Keywords

Immigrants tend to settle where job opportunities and socioeconomic resources abound. For Asians, this has historically meant large, ethnically dense, metropolitan cities in the US West and Northeast (e.g., San Francisco, Los Angeles, New York, Boston). By the late 1990s, resulting from such centralized settlement patterns, the vast majority (nearly 70 %) of Asian Americans lived in urbanized communities dispersed in just six states (Hune, 2002). However, since then, oversaturation in traditional gateways has contributed to immigrants searching for opportunities in less urban, metropolitan centers (Massey & Capoferro, 2008; Parrado & Kandel, 2008). Resettlement programs for Asian refugees have also led to the increased movement of immigrants into regions that have not traditionally hosted newcomers (Forrest & Brown, 2014). These new or emerging immigrant communities are often characterized by small, low population-dense cities, suburbs, and rural towns and typically lack resources and infrastructure to aid newcomers’ integration (Bailey, 2005; Hirschman & Massey, 2008).

Following these migration trends, theoretical and empirical interest in understanding immigrant adaptation in new destinations has grown, with many investigating the ramifications of context and place of settlement on families and youth development (Massey & Capoferro, 2008). For instance, some have examined the implications of geographic context for ethnic identity and well being (Kiang, Perreira, & Fuligni, 2011; Perreira, Fuligni, & Potochnick, 2010). Others have focused on the prevalence and experience of discrimination within different types of communities (Potochnick, Perreira, & Fuligni, 2012). However, the literature is scarce and especially limited given that much of the increased research attention has centered on immigrants from Latin American backgrounds to the exclusion of those with Asian ancestry (Kuk & Lichter, 2010). Virtually nothing is known about the Asian youth and families who are increasingly settling in new immigrant communities and rural areas of the USA.

The disparity in the literature is particularly problematic given high rates of growth among the Asian American population overall. From 2000 to 2010, the population of Asian Americans increased by 46 % (Asian American Federation; AAF, 2014). This rate of growth, primarily attributable to an influx of foreign-born immigrants, surpassed all other ethnic groups during this period, even outpacing Latin Americans who exhibited 43 % growth (Pew Research Center, 2012). The limited attention to Asian Americans in rural settings is also a problem due to the notable ways in which they differ from their counterparts from other ethnic groups. As one example, some ethnic minorities in rural settings, such as Latino/as or Native Americans, sometimes comprise the most dominant ethnic group residing in their communities (Evans, Smokowski, & Cotter, 2014). In contrast, Asian Americans in rural and new immigrant settings tend to represent the true numerical minority, often with extremely sparse numbers. For instance, in North Carolina, although Asian Americans tripled in number since the turn of the century, they still comprised only 2 % of the total state population in 2010 (Reeves & Bennett, 2002). Such extreme minority status, particularly in emerging immigrant areas that are newly adjusting to the presence of immigrants, creates a pressing need for conceptual and empirical work to elucidate newcomer families’ development and to help these families and the surrounding communities adapt positively to the changing demographics.

The goal of this chapter is to provide a theoretical discussion of some of the factors that should be considered when conceptualizing the development of Asian American youth and families in rural and new immigrant destinations. We begin by briefly reviewing historical migration patterns of Asian American immigrants. We then draw on existing frameworks of child development and present a conceptual model that identifies key individual, community, and culturally based factors that face Asian American families and youth and impact their development and adjustment. We conclude with a discussion of topics to address in future work, including implications for education, policy, and research.

Notably, we use conceptions from UNICEF and define Asian American as individuals in the USA with ancestry from the Pacific Islands and the Eastern, Southeastern, and Southern regions of Asia. Specific countries of origin include Cambodia, China, Fiji, India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Laos, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippines, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam, among others. Asian American thus denotes a panethnic group with complex identities, multiple layers, and flexible boundaries. Like other panethnic identities—US Latino/as, European American—the category is dynamic and fluid across place and time. While we recognize their tremendous heterogeneity, most of our discussion focuses on Asian American as a general category, largely because the current number of subethnicities of Asian Americans who are settling in rural areas tends to be too small to support more focused or comparative work.

