order to construct general explanations for both AANAPISI programs (Yin, 2014).

Trustworthiness, Limitations, and Considerations

Multiple strategies were used to ensure trustworthiness in the results. First, both campuses were visited on several occasions to maintain engagement with the participants. This also allowed for multiple data-collection points over time to account for any unanticipated events and activities, should they occur (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Furthermore, multiple sources of data were sought to facilitate triangulation. This allowed for comparison and verification across forms of data, times, and different participants—each offering distinct experiences and perspectives at their respective AANAPISI programs (Merriam, 2009). Member checks also were conducted in person with study participants as well as peer reviews with other AANAPISI researchers, staff, faculty, administrators, and students to strengthen internal validity (Merriam, 2009).

While steps were taken to uphold the trustworthiness in the findings, there remain limitations to consider for this study. First, although there were multiple data points, they all occurred during a single year, which reduces the ability to interpret how institutionalized these components were over time. Second, both study sites were selected because of their long-established AANAPISI programs. AHU and PVC are institutions that received early AANAPISI grants, closer in date to the establishment of the designation, and for their specific institutional type (i.e., regional comprehensive university and community college). While this may be ideal for a study that examines institutionalization, it is important to note that both institutions already maintained specific AA&NHPI-focused units, offices, policies, and individuals that may not exist at other AANAPISIs. This may signal a general openness to AA&NHPI initiatives on campus. Thus, findings reflect the uniqueness of these two AANAPISIs, and other campuses without similar preexisting units and/or levels of receptivity to support AA&NHPI communities may face different challenges. Nonetheless, the process of institutionalizing new initiatives at both research sites offer insights to support sustaining efforts at a variety of AANAPISIs.

Positionality

I am an Asian American researcher, where my racial and ethnic identity greatly shapes my worldview and commitment to ensuring that AA&NHPIs in higher education, especially at AANAPISIs, are understood in their fullest. This perspective shapes my research agenda toward a critical orientation, which warrants that my work provides a fuller portrait of the AA&NHPI experience and the heterogeneity, complexity, beauty, and contradictions associated with our diverse communities. It is my own personal expectation that I intentionally engage with the broader AANAPISI and MSI communities to advance an agenda focused on racial equity for AA&NHPIs and Black, Indigenous, and Communities of Color. Thus, this research study is unambiguously framed with the specific purpose and hope to inform the necessary work of institutional leaders, AANAPISI/MSI practitioners, researchers, advocates, policymakers, and students.

Findings

This findings section is organized into three subsections. The first focuses on the preliminary organization and design of the AANAPISIs in supporting the establishment of their programs. The second details the process of establishing PVC’s and AHU’s AANAPISI programs and how they began to contribute to institutionalization. The third examines the extent of these efforts and their impact on the institution, particularly focusing on how AANAPISI program staff and faculty navigated racialized resistance across their campuses.

Organization and Design of the AANAPISI Programs

The institutionalization process began early as AHU and PVC established their AANAPISI programs. To understand the context of how these efforts began to support the institutionalization of AANAPISI components, it is necessary to recognize how these programs were designed and organized.

Pacific Valley College

PVC’s AANAPISI program was established through three primary and preexisting institutional units: a robust and nimble AA&NHPI Leadership Institute, an Asian American Studies program, and a Learning Communities (LC) initiative. Internal planning documents detailed that within the LCs, classes were linked together, where students enrolled in two connected courses in the same term with the same group of students. The curriculum for both courses was interconnected and scaffolded one after another. Although many of the courses existed prior to the AANAPISI grant, specific classes were identified and repackaged to form an AA&NHPI-specific linked class. Some of these courses were housed in the writing and math departments as necessary general education requirements, whereas others were housed within PVC’s Asian American Studies program. Additionally, course syllabi and internal documents, such as flyers for events featuring prominent local AA&NHPI community leaders, showcased the direct link of co-curricular programming from the AA&NHPI Leadership Institute with specific course content.

New initiatives that were created with AANAPISI funding combined robust student services with faculty and staff development to support the academic and professional growth of both students and educators. Embedded within the LCs, AANAPISI staff provide essential services such as counseling, academic advising, and workshops focusing on transfer processes, scholarship applications, and other academic strategies. These staff members also taught courses on academic, career, college navigation, and life skills, ensuring that students received real-time support tailored to their needs. A critical aspect of the program was the inclusion of teaching assistants and peer mentoring, where students who had successfully navigated the LCs returned to guide the next cohort, creating a supportive, cyclic community. In addition to student services, the AANAPISI initiative emphasized faculty and staff development. This included pedagogy workshops aimed at integrating AA&NHPI history, storytelling, and issues into the curriculum, and a speaker series that brought in filmmakers, researchers, and activists to highlight the diverse, complex experiences of the AA&NHPI community. Further enriching faculty development were four modules focused specifically on underserved and underrepresented AA&NHPI groups: Southeast Asians, Filipinx, and Pacific Islanders, along with a module addressing the model minority myth.

Atlantic Harbor University

Similarly, AHU used two primary institutional units and an umbrella unit to construct its AANAPISI program, which included its Asian American Studies program and the Asian American Research Center. Documents showcased that the Asian American Studies program offered a wide range of courses with an intentional focus on local Asian American communities. The Asian American Research Center supported community-based and applied research on critical issues impacting Asian American communities both locally and nationally. The Office of the Vice Provost for Academic Services served as the umbrella unit where the AANAPISI program was administratively housed. AANAPISI leadership at AHU intentionally built the program to include these two units, which were long-established and well-respected components at the institution. Furthermore, the AANAPISI program was organizationally housed within academic services, along with other federal programs (e.g., TRIO) to simplify fiduciary and federal reporting responsibilities as well as to build from academic support units that already existed. For AHU’s AANAPISI program, these units provided a great deal of structural support to develop new initiatives.

In addition to using the two existing structures and an administrative umbrella office for its AANAPISI program, AHU also created a new unit—the Asian American Student Success Center. This center was dedicated to enhancing the academic, personal, and co-curricular success of Asian American students through a variety of targeted services. The center assisted students with navigating financial aid, class registration, and understanding major requirements, ensuring that they had the necessary knowledge as they advanced through their academic journey. It also offered tutoring services to boost critical reading and writing skills and provided help with individual writing assignments. To assist students with adapting to university life, the center connected them with peer mentors and supported their career development through job search assistance and specialized career workshops. The center also served as a conduit for co-curricular activities, connecting students with campus organizations, leadership opportunities, and off-campus partnerships. This included internships with community-based organizations, college access and outreach engagements with local high schools and community colleges, and involvement in retention programs and other types of social events.

Establishing and Institutionalizing AANAPISI Programs

With a detailed understanding of how the AANAPISI programs were designed and organized, we turn to the process of establishing them. This interconnected process was centered in two primary areas within the AANAPISIs—institutional components and institutional agents; with two mechanisms facilitating these processes—adapting their preexisting components and embedding new components. These processes were manifested in different combinations across the two areas, shaping the ways in which the AANAPISI programs began to move toward institutionalization. The following subsections will explore both mechanisms across the two primary areas.

Institutional components

Institutional components were organizational units and offices, as well as the academic, research, and co-curricular programming found within them.

Adapting preexisting components

Both institutions adapted their preexisting campus components to serve as key elements for their AANAPISI programs. For example, PVC’s robust AA&NHPI Leadership Institute, Asian American Studies program, and LCs were a central building block for its AANAPISI program. Connie (PVC faculty) explained that what her colleague, Makayla (PVC faculty and AANAPISI program director)

did was really smart. She structured our AANAPISI program to just tap into already existing programs. One of those programs was [our] linked program. And so, a lot of our classes, under the AANAPISI . . . I mean all of the classes, were linked classes.

