2026 Theses Doctoral

How do Asian American leaders in higher education experience and navigate bias and barriers in stepping up to leadership positions?

Zhao, Ting

Asian Americans remain underrepresented in leadership across U.S. higher education despite robust participation in institutional workforces. This qualitative multiple-case study examines how Asian American leaders experience and navigate bias and barriers when stepping into leadership roles, and how they develop leadership capacity through informal learning in environments where advancement criteria can be ambiguous and discretionary. Guided by Critical Race Theory (CRT) and AsianCrit, Social Cognitive Theory, and informal/incidental learning theory, the study prioritizes analytic generalization—linking patterned meaning in leaders’ narratives to theory rather than making population-level claims. Semi-structured interviews with nine Asian American leaders across varied institutional types and functional domains were analyzed using within-case interpretation and cross-case synthesis.

Cross-case findings show that leadership advancement was rarely experienced as a straightforward function of competence. Instead, participants described a recurring credibility burden: leadership readiness had to be continuously demonstrated and made legible through heightened proof, strategic visibility, and navigation of elastic evaluative constructs (e.g., “fit,” “presence,” “collegiality”). A second pattern involved uneven mentorship. While mentoring supported confidence and decision-making, key promotions and opportunities more often depended on mentorship-like actions—public endorsement, nomination, and introduction—that altered access to decision spaces. A third pattern highlighted informal learning as the primary development engine. Leaders learned through stretch assignments, cross-unit coalition-building, crisis/problem-solving, political sensemaking, and ongoing identity negotiation. However, when access to learning-rich work, feedback, and insider networks was uneven, informal learning also became a mechanism through which inequity accumulated.

Participants’ navigation strategies combined agency with adaptation: evidence-based legitimacy building (data, policy fluency, process integrity), relationship and coalition development, calibrated voice and visibility, and meaning-making to sustain resilience. Interpreted through Social Cognitive Theory, these strategies reflect self-efficacy development via mastery experiences, vicarious learning, social persuasion, and emotional regulation—yet they should not be mistaken for a substitute for structural change.

Implications point to organizational redesign rather than individual “fixes”: clarify and standardize advancement criteria; implement accountable mentorship structures; equitably distribute high-visibility, learning-rich assignments; strengthen feedback and coaching during transitions; and recognize relational and emotional labor in evaluation and workload. Overall, the study frames Asian American leadership advancement as an interaction between individual capability and institutional opportunity structures—and argues that equity requires systems that make recognition, development, and belonging more transparent and attainable.