Relatedly, the Asian American population in rural areas is still sparse; hence, our discussion embodies not only rural communities but new immigrant destinations more broadly. While some of these destinations can be considered relatively large, metropolitan areas (e.g., Austin, Texas; Salt Lake City, Utah), our conceptualization includes rural townships and small cities (e.g., Greensboro and Hickory, both in North Carolina). We use typologies set in prior literature and define new immigrant destinations as areas that have only recently experienced great growth in their immigrant population (e.g., higher than the national average; in 1990, the foreign-born growth rate was 57 %, nationwide) (Kuk & Lichter, 2010; Park & Iceland, 2011; Singer, 2004). Such dramatic growth in predominantly and historically monocultural areas reflects a new social, economic, and demographic phenomenon and introduces unique challenges for families’ adjustment (Bailey, 2005; Massey & Capoferro, 2008).

Demographic Shifts Toward Rural Communities and New Immigrant Destinations

By the turn of the twenty-first century, over 30 % of immigrants resided outside of established gateway states, and these numbers are growing (Singer, 2004). For Asian immigrants, sites for settlement increasingly include suburbs and rural communities in the Midwest and South (AAF, 2014). These new or emerging immigrant destinations have been defined in different ways. For example, Singer (2004) used Census data to track migration flows and differentiated six types of gateway communities. “Pre-emerging” areas were defined as those with low percentages of the foreign-born population through the 1980s, with sudden, rapid growth in the 1990s. These were commonly comprised of suburbs outside of central cities (e.g., Charlotte, North Carolina; Salt Lake City, Utah). In a similar analysis focusing on Asian Americans, Kuk and Lichter (2010) used county-level data to define “new Asian settlement areas” as counties that did not exceed the national population of Asian Americans in 1990 (i.e., 3 %), yet exhibited at least a 200 % growth rate from 1990 to 2008. These areas were most notably dispersed in Georgia and North Carolina.

Regardless of the specific criteria used to delineate new settlement areas, migration trends clearly show a shift in population demographics since the late 1990s. Largely driving these shifting trends are changes in industries and jobs. As work and career prospects in major cities have become more saturated, growth and opportunities in construction, services, and manufacturing have expanded to other, more remote, areas. For instance, nationwide shifts in agriculture, construction, and meatpacking industries have contributed to changing migration patterns by attracting immigrants from overcrowded gateway cities to abundant opportunities in low-wage, low-skill work (e.g., poultry processing, textiles) in places like Idaho, Nevada, or North Carolina (Parrado & Kandel, 2008). Hence, as commerce and the “geography of opportunity” (Singer, 2004; p. 7) have changed, so have major immigrant destinations in the USA.

Notably, the individuals and families moving to these areas are heterogeneous. They include new immigrants who were drawn to these areas as initial places of settlement, the foreign-born already in the USA who moved in search of jobs, and second-generation youth who were born into these areas (Kuk & Lichter, 2010). In some cases, settlement decisions are not economically driven but due to refugee or resettlement policies that are outside of families’ control and dictated by the US government or sponsoring agencies (Forrest & Brown, 2014). The ethnic groups moving into these areas are markedly diverse in ethnicity, acculturation, language, education, and socioeconomic status. Hence, in understanding Asian youth and families in new immigrant destinations, individual characteristics, premigration circumstances, as well as context must be addressed, as illustrated through our conceptual model.