The rationale to intentionally build off existing structures was strategic to expeditiously set up programming and services for students by using campus units that already existed. Makayla (PVC faculty and AANAPISI program director) explained the rationale for this approach:

We had an institutional resource and strength . . . a leadership institute [with an] internship program that we could somehow plug into, and just kind of tweak the program a bit, and we could redirect some of our energy to address the retention, the transfer, developmental courses, the needs of the students. I think that was one piece of it.

She continued on to share how little time PVC had to launch its AANAPISI program:

We have two years. Two years is nothing in terms of building up a program and spending that kind of money. My thinking was there are some solid programs . . . we would do best probably by partnering with them and tweaking the contents so that those programs are more directly appropriately addressed to AA&NHPI students. I didn’t think it was possible . . . to create all new programs from scratch and be able to have them up and running in two years and to show results.

Through this design, PVC adapted its existing units to be key components of its AANAPISI program, including modifying its LCs to be explicitly AA&NHPI focused by offering curriculum through its Asian American Studies program. Preexisting units were used not only to quickly set up a new AANAPISI program but also to facilitate the early processes of institutionalization of the AANAPISI program. Makayla (PVC faculty and administrator) shared:

The LCs have infrastructure . . . staff, and . . . a whole system . . . in which they create these courses. . . . We partnered up . . . to design a year-long curricular program or a pathway . . . so that students are learning, reading, reflecting, writing, analyzing, dissecting about AA&NHPI experiences. . . . We would build on programmatic infrastructure that existed . . . to create things quickly, and they were strong enough infrastructurally that potentially they could go on . . . even if AANAPISI [funding] goes away.

At AHU, preexisting units also were used to formulate its AANAPISI program. AHU’s AANAPISI leadership intentionally constructed its AANAPISI program to include its Asian American Studies program and the Asian American Research Center, which were long established and respected components at the institution. Josephine (AHU senior administrator) explained the rational for this organizational design:

We had a lot of conversations early on about where was the best place for [the AANAPISI program] to live. And they had a team of people . . . that were teaching in the Asian American Studies program that were thinking about different pieces of the proposal. And it began to emerge that there was an interest in the proposal having three components. A component was focused on direct services for students . . . on curriculum, and . . . on research.

Pearce (AHU faculty) further expanded on Josephine’s statement with the rationale for this approach:

I think in our conception, we . . . made the most of the rich capacities that we have at . . . [AHU]. It wasn’t simply meant to do student services; we have a long-standing, very robust curriculum in Asian American Studies, with or without AANAPISI funding. We have this kind of deep long-term commitment to community capacities, applied research, and policy in [the] state through the Asian American Research [Center].

Adapting preexisting units for its AANAPISI program was a design feature that provided the AANAPISI program with the necessary infrastructure to successfully secure AANAPISI funding and to immediately begin expending these new federal resources to implement initiatives that served and supported students. Pearce (AHU faculty) continued on to share:

That’s why we were ready to go for the [AANAPISI] designation immediately. . . . Through the classes and having the research center’s infrastructure, we had strong, sustainable methods and means to support students, to understand their needs and issues, to be able to follow and track changes in the student profiles, and to make the most of students, family, and community knowledge as research assets. There’s a lot of stuff in the curriculum that already has all of that setup.

While both campuses used existing components, they relied on noticeably different units. PVC relied on its LCs, whereas AHU adapted its Asian American Research Center. Yet, what remained similar was that both AANAPISI programs were able to enhance the capacity of those units to serve AA&NHPI students in new ways and in volume. Interestingly, at both institutions, another rationale for this approach was to quickly launch programs given the oversight and accountability measures placed on them by ED.

Embedding new components

In establishing their AANAPISI programs, both PVC and AHU developed new components that would be embedded into the campus structure. PVC’s AANAPISI program designed several new classes that focused on the histories and experiences of Southeast Asian Americans, Filipinx Americans, and Pacific Islanders. For example, Ernie (PVC staff) thoughtfully shared that

one of the new initiatives that we also came up with was the Oceana Learning Community, so I also focused primarily on the Pacific Islander students. . . . I was the counselor to support that class . . . along with two other faculty members. . . .We just created a whole new learning community to reach Pacific Islander students.

Indeed, AANAPISI funding provided the necessary resources to design new courses and curriculum, which became a permanent offering within the Asian American Studies program and a part of PVC’s course catalogue. Additionally, AANAPISI members partnered with the staff and faculty development office to create training modules on AA&NHPI student experiences. These modules focused on the model minority myth and specific AA&NHPI subgroup histories and experiences. As Connie (PVC faculty) shared:

Each one was about 30 to 40 minutes. . . .The first module was the intro, and it basically talked about the Asian American student community at PVC . . . and then a teacher best practices. And so we would show these modules at the workshop, and we would have lesson plans connected to them . . . every quarter. And then we also put it online . . . so that any faculty could access them and even teach them in their classes. We also provide the lesson plans for those faculty so [that] they could teach them.

Embedding these modules into regular development office trainings was critical because PVC provided incentives to participate in professional development activities. Completing these trainings contributed to advancing a step on the salary scale or earning an individual monetary award. With these trainings available through a video-on-demand platform, PVC’s entire faculty and staff could access them at their convenience to better understand and support their AA&NHPI students.

Distinct from AHU, AANAPISI funds were used to create new units that were eventually embedded into the institution, strengthening existing components such as the Asian American Studies program. Specifically, AHU established the Asian American Student Success Center to provide a multitude of resources. For example, Pearl (AHU administrator) shared that she

worked really hard with enrollment services, admissions, and recruitment, and . . . [the] transfer [office] . . . so that as [Asian American students] come in . . . [we] already have our team working in orientation . . . [and] then doing registration and then suggesting they take an Asian American Studies course.

She noted that this was highly successful in driving student engagement with the AANAPISI program, which, in turn, enhanced enrollment in Asian American Studies courses. Given these outcomes, orientation and transfer staff “continued the practice, so now they’re working with enrollment services and admissions to . . . get the names, and they target them . . . in the summer,” before the academic year commences.

AHU also engaged in developing new courses for its AANAPISI program, such as its LGBTQ+ and community-based economic development classes. Pearce (AHU faculty) shared that the AANAPISI funding played a critical role in this process:

Bottom line, the AANAPISI [program] . . . has added to the building of the curriculum in Asian American Studies; there’s no question about it . . . a specific goal . . . in one of the AANAPISI grants, to take stock of curriculum gaps, and develop new courses to address those gaps with the understanding that one of the sustainability features where you have a curriculum component, is once the course is developed, if it becomes a stable part of the faculty members teaching responsibilities, it continues with or without funding.

The combination of adapting preexisting components and embedding new institutional components contributed to the early institutionalization of the AANAPISI programs at both PVC and AHU.

Institutional agents

Adapting preexisting institutional agents

PVC and AHU called on preexisting institutional agents to begin the initial operations for their AANAPISI programs. Both institutions relied on the strength, expertise, and values of their current faculty and staff. Rebecca (PVC senior administrator) explained that “by the time that we had the AANAPISI programs, we already had . . . more Asian American faculty and more faculty that could teach multicultural topics in the institution.” Beyond only adapting any preexisting faculty to teach classes, certain institutional agents intentionally engaged with the AANAPISI program, as Connie (PVC faculty) shared:

Our Asian American faculty on campus, there’s a handful of us who consistently work . . . to serve students who were not being served and who were being largely ignored or not heard. And we were really concerned. I was really concerned with . . . making [the greater PVC community] aware of who these students were and what their voices were. . . . My role . . . fit perfectly with the AANAPISI grant. . . . It naturally meshed with everything I believed in and everything I was already doing.

