Working towards a definition of Asian
The use of the term Asian in social policy R and E was the focus of a workshop in Auckland earlier this year.
The workshop was co-hosted by the Centre for Asian Health Research and Evaluation (University of Auckland), the Centre for Applied Cross-Cultural Research (Victoria University of Wellington) and the Centre for Asian and Migrant Health Research (Auckland University of Technology), and supported by SPEaR.
It brought together researchers, community leaders, senior staff from community organisations, and representatives from government departments with the goal of getting a working definition for the term ‘Asian’. This included discussion on the contexts in which it would be appropriate to use the term to gain access to resources and opportunities.
The workshop also raised awareness of the limitations of using ‘Asian’ as an umbrella term to represent a diverse group of people from many cultures and often with few, or no, similarities: “In effect, there is a need to clarify potential ambiguity and confusion from the use of such an umbrella term in the allocation of resources and services to subgroups,” one of the hosts, Dr Samson Tse, said.
Participants discussed how ‘Asian’ was a social category rather than an ethnicity, and was a term sometimes imposed from the outside. From a policy perspective, it provided a political voice for lobbying and developing research services to a specific group of people. However, the diversity of ethnicities grouped under the term ‘Asian’ made it difficult for government agencies to set priorities and devise a coherent set of policies. “Health statistics, for example, are beginning to show a skewed picture masking serious issues,” Samson said.
Ministry of Social Development representative, Angelique Praat, said the workshop clearly situated the current New Zealand-specific usage of ‘Asian’ in political, statistical and conceptual terms. “It led to a thoughtful discussion of the implications of the usage – in research, in the community and in political contexts. As well as identifying the problems with using ‘Asian’ as a descriptive and sometimes explanatory concept, the workshop moved to strategies for unpackaging the term ‘Asian’ to enable sensible application – for example, collecting other sorts of information such as religion and socio-economic status, and length of time in New Zealand,” she said.
“Workshops on the day facilitated interesting debates around what our ‘ethnicity’ data actually captured, including whether ethnicity is a matter of ascription or self-identification, the shifting and relational notion of ‘identity’ and the place of ‘Asian’ and other groups in multicultural, bicultural and monocultural political paradigms,” Angelique said.
Samson said feedback from participants showed they found the workshop valuable, and they appreciated the platform the workshop provided for sharing views and meeting people relevant to their projects.
“It is time to have a better understanding of the term ‘Asian’ as this umbrella term cannot address the complexities adequately,” he said.
“Delays in defining the term ‘Asian’ will continue to mask disparities and deprivation in social development and health, making ‘Asians’ invisible at the level of targeted services and resource allocation.”
Samson said the next step would be to circulate a discussion paper on the issues covered in the workshop to government departments, non-governmental organisations, and community groups.
For more information, contact s.tse@auckland.ac.nz