Building a Theoretical Model of Asian Americans in Rural and New Immigrant Areas

Although the developmental literature has been criticized for failing to incorporate cultural factors (Garcia Coll et al., 1996; Perreira, Chapman, & Stein, 2006), several theoretical frameworks have explicated the importance of community and context. Bronfenbrenner’s (2005) bioecological model systematically delineates environmental influences while emphasizing their interrelatedness. History and life events in the chronosystem permeate increasingly proximal spheres including the macrosystem, or sweeping cultural values; the exosystem, reflecting indirect influences such as institutional regulations; and, most proximally, microsystems , or daily lives and experiences. Specific mechanisms can vary, but external factors are believed to trigger change, interact, and create a natural component of each person’s life course. Bronfenbrenner’s ideas have inspired other theoretical frameworks, and some of the systemic factors found in his bioecological model can be seen through other conceptualizations. For example, Laosa (1990) extended Bronfenbrenner’s ideas and proposed a culturally sensitive multivariate model that incorporates individual and family factors as well as characteristics of the sending and receiving communities in determining immigrant child development. Also inspired, in part, by Bronfrenbrenner, Garcia Coll et al. (1996) developed an integrated framework that focuses specifically on children from ethnic minority backgrounds and pinpoints a variety of contextual influences. This framework also incorporates other views (e.g., social stratification and spatial assimilation theories) and includes issues of social position, segregation, and promotive and inhibiting environments.

Drawing on these theoretical perspectives, we conceptualize fundamental constructs that are relevant to Asian Americans residing in rural or new immigrant destinations and discuss how these factors operate uniquely in these settings. We consider Fig. 5.1 a working illustration that is not intended to be entirely comprehensive due to the many complex, dynamic factors that evolve and shift in determining trajectories and outcomes. Rather, our hope is that this model can begin encouraging and guiding more thinking about how rural or new immigrant contexts might distinctively drive development and adaptation. By initiating continued theory and research in this understudied domain, our preliminary model could pave the way toward developing more precise frameworks and best methodological practices to capture and understand the lived experiences of rural Asian American children, adolescents, and families.

Fig. 5.1
figure 1

Conceptual model of Asian Americans in rural and new immigrant destinations

Full size image

Social Position and Individual Characteristics

While the factors that are unique to each individual are many and diverse, we highlight some that might be particularly salient for Asian Americans in rural and new settlement areas—race and ethnicity, socioeconomic status, gender, and familial reasons for migration.

Race and ethnicity stratify and place individuals in the social hierarchy. Issues of race and ethnicity are especially important in rural communities and new immigrant destinations where the population density of Asian Americans is low and might also vary considerably, even within specific areas. For example, in North Carolina, vast county-wide differences exist in the rates of Asian American representation. Wake County in North Carolina has a relatively large proportion of Asian Americans for the state (approaching 6 %), but the population is concentrated in only a few Census tracts and is mostly comprised of those from Asian Indian backgrounds (U.S. Census, 2010a). In contrast, nearby Guilford County has a slightly lower proportion of Asian Americans (closer to 5 %), but the population is mostly comprised of Vietnamese-origin families in some Census tracts and Korean-origin families in others (U.S. Census, 2010b). All of these groups came to North Carolina under different circumstances and share little cultural connection. Hence, while the overall percentages of Asian Americans in these counties might seem relatively large, at least when compared to other parts of the Southeastern USA, the local communities are still rather small when separated by nationality or ethnicity.

The term “Asian” itself is a racialized construct, and the panethnic nature of it masks important heterogeneity. All Asian immigrants represent specific ethnicities. However, due to the limited numbers of same-ethnic peers that reside in new immigrant communities, these ethnic variations might be abandoned by individuals who seek greater power in a collective “Asian” identity and voluntarily group themselves panethnically (Espiritu, 1992). For example, despite few cultural similarities among South Asians and Southeast Asians, they might band together as “Asians” in small communities with few opportunities to interact with same-ethnic peers. They might also identify with other non-Asian ethnic minorities and adopt a “collective Black” mentality due to shared experiences of marginalization and social stratification (Bonilla-Silva, 2002). Moreover, Asians are commonly stereotyped by the mainstream as either perpetual foreigners or model minorities (e.g., high achieving, economically successful, hardworking) (Goto, Gee, & Takeuchi, 2002; Tuan, 1999), and their racial background often places them toward the low-end of the social hierarchy.