Makayla (PVC faculty) further emphasized:

The other piece of it is probably the three of us [initial team that wrote the AANAPISI grant], who we were. That’s how we think . . . our outlook, our sensibility, and we could do it. We had faculty, we had a dean that was invested. . . . I think that made a difference.

In other words, PVC’s efforts to establish its AANAPISI program used preexisting institutional agents dedicated to serving AA&NHPI students and ensuring that their unique educational challenges were addressed.

Similarly at AHU, relying on institutional agents who were long established on campus allowed for the AANAPISI program to have a wider reach across the institution. Pearl (AHU administrator) shared her rationale for being recruited to join the AANAPISI program:

They wanted me to have the position because of my administrative skills, but also having been the Dean and having been able to be part of an executive. I met with the President. . . . I was not intimidated by the executive staff. . . . They knew we could hit the road running. Because I have those skills . . . without being intimidated.

Adapting existing faculty and staff for roles within the AANAPISI program ensured that they could immediately commence programmatic activities once funding was received.

Embedding new institutional agents

Establishing their AANAPISI programs also included hiring new faculty and staff and eventually embedding some of them within the institution. For example, Luna (AHU faculty) shared how her faculty line was created and approved by university leadership due in part to AANAPISI funding, which

helped to pay for a tenure-track position in Asian American Studies. . . . It created that line with matching funds from the university [and] matching commitment from the university. . . . It created the opportunity for this tenure-track line for which I was hired.

Furthermore, Pearl shared that she hired Prescott (AHU staff) to support AA&NHPI students with their writing and to prepare them for AHU’s writing exam. In their role, they also helped revise the campuswide writing requirement process to better support students because the students “wouldn’t do that writing exam until the last semester, because . . . they were terrified.” Due to their work, they were offered an opportunity to oversee the entire writing proficiency exam process at AHU. Pearl continued:

So now [Prescott is] embedded with the intermediate seminars that [they] teach, and. . . [they] work for the program that deals with all the [writing] requirements, the institutional requirements, because [they were] in the process of helping to fix it so that it wasn’t such a horrifying experience for the students.

The embedding of staff and faculty was not just limited to individuals who were hired to work directly in the AANAPISI program. Graduates who were served by AHU’s AANAPISI program also were hired across the university. Pearce (AHU faculty) noted that

we [got] alumni hired into different institutional roles . . . people into the admissions’ office . . . advising center . . . institutional research . . . spread throughout the university, where, in their job role, they could pay some attention to Asian American students, even if it wasn’t the main part of why they were hired or their 9–5 duties. . . . It was definitely . . . who are good people . . . throughout the university bureaucracy who can be part of [an] informal . . . clear support system for students.

The ability to hire new faculty and staff, but specifically those who were committed to and understood AA&NHPI issues, was central to establishment of the AANAPISI program and laid the groundwork for these institutional agents to be embedded at their institutions. Embedding of the type of new institutional agents differed. Whereas AHU hired both faculty and staff to fit its campus needs, PVC only hired new staff. Ernie (PVC staff), who also was embedded to oversee a new unit across PVC, explained the importance of this process:

A lot of us are in institutional positions now, permanent positions, and we’re infused now into this critical discourse around the campus. I think that’s one of the greatest things, that we’ve created a pipeline for AA&NHPI educators throughout this period of [the] AANAPISI [program] . . . because . . . a lot of the people that were working 100% on the grant were now in permanent positions. . . . We’ve been using them in different areas of work.

As Ernie explained, the AANAPISI program was a vehicle to directly hire AA&NHPI faculty and staff, some of whom were hired directly out of their own undergraduate or graduate programs. These self-identified critical educators then would be embedded on campus to engage in relevant work for AA&NHPIs.

Navigating Racialized Resistance

In adapting and embedding institutional units and agents, both campuses navigated and confronted racialized resistance as part of their day-to-day efforts to build, sustain, and institutionalize aspects of their AANAPISI programs. Some of this resistance originated from the broader campus community’s lack of understanding or recognizing the diverse educational experiences of AA&NHPIs. Fiona (AHU staff) explained her frustration with how the limited knowledge about AA&NHPI educational issues forced AANAPISI faculty and staff to constantly justify their program and services:

I feel like I meet a lot of . . . staff . . . and they would be like, “Oh cool, this program,” but . . . I developed this whole spiel about why Asian American student success, because people are always going to go, “Well, . . . why do Asians need support?” . . . So, you’ve got to go through . . . a really, really fast 100 years of history [to explain] stereotypes. . . . For the most part . . . I feel like it’s tough to get people to really understand. . . . I don’t think they care. Because [the broader campus communities] still don’t really get it.

Pearl (AHU administrator) more bluntly expressed how they defended the work to address the unique needs of AA&NHPI students:

There’s some pushback . . . so people want to know . . . how come you have the opportunity to only work with this population. . . . We had to educate them about the model minority myth, and in fact, and the requirements of the grant is that 50% or more are on federal aid . . . and that there’s underserved and underrepresented people. We had to educate the people within this institution about how we got the money, and why we got the money, and what are the things that we are aspiring to do.

At PVC, the racialized resistance manifested in different ways. Connie (PVC faculty) exasperatingly conveyed:

We have predominantly . . . 50% Asian American student population. And a large part of them being Southeast Asian. . . . Not all of them are privileged . . . there was always tension. I felt with these model minority workshops or sometimes anything when AANAPISI was brought up . . . because it’s a piece of the pie that everybody wants, right? Not AANAPISI [money] necessarily, but federal funding money. Here we are. “The Asians need it.” . . . Some did come to the workshops, . . . and it was interesting because there would be pushback.

Even within the AANAPISI program, some of the participating faculty who taught courses in the LCs did not share the same desire to implement AA&NHPI–relevant curriculum. Katelynn (PVC faculty) shared her disappointment:

I have two colleagues who also did another learning community, . . . [and] they did their own thing . . . that was technically part of the AANAPISI as well. . . . When I would ask them about it, they were very sort of evasive and vague. . . . I did see their syllabi, and they didn’t really have strong AA&NHPI content. . . . They were doing different things. . . . I did voice at a staff meeting. I’m like, “Well, personally, I feel very strongly about the value of having the AA&NHPI content in courses that are offered in this program.”

To add further complexity to the issue, there had been some problematic tensions with respect to how AA&NHPIs were positioned at PVC, particularly in comparison with Latine students. As Connie (PVC faculty) explained, AA&NHPIs were not viewed as an underserved minoritized group on campus. However, Latine programs and initiatives often received attention from campus leadership, and the AANAPISI program was often ignored or “[had] not really been acknowledged.” This tension was also being negotiated as PVC was striving to become a Hispanic-Serving Institution (HSI). As Madeline (PVC staff), who did not identify as AA&NHPI, explained:

We’ve been trying to grow our Latino enrollment so we can become an HSI. . . . But we are . . . 40% Asian and . . . now 25% Hispanic. So, my thinking is, we serve more Asians than we do Latino [students], we should continue to be an AANAPISI . . . and not [an HSI] . . . because you have to pick. . . . But the college really wants to go in the direction of [an HSI]. Even though we have twice as many Asians . . . [and] they’re still on our strategic targeted groups of Filipino, Pacific Islander. But . . . we’re trying to do the HSI opposed to the AANAPISI.

Institutional agents encountered significant racialized resistance while establishing and institutionalizing their programs. Respondents at both institutions highlighted the pervasiveness of the model minority myth and were frustrated with why some on campuses questioned the necessity of support and resources for AA&NHPI students. At AHU, where AA&NHPIs constitute 14% of the student population, respondents reported that AA&NHPIs often went unnoticed and overlooked on campus—in other words, they were effectively invisible. In contrast, at PVC, AA&NHPIs made up nearly half the student body. The high number of AA&NHPI students led many at PVC to believe that AA&NHPIs did not require additional resources or services. For Madeline (PVC staff), this assumption fostered a zero-sum mentality, pitting minoritized student groups against each other and undermining the need for educational support or culturally relevant curricula tailored not only for AA&NHPIs but also for Latine students and all minoritized students that reflect their diverse and complex lived experiences and needs.

Discussion

This study offers compelling examples of cases where the design and establishment of AANAPISI programs are inextricably linked with early institutionalization efforts. In so doing, the findings offer careful attention to how various components found within the two AANAPISI programs were organized and incorporated into the institution’s structures. In other words, the early stages of institutionalization at these AANAPISIs are an interconnected process of sustaining programmatic activities, curriculum, people, and their values; and was facilitated by adapting the AANAPISI program’s preexisting units and embedding new units of institutional components and agents. And in doing this work, institutional agents at AHU and PVC navigated multiple forms of racialized resistance.

An Inextricable Link

At AHU and PVC, there was a necessary linkage between the manner in which the AANAPISI programs were designed and established and their contribution toward early progress for institutionalization. This inextricable link plays a critical role in providing greater possibilities for institutionalization of an externally funded project, which aligns with previous studies that discussed the relationship between the essential early stages of establishing programs and their possibility for longevity (Borrego et al., 2014, Goodman & Steckler, 1989; Kezar, 2007; Yin et al., 1978). Additionally, this study extends on this existing literature in several ways. First, it offers an operational lens into the programmatic work of rank-and-file faculty and staff, rather than teleologic studies that are focused on chancellors, presidents, provosts, and other senior leaders (Kezar, 2001). Indeed, the tools at hand for AANAPISI institutional agents may differ greatly from those of senior administrators, especially because the ability to support institutionalization may differ depending on power and resources relating to an agent’s role (Borrego et al., 2014). The findings also offer the two strategies that AANAPISI agents employ to engage in infrastructure transformation, with hopes of sustaining AANAPISI programs: adapting preexisting components and embedding new components at the institution, where differences in the types of components were determined based on the unique needs of both campuses. Scholars have explored variations of these two approaches within the MSI literature. That research often focused on transformative approaches regarding the active redesign of existing infrastructure to serve students in liberatory ways (Garcia, 2023), as well as sustainment of the integration of new AANAPISI activities into existing infrastructure (B. M. D. Nguyen et al., 2022). Indeed, B. M. D. Nguyen et al.’ (2022) findings revealed the challenges and lessons learned from AANAPISI program directors as they strategically embedded their programs within existing campus structures with the aim of sustaining their work.

This study empirically extends that important work to uncover the process of adapting existing infrastructure to support both the establishment and sustainment of AANAPISI programs. Through this mechanism, both PVC and AHU quickly launched their AANAPISI programs, which, in turn, facilitated early institutionalization of various entities found within AANAPISI program. Furthermore, the findings detail the process of how new curricula, initiatives, and individuals were directly embedded into the AANAPISI program. In alignment with the adapted public recognition and boundaries elements (see Appendix A), both institutions used these methods as a mechanism to create new infrastructure within the AANAPISI program that extends beyond its programmatic boundaries to begin to inform the work of the greater campus community (Chesler et al., 2005). What is key here are that AANAPISI funds offered an opportunity to hire new staff and faculty, arguably one of the most complex, arduous, and political tasks in higher education (Liera, 2020; Liera & Ching, 2019). But, in so doing, these new institutional agents embodied the positionality found in critical higher education professionals and contributed to the pipeline that infused more AA&NHPIs into the institution, thereby augmenting the recruitment process to enhance compositional diversity with their new members (see adapted member engagement and culture elements in Appendix A).

What is critical to note is that as existing units were modified or new units were embedded into the AANAPISI program, their missions and values explicitly centered AA&NHPI experiences. This showcases the realities of institutionalization at AANAPISIs, where the process is complex, incremental, and hard won—far from a clean or linear transition in which an entire program is simply preserved and shifted from external grant funding to the institution’s operating budget. Instead, institutionalization at AANAPISIs requires a deliberate strategic approach in which individual activities, initiatives, programs, courses, and personnel are absorbed, piece by piece, into the broader campus infrastructure. This gradual and fragmented integration signals that specific components of the AANAPISI program are beginning to be institutionalized. Thus, study participants shared that should AANAPISI funding expire, there hopefully would remain specific individuals, curricula, and activities that begin to transform infrastructure, which was intentionally designed from the disciplinary perspective of AA&NHPI Studies and Ethnic Studies, in order to serve and educate AA&NHPI students.

This form of institutionalization, illustrative of the adapted leadership development and power elements, did not come from a top-down approach but rather from a middle-out design, led by program faculty and staff rather than senior college leadership through their ability to maintain the power and capability to influence the direction of programs and practices. These institutional agents, both existing and new, along with their respective units, wrestled and navigated planning, coalition building, competing interests, along with the necessary external resources to negotiate with campus structures (Kezar, 2001). This allowed for the delicate process of establishing the AANAPISI program and coordinating the institutionalization of these initiatives. This finding contributes to the field’s recognition of how traditional notions of institutionalization are being redefined (Borrego et al., 2014; Scott, 2008), where new values, cultures, norms, and racialized understandings are incorporated within the program and across the campus (Chesler et al., 2005; Patton et al., 2019; Stanley et al., 2019). Although it is certainly possible that externally funded programs are still able to institutionalize without preplanning, this study suggests that another model is possible—one that links program design and establishment with institutionalization. This work extends existing research by demonstrating this strategy’s applicability and utility at AANAPISIs, arguing that these two processes can be interconnected.

AA&NHPI Racialized Resistance

In establishing and working toward institutionalization their AANAPISI programs, institutional agents encountered both explicit and implicit forms of racialized resistance (Alcantar et al., 2019; Museus et al., 2022; Ray, 2019). This resistance originates from the broader campus community’s lack of knowledge and understanding of the diverse histories and educational experiences of AA&NHPIs, as posited by the framework of Chesler et al. (2005). It highlights the unique ways that AA&NHPIs are racialized at AANAPISIs and within higher education more generally. Although AANAPISI members experienced similar racialized interactions, the purported rationale differed at each institution. Respondents at AHU noted that AA&NHPIs are often rendered invisible due to their small numbers, leading to an out-of-sight, out-of-mind mentality.

At PVC, AA&NHPI students represented the majority of the campus population and were highly visible. However, AANAPISI members reported that inaccurate assumptions were also made about AA&NHPI students and their need for resources or services, but instead because of their compositional majority. Nonetheless, the outcome remains the same at both campuses, where AA&NHPI students must navigate racial politics to demonstrate, justify, and rationalize their work. In other words, the AANAPISI agents at both AHU and PVC are dealing with different sides of the same coin. Ironically, one of the primary purposes of the AANAPISI designation was to acknowledge and counter these specific assumptions and misconceptions (Park & Chang, 2009; Park & Teranishi, 2008). And while this specific federal policy signals an obligation to address the educational gaps for AA&NHPI students, this commitment does not necessarily trickle down all aspects at the institutional level.