Similarly, because of limited experience and cultural understanding on the part of the mainstream, Asian Americans could be involuntarily grouped into the broad category of “Asian.” Indeed, the distinction between self-chosen and other-ascribed identity is important to consider, especially since such labeling differences are prevalent among Asian American adolescents in the Southeastern USA (Kiang & Luu, 2013). In rural and new immigrant destinations especially, the mainstream community could be unfamiliar with the cultural traditions and characteristics of Asian Americans and thus rely on assumptions and stereotypes that can hinder newcomers’ integration and adjustment. Whether voluntarily chosen or socially ascribed , the panethnic label or racialized construct of what it means to be “Asian” is an important individual variable or distinguishing characteristic that Asian youth in rural and new immigrant destinations must face.

Social class is another mechanism of social stratification, with research supporting detrimental effects of having few socioeconomic resources (McLoyd, 1998). Newcomers in rural and new immigrant communities tend to have lower socioeconomic status and higher poverty rates than their counterparts in traditional migration areas (Singer, 2004). Although there could be some overlap with race or ethnicity, socioeconomic background is important to consider because it can dictate what type of housing or neighborhood new immigrants settle in, what jobs parents hold, what resources are available to children, and, ultimately, how well newcomer families can be integrated into their communities (Waters & Jimenez, 2005). Effects of socioeconomic status could also play out in light of Asian Americans’ sense of “otherness,” particularly if they have different clothing or other superficial markers that make them stand out (Armenta et al., 2013). Indirect effects could also be found in which economic hardship fuels family strain and conflict (McLoyd, 1998), which then have implications for child development.

Among Asian American immigrants, gender is naturally embedded in cultural adjustment processes. For instance, Southeast Asian girls tend to be seen as “keepers of culture,” and messages that emphasize cultural knowledge and traditions are often more strongly socialized in girls than in boys (Lee, Jung, Su, Tran, & Bahrassa, 2009). Girls, compared to boys, from Hmong backgrounds are also often faced with stricter rules and monitoring and are expected to help out around the house and engage in stereotypically feminine tasks (e.g., cooking, cleaning) (Supple & Cavanaugh, 2013). Such familial expectations and gender-prescribed roles could lead to different opportunities for acculturation , where boys might be given more freedom to engage with the mainstream community and girls might be expected to stay closely connected to their home and native culture. Another upshot of gendered socialization is in the parent–child relationship; some evidence points to greater relationship dissatisfaction in girls compared to boys, which in turn, could have adjustment implications (Supple, McCoy, & Wang, 2010).

An additional layer of complexity involves familial reasons for migration, which could be intertwined with ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and other demographic variables. Generally speaking, patterns of migration, including premigration circumstances and reasons for migrating, can influence the structure of settlement communities and the cultural environments in which youth and families develop (Mistry & Wu, 2010). Parents’ deliberate decision to migrate to certain areas, perhaps in pursuit of opportunities, could involve a unique set of factors such as great uncertainty, a decrease in social position, and self-sacrifice (Perreira et al., 2006). Alternatively, some families could be involuntary migrants who left their countries due to forced evacuation, violence, and threat of genocide (Tatman, 2004). Some refugee families have been settled in new locations by the US government or other agencies with little knowledge or choice of their own. For instance, the US Office of Refugee Resettlement dispersed many Vietnamese and Hmong refugees to states with a limited history of immigration (e.g., Louisiana, Missouri) in an effort to facilitate integration and economic independence.

Another notable example is the Montagnards , who represent an under-researched cultural minority group with origins in the Central Highlands of Southeast Asia. During the Vietnam War, the USA recruited and trained the Montagnards to fight against the communists from North Vietnam. When US-backed forces were defeated, the communist Vietnamese government retaliated and subjected the Montagnards to a host of human rights atrocities including near genocide. Those who survived were left with little options but to flee, hide in the jungle, or move to refugee camps. North Carolina has been a primary destination for this group’s resettlement and holds the largest concentration of Montagnards outside of Vietnam. They settled in North Carolina because of the strong bonds they developed with the US Green Berets during the war (stationed in Fort Bragg, NC) and because state sponsoring agencies played a role in helping them settle (Bailey, 2005). Given the danger and extreme hardship in fleeing the country, many Montagnard refugees are men who immigrated alone or