Study participants reflected on how they confronted the complexity of establishing and institutionalizing their AANAPISI programs. They described how AA&NHPI racial resistance invited some members of the broader campus community to rationalize the AANAPISI program as unnecessary, regardless of AA&NHPI students’ compositional makeup, educational needs, or experiences with racism, consistent with other studies that detailed how AANAPISI staff strive to justify the necessity of their work (B. M. D. Nguyen et al., 2022). Scholars have long documented the multiple and perennial stereotypes (e.g., monolithic and universally successful; Lee, 2009; Poon et al., 2016; Yi et al., 2020), racial incidents and negative campus climate experiences (Johnston, & Yeung, 2014; Museus, & Park, 2015; M. H. Nguyen et al., 2018) and differing educational experiences, attainment rates, and outcomes (National Commission on Asian American and Pacific Islander Research in Education [CARE], 2013; Chang & Kiang, 2002; Museus et al., 2013; Teranishi, 2010) that plague AA&NHPI students in education.

The process of institutionalization is not race neutral; rather, it is layered with racialized resistance rooted in the widespread misunderstanding of AA&NHPI students and their educational experiences (see adapted leadership development and social climate/relations element in Appendix A). The mechanisms for overcoming this resistance and at the same time institutionalizing aspects of the AANAPISI program—adapting and embedding existing and new institutional units and agents—were used to meet these challenges. Reflecting the adapted leadership development and technology elements of the conceptual framework, AANAPISI agents leveraged their federal resources to develop programming and initiatives to educate faculty, staff, and the broader campus community about the diversity and complexity of AA&NHPI populations and hired new colleagues, particularly those who shared similar value commitments to racial equity (M. H. Nguyen, 2022). For example, PVC’s staff and faculty training modules served multiple purposes. They were designed and implemented to ensure institutionalization through the employee development office while also educating the entire campus community about the real educational needs and experiences of AA&NHPI students. In so doing, this piece of PVC’s AANAPISI program worked to confront and overcome prevailing racial stereotypes. And because AANAPISIs are racial projects, the institutionalization process itself is inherently racialized. As such, the processes detailed in this study illustrate how AANAPISI agents navigated and responded to racialized resistance in order to embed their programs more fully within the institution.

Adding further complexity to the racialized tension is the federal policy that restricts institutions from securing MSI funding from more than one designation. In the case of PVC, this policy manifested on campus in a manner that restricted the possibilities of not just accessing federal funding across multiple MSI designations, it also obscured pathways for institutional agents to fully serve Latine and AA&NHPI students through both the HSI and AANAPISI designations. The multiple designation issue remains a persistent and stubborn policy concern for AANAPISIs and HSIs (Espinoza, & Aguilar-Smith, 2025; M. H. Nguyen, Gogue, et al., 2023). And while securing AANAPISI funding can create meaningful and affirming spaces and experiences for AA&NHPI students (M. H. Nguyen, 2025), it can simultaneously reveal how White supremist policies that limit institutional resources for racial equity may (un)intentionally foster competition among marginalized groups and contribute to perceptions that AA&NHPI students are being disproportionately supported, which, in turn, generates resentment toward AA&NHPI–focused initiatives (Museus et al., 2022).

Both institutionalization and racialized resistance occurred simultaneously and across multiple levels of the institution (i.e., individual, program, and organizational levels). The findings also illustrate a distinction between interpersonal and structural forms of resistance as AANAPISI members worked to institutionalize people, programs, and practices. For these two AANAPISIs, sustaining their programs occurred during the early stages of establishment, when specific components of the federally funded program gradually became embedded into the institution. While these changes occurred primarily at the individual and program levels, they do not fully represent a complete institution-wide transformation. Rather, these developments mark the critical but preliminary stages of institutionalization, a period in which racialized resistance is also most likely to emerge (Chesler et al., 2005). In other words, it reveals the racialized conditions under which early institutionalization takes place. And despite these structural challenges, the AANAPISIs in this study found a way to develop and sustain various dimensions of their work. Thus, while institutionalization was beginning to occur, organizational shifts were not yet all-encompassing. Instead, the study suggests that as people and programming from the AANAPISI program are being adapted and embedded into the institution, it reflects the preliminary and necessary stages of what will hopefully become a broader organizational transformation.

Implications

There are several implications to be considered for institutional practice, public policy, and research. With respect to institutional practice, as colleges and universities apply for funding under the AANAPISI designation, they should consider how the programs they establish might be institutionalized. This includes commencing early conversations across campus to consider how different institutional units can support AANAPISI activities, both through their preexisting infrastructure and through identifying which offices can house new units and institutional agents. This planning work should be in consideration of this study’s primary finding, that institutionalization is uniquely interconnected to AANAPISI program establishment; and as a racial project, this process is fraught with racialized resistance. Early planning and coordinating of these factors will help design processes that enable a smoother transition from adapting and embedding existing and new infrastructure and agents to launch an AANAPISI program with suitability in mind.

Given the process-based research inquiry and subsequent findings, this planning work can still be engaged in if AANAPISIs have already secured their grants, where consideration of institutionalization may not have initially occurred. For example, when implementing the findings of this work, ongoing development and maintenance of relationships with stakeholders and their offices across campus is key, especially because AANAPISIs are racial projects and the manner in which AA&NHPI students are stereotyped and misunderstood can lead to racialized resistance that impedes these efforts. Strategies highlighted by the findings include developing educational modules to be delivered at orientations and professional development trainings, which should be required, or if elective, should be incentivized. Furthermore, AANAPISIs can be thoughtful in how they begin to hire new institutional agents and the institutional contexts that would be appropriate for them to be embedded for the long-term. The role of AA&NHPI Studies and Ethnic Studies, both as a discipline and as a paradigm, has been a consistent theme in this study, as well as across research on AANAPISIs (M. H. Nguyen, 2023; Wang et al., 2021). Therefore, when colleges and universities engage in this work, they should recognize that there is an opportunity to use federal funding to enhance their existing AA&NHPI Studies/Ethnic Studies programs and/or embed them into the organizational structure of the institution. This approach represents a long-term strategy to cultivate a critical and informed campus that works to disrupt racialized resistance through education. Doing so builds the capacity of and increases institutional agents and their ability to deliver curriculum, research opportunities, and co-curricular activities that center the lived experiences of AA&NHPI students, while also training the next generation of educational professionals who can be recruited to return and work at their AANAPISIs.

When considering implications for public policy, federal policymakers in both the legislative and executive branches should consider encouraging institutionalization efforts as part of the design and establishment process through statute and administrate/regulatory levers, respectively. This would require a rethinking of the normative definition for institutionalization and instead use a broader understanding, as discussed in this study. Policymakers would need to be surgical to ensure that any federal action would not result in eligible AANAPISIs deferring funding opportunities because of new and explicit requirements for institutionalization. AANAPISI funding was designed to build the capacity of under-resourced institutions to serve AA&NHPI students because many of these institutions lack discretionary budgets to engage in this important work without federal support, let alone commit matching funds for institutionalization. Thus, an essential federal approach should motivate AANAPISIs, through the application’s competitive preference priorities, to design a program with clear pathways to reach institutionalization while accounting for racialized contexts and remaining flexible by providing the necessary funding over a sustained period of time.

The AANAPISI designation is now in its 18th year as a federal initiative, thus offering a significant amount of time for researchers to observe if and how institutions transition or transform across various stages of development due to their AANAPISI programs. Thus, new lines of inquiry should focus not only on how colleges and universities establish AANAPISI programs to serve students but also on the later stages of their institutionalization process, which would include revisiting both sites to observe if and how components, agents, and their initiatives are currently sustained. These studies also should investigate how they support Asian American and Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander students, especially after these AANAPISIs are no longer receiving funding. The findings also point to the racialized tensions that surface when advancing this work. Thus, future research should explore if and how these institutions sustain this critical work, particularly during moments of restriction. Additionally, these investigations should further document the unique ways in which racialized tensions may emerge at differing AANAPISIs and the geographic contexts in which they are situated, but equally important is to examine how AANAPISI institutional agents navigate these tensions. In so doing, these new lines of inquiry can better support the role of AANAPISI programs as vehicles to create broader transformative processes to construct campus-wide ecosystems of support to equitably serve AA&NHPI students.

Conclusion

This study illustrates how AANAPISI programs are intentionally designed, established, and institutionalized to better serve AA&NHPI students. It highlights the crucial connection between the establishment and institutionalization of these programs, showing that this process is essential for maintaining institutional commitment. On September 10, 2025, the U.S. Department of Education announced that it would “reprogram” fiscal year 2025 discretionary funding for AANAPISIs as well as for all enrollment-based MSIs. Although the long-term impact of defunding AANAPSIs remains unknown, one can expect that institutions will respond across a wide range of outcomes, including where some AANAPISI programs will be shuttered without continued federal funding. The U.S. Department of Education’s abrupt action is an extreme and tragic example of the temporary nature of MSI funding. Although the current conditions are dire and heartbreaking for students and the AANAPISI staff that serve them, this moment compels current and future AANAPISI grantees, should funding be restored, to intentionally construct and implement strategies for long-term sustainability. These institutionalization efforts will ensure that AANAPISIs live up to their promise and potential to equitably serve future generations of AA&NHPI students in the near and long term.

Footnotes

Appendix

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the UCLA Asian American Studies Center and the UCLA Institute of American Cultures for supporting this study. I also extend my deepest gratitude to the editors and anonymous reviewers for their generous and thoughtful feedback. Special thanks to Dr. Ung-Sang Lee, who reviewed drafts of this manuscript and provided helpful feedback. And most importantly, I am indebted to the study’s participants, who work tirelessly to enhance and advance the important work of AANAPISIs.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declares no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was made possible through the generous financial support of the UCLA Asian American Studies Center and the UCLA Institute of American Cultures.

Open Practices

The files for this article can be found at .

ORCID iD

Mike Hoa Nguyen

Notes

Author

MIKE HOA NGUYEN is associate professor of education at the University of California, Los Angeles. He is also the principal investigator of the Minority Serving Institutions Data Project. His research critically examines the benefits and consequences of racialized public policy instruments in expanding and/or constraining educational systems, with a specific focus on how these dynamics shape access, learning, opportunity, and success within and beyond schools for students of color.

References

Alcantar

C. M.

Pazich

L. B.

Teranishi

R. T.

(2019). Meaning-making about becoming a minority serving institution: A case study of Asian-American serving community colleges. The Review of Higher Education, 42(5), 309–335. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2019.0054

Andrews

K. T.

Ganz

Baggetta

Han

Lim

(2010). Leadership, membership, and voice: Civic associations that work. American Journal of Sociology, 115(4), 1191–1242. https://doi.org/10.1086/649060

Baggetta

Han

Andrews

K. T.

(2013). Leading associations: How individual characteristics and team dynamics generate committed leaders. American Sociological Review, 78(4), 544–573. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122413489877

Bess

J. L.

Dee

J. R.

(2008). Understanding college and university organization: Theories for effective policy and practice. Stylus Publications.

Borrego

Boden

Newswander

L. K.

(2014). Sustained change: Institutionalizing interdisciplinary graduate education. The Journal of Higher Education, 85(6), 858–885. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2014.11777350

Bowman

N. A.

(2010). College diversity experiences and cognitive development: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 80(1), 4–33. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654309352495

Cameron

K. S.

(1986). Effectiveness as paradox: Consensus and conflict in conceptions of organizational effectiveness. Management Science, 32(5), 539–553. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.32.5.539

Catallozzi

L. A.

Tang

S. S.

Gabbard

Kiang

P. N.

(2019). Modeling AANAPISI community college–university collaboration: A case study of Asian American studies–centered faculty and curriculum development. New Directions for Higher Education, 2019(186), 79–92. https://doi.org/10.1002/he.20325

Chang

M. J.

Kiang

P. N.

(2002). New challenges of representing Asian American students in US higher education. In Altbach

P. G.

Lomotey

Smith

W. A.

(Eds.), The racial crisis in American higher education: Continuing challenges for the twenty-first century (pp. 137–158). SUNY Press.

10.

Chang

M. J.

Denson

Sáenz

Misa

(2006). The educational benefits of sustaining cross-racial interaction among undergraduates. The Journal of Higher Education, 77(3), 430–455. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2006.11778933

11.

Chesler

Lewis

Crowfoot

(2005). Challenging racism in higher education: Promoting justice. Rowman & Littlefield.

12.

Chu

(2022). Increasing the educational retention and attainment rates of Southeast Asian American college students through AANAPISIs. The Vermont Connection, 43(1), 41–56. https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14849/9707

13.

Colbeck

C. L.

(2002). Assessing institutionalization of curricular and pedagogical reforms. Research in Higher Education, 43, 397–421. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1015594432215

14.

Cuenza-Uvas

Gogue

D. T.

(2022). An ethic of care in student affairs: Humanizing relationships and asserting cultural values at an AANAPISI. AAPI Nexus: Policy, Practice and Community, 19(1–2), 87–104. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/7dz671np

15.

Curry

(1992). Instituting enduring innovations: Achieving continuity of change in higher education (ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 7). Washington, DC.

16.

Denson

Chang

M. J.

(2009). Racial diversity matters: The impact of diversity-related student engagement and institutional context. American Educational Research Journal, 46(2), 322–353. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831208323278

17.

Denson

Bowman

N. A.

Ovenden

Culver

K. C.

Holmes

J. M.

(2021). Do diversity courses improve college student outcomes? A meta-analysis. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 14(4), 544–556. https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000189

18.

Espinoza

K. J. C.

Aguilar-Smith

(2025). Intersecting classifications: The landscape of dual-and multi-designated Hispanic-Serving Institutions. American Council on Education.

19.

Fong

Maramba

Nguyen

M. H.

(Eds.). (2022). Models of change: AANAPISIs in action [Special Issue]. AAPI Nexus: Policy, Practice and Community, 19(1–2), 1–214. https://escholarship.org/uc/aapinexus/19/1-2

20.

Furco

Moely

B. E.

(2012). Using learning communities to build faculty support for pedagogical innovation: A multi-campus study. The Journal of Higher Education, 83(1), 128–153. https://doi.org/10.1353/jhe.2012.0006

21.

Garcia

G. A.

(2023). Transforming Hispanic-serving institutions for equity and justice. Johns Hopkins University Press.

22.

Gogue

D. T. L.

Venturanza

R. J.

Cuenza-Uvas

Nguyen

M. H.

(2021). The role of Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander–serving institutions in reframing leadership education. New Directions for Student Leadership, 2021(171), 101–111. https://doi.org/10.1002/yd.20460

23.

Goodman

R. M.

Steckler

(1989). A framework for assessing program institutionalization. Knowledge in Society, 2(1), 57–71. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02737075

24.

Hamilton

L. T.

Nielsen

(2021). Broke: The racial consequences of underfunding public universities. University of Chicago Press.

25.

Han

(2014). How organizations develop activists: Civic associations and leadership in the 21st century. Oxford University Press.

26.

Hoang

S. B.

(2022). Professional identity development of Asian American & Pacific Islander AANAPISI staff (Publication No. 29067248) [Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts Boston]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.

27.

Hurtado

(2007). Linking diversity with the educational and civic missions of higher education. The Review of Higher Education, 30(2), 185–196. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2006.0070

28.

Hurtado

Alvarez

C. L.

Guillermo-Wann

Cuellar

Arellano

(2012). A model for diverse learning environments. In Smart

J. C.

Paulsen

M. B.

(Eds.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 27, pp. 41–122). Springer.

29.

Johnston

M. P.

Yeung

F. P.

(2014). Asian Americans and campus climate: Investigating group differences around a racial incident. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 51(2), 143–156. https://doi.org/10.1515/jsarp-2014-0015

30.

Kem

Boxell

Kiang

(2020). Asian American studies and AANAPISI writing initiatives. In Maramba

D. C.

Fong

T. P.

(Eds.), Transformative practices for minority student success: Accomplishments of Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander–serving institutions (pp. 116–130). Stylus Publications.

31.

Kiang

P. C.

Tang

S. S.

Seto

(2019a). AANAPISI perspectives of Asian American veterans in college. New Directions for Higher Education, 2019(186), 49–65. https://doi.org/10.1002/he.20323

32.

Kiang

P. C.

Tang

S. S.

Seto

(2019b). Mission-centered engagement with Asian American student veterans. Journal of Veterans Studies, 4(2), 34–51. https://doi.org/10.21061/jvs.v4i2.95

33.

Kim

Alcantar

C. M.

Teranishi

R. T.

(2023). The AANAPISI-funded STEM program: An institutional response to the needs of Asian American community college students. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 47(10), 627–641. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2022.2056548

34.

Kezar

A. J.

(2007). Tools for a time and place: Phased leadership strategies to institutionalize a diversity agenda. The Review of Higher Education, 30(4), 413–439. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2007.0025

35.

Kezar

A. J.

(2001). Understanding and facilitating organizational change in the 21st century: Recent research and conceptualizations (ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report 28). Jossey-Bass.

36.

Knoke

Prensky

(1984). What relevance do organization theories have for voluntary associations? Social Science Quarterly, 65(1), 3–20. https://www.proquest.com/docview/1291645044/fulltextPDF/34A1FFC1FBC94125PQ/1?accountid=14608

37.

Lee

Nguyen

(2022). Framing a practice of Asian Americanist advocacy. AAPI Nexus: Policy, Practice and Community, 19(1–2), 167–196. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/4jh9g8fq

38.

Lee

Tomaneng

R. M.

(2020). Power in partnerships: Racial politics in reciprocity and transformation at an AANAPISI. In Maramba

D. C.

Fong

T. P.

(Eds.), Transformative practices for minority student success: Accomplishments of Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander–serving institutions (pp. 209–230). Stylus Publications.

39.

Lee

(2009). Unraveling the “model-minority” stereotype: Listening to Asian American youth. (2nd ed.). Teachers College Press.

40.

Lincoln

Y. S.

Guba

E. G.

(1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.

41.

Liera

(2020). Moving beyond a culture of niceness in faculty hiring to advance racial equity. American Educational Research Journal, 57(5), 1954–1994. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831219888624

42.

Liera

Ching

(2019). Reconceptualizing “merit” and “fit”: An equity-minded approach to hiring. In Kezar

Posselt

(Eds.), Administration for social justice and equity in higher education: Critical perspectives for leadership and decision-making (pp. 111–131). Routledge.

43.

Liu

M. M.

(2022). Where we’re really from: NYC Asian American students navigating identity, racial solidarity, and wellness during a pandemic. AAPI Nexus: Policy, Practice and Community, 19(1–2), 105–122. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/0j662564

44.

Mac

Aunaetitrakul

Xiong

(2024). What’s not in the grant: An exploration of project directors’ experiences at two-year Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander serving institutions in the Midwest. New Directions for Community Colleges, 2024(205), 131–142. https://doi.org/10.1002/cc.20618

45.

Mac

Sarreal

A. D.

Wang

A. C.

Museus

S. D.

(2019). Conditions that catalyze the emergence of Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander serving institutions. New Directions for Higher Education, 2019(186), 67–77. https://doi.org/10.1002/he.20324

46.

Maramba

D. C.

Fong

T. P.

(Eds.). (2020). Transformative practices for minority student success: Accomplishments of Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander-serving Institutions. Stylus Publications.

47.

Merriam

S. B.

(2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation: Revised and expanded from qualitative research and case study applications in education (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.

48.

Milem

J. F.

Chang

M. J.

Antonio

A. L.

(2005). Making diversity work on campus: A research-based perspective. Association of American Colleges and Universities.

49.

Museus

S. D.

Mac

Wang

A. C.

Sarreal

Wright-Mair

Manlove

(2022). How Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander-Serving Institution (AANAPISI) initiatives respond to institutional racism. The Journal of Higher Education, 93(3), 452–476. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2021.1996168

50.

Museus

S. D.

Maramba

D. C.

Teranishi

R. T.

(Eds.). (2013). The misrepresented minority: New insights on Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, and the implications for higher education. Stylus Publications.

51.

Museus

S. D.

Park

J. J.

(2015). The continuing significances of racism in the lives of Asian American college students. Journal of College Student Development, 56, 551–569. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2015.0059

52.

Museus

S. D.

Wright-Mair

Mac

(2018). How Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander-serving institutions (AANAPISIs) are creating the conditions for students to thrive. University of Pennsylvania Center for Minority-Serving Institutions.

53.

National Commission on Asian American and Pacific Islander Research in Education (CARE). (2013). Partnership for Equity in Education through Research (PEER): Findings from the first year of research on AANAPISIs. https://eric.ed.gov/?q=islander&ff1=locNew+York&id=ED573708

54.

Nguyen

B. M. D.

Nguyen

M. H.

Nguyen

T. K.

(2014). Advancing the Asian American and Pacific Islander data quality campaign: Data disaggregation practice and policy. Asian American Policy Review, 24, 55–67. https://studentreview.hks.harvard.edu/advancing-the-asian-american-and-pacific-islander-data-quality-campaign-data-disaggregation-practice-and-policy/

55.

Nguyen

B. M. D.

Nguyen

M. H.

Teranishi

Hune

(2015). The hidden academic opportunity gap among AAPIs: What disaggregated data reveals in Washington state. National Commission for Asian American and Pacific Islander Research in Education.

56.

Nguyen

B. M. D.

Nguyen

T. H.

Gutierrez

R. A. E.

Kurland

W. M.

Lee

N. W.

(2022). Institutional pathfinders: Key lessons from program directors of AANAPISI grant-funded projects. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 15(5), 596–606. https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000313

57.

Nguyen

M. H.

(2025). Serving Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander students: Examining how Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander-serving institutions build students’ capacities. The Review of Higher Education, 48(2), 239–275. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.0.a925900

58.

Nguyen

M. H.

(2023). Expanding the capacity of student affairs professionals and faculty: A case study of two Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander-Serving institutions. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 64(4), 447–462. https://doi.org/10.1080/19496591.2022.2144740

59.

Nguyen

M. H.

(2022). Building capacity for student success at Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander-serving institutions (AANAPISI): Transforming the educational experiences of Asian American and Pacific Islander students. The Journal of Higher Education, 93(4), 503–531. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2021.1996170

60.

Nguyen

M. H.

(2020). Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander serving institutions (AANAPISIs): Serving and advocating for the educational needs of Southeast Asian American students. Journal of Southeast Asian American Education and Advancement, 15(2), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.7771/2153-8999.1205

61.

Nguyen

M. H.

(2019). Building capacity at Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander serving institutions (AANAPISI): Cultivating leaders and civic engagement through federal policy [Doctoral Dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles].

62.

Nguyen

M. H.

Ramirez

J. J.

Laderman

(2023). What counts as a minority-serving institution? Toward the utilization of a standardized and uniform definition and typology. Educational Researcher, 52(3), 174–179. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x221105861

63.

Nguyen

M. H.

Chan

Nguyen

B. M. D.

Teranishi

R. T.

(2018). Beyond compositional diversity: Examining the campus climate experiences of Asian American and Pacific Islander students. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 11(4), 484–501.

64.

Nguyen

M. H.

Espinoza

K. J.

Gogue

D. T.-L.

Dinh

D. M.

(2021). AANAPISIs in context and practice: Strategies for serving Asian Pacific Islander Desi American students. About Campus, 26(1), 5–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086482221994121

65.

Nguyen

M. H.

Espinoza

K. J.

Gogue

D. T. L.

Dinh

D. M.

(2020). Looking to the next decade: Strengthening Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander serving institutions through policy and practice. National Council of Asian Pacific Americans.

66.

Nguyen

M. H.

San Nicolas

Honda

M. M.

Underwood

R. A.

(2024). The letter of the law or the spirit of the law? Exploring how federal funding for minority-serving institutions is operationalized through policy reforms. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 56(6), 25–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.2024.2419344

67.

Nguyen

M. H.

Gogue

D. T. L.

Espinoza

K. J. C.

Neilson

P. A.

Venturanza

R. J.

(2023). Celebrating 15 years of Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander-serving institutions: Exploring how colleges & universities become AANAPISIs; serve Asian American, Native Hawaiian, & Pacific Islander Students; & institutionalize their initiatives. APIA Scholars. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED635462.pdf

68.

Nguyen

T. H.

Nguyen

B. M. D.

Nguyen

M. H.

Gasman

Conrad

(2018). From marginalized to validated: An in-depth case study of an Asian American, Native American and Pacific Islander-serving institution. The Review of Higher Education, 41(3), 327–363. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2018.0011

69.

Omi

Winant

(2015). Racial formation in the United States (3rd ed). Routledge.

70.

Park

Chang

M. J.

(2009). AAPI serving institutions: The motivations and challenges behind seeking a federal designation. AAPI Nexus: Policy, Practice and Community, 7(2), 107–125. https://doi.org/10.36650/nexus7.2_107-128_ParkChang

71.

Park

Teranishi

(2008). Asian American and Pacific Islander serving institutions: Historical perspectives and future prospects. In Gasman

Baez

Turner

C. V. S.

(Eds.). Understanding minority-serving institutions (pp. 111–126). SUNY Press.

72.

Patton

L. D.

Sánchez

Mac

Stewart

D. L.

(2019). An inconvenient truth about “progress”: An analysis of the promises and perils of research on campus diversity initiatives. The Review of Higher Education, 42(5), 173–198. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2019.0049

73.

Patton

M. Q.

(2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Sage.

74.

Potter

Brough

(2004). Systemic capacity building: A hierarchy of needs. Health Policy and Planning, 19(5), 336–345. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapol/czh038

75.

Poon

Squire

Kodama

Byrd

Chan

Manzano

Furr

Bishundat

(2016). A critical review of the model minority myth in selected literature on Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders in higher education. Review of Educational Research, 86(2), 469–502. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315612205

76.

Ray

(2019). A theory of racialized organizations. American Sociological Review, 84(1), 26–53. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122418822335

77.

Ross

R. D.

(1976). Institutionalization of academic innovations: 2 models. Sociology of Education, 49(2), 146–155. https://doi.org/10.2307/2112519

78.

Saldaña

(2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (3rd ed.). SAGE.

79.

Scott

W. R.

(2008). Institutions and organizations: Ideas and interests (3rd ed.). Sage.

80.

Seidman

(2013). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and the social science (4th ed.). Teachers College Press.

81.

Stanley

C. A.

Watson

K. L.

Reyes

J. M.

Varela

K. S.

(2019). Organizational change and the chief diversity officer: A case study of institutionalizing a diversity plan. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 12(3), 255–265. https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000099

82.

Steckler

Goodman

R. M.

(1989). How to institutionalize health promotion programs. American Journal of Health Promotion, 3, 34–44. https://doi.org/10.4278/0890-1171-3.4.34

83.

Tang

S. S. L.

(2020). AANAPISI knowledge coproduction: Digital storytelling in Asian American studies. In Maramba

D. C.

Fong

T. P.

(Eds.), Transformative practices for minority student success: Accomplishments of Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander-serving institutions (pp. 131–150). Stylus Publications.

84.

Teranishi

R. T.

(2011). Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander-serving institutions: Areas of growth, innovation, and collaboration. AAPI Nexus: Policy, Practice and Community, 9(1–2), 151–155. https://doi.org/10.36650/nexus9.1–2_151-155_Teranishi

85.

Teranishi

R. T.

(2010). Asians in the ivory tower: Dilemmas of racial inequality in American higher education. Teachers College Press.

86.

Teranishi

R. T.

Maramba

D. C.

M. H.

(2013). Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander serving institutions (AANAPISIs): Mutable sites for science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) degree production. In Palmer

R. T.

Maramba

D. C.

Gasman

(Eds.), Fostering success of ethnical and racial minorities in STEM (pp.168–180). Routledge.

87.

Teranishi

R. T.

Alcantar

C. M.

Martin

Nguyen

B. M.

(2015). The return on investment for an AANAPISI-funded program: Outcomes for Asian American and Pacific Islander community college students. Penn Center for Minority Serving Institutions.

88.

Teranishi

R. T.

Martin

Bordoloi Pazich

Alcantar

C. M.

Nguyen

T. L.

(2014). Measuring the impact of MSI-funded programs on student success findings from the evaluation of Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander-serving institutions. National Commission for Asian American and Pacific Islander Research in Education.

89.

Wang

A. C.

Mac

Museus

(2021). The power of ethnic studies at Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander serving institutions. About Campus, 26(1), 10–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086482220953164

90.

Yang

Vang

Chandara

Her

Limthongviratn

(2021). Supporting Southeast Asian American college students: Emergent practices and findings from an AANAPISI in Minnesota. In Palmer

R. T.

Maramba

D. C.

Allen

T. O.

Arroyo

A. T.

(Eds.), Understanding the work of student affairs professionals at minority serving institutions (pp. 56–72). Routledge.

91.

Mac

V. S.

Venturanza

R. J.

Museus

S. D.

Buenavista

T. L.

Pendakur

S. L.

(2020). Toward an anti-imperialistic critical race analysis of the model minority myth. Review of Educational Research, 90(4), 542–579. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654320933532

92.

Yin

R. K.

(2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Sage.

93.

Yin

R. K.

Quick

Bateman

Marks

(1978). Changing urban bureaucracies: How new practices become routinized. RAND Corp. http://www.rand.org/pubs/reports/R2277.html

94.

U.S. Department of Education (ED). (2023). Titles III, V, and VII grant programs: 2023 annual performance report. https://hepis.ed.gov/assets/pdf/IS_APR_2023_blank_form.pdf

95.

U.S. Department of Education (ED). (2022). Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander-Serving Institutions Program. https://www2.ed.gov/programs/aanapi/index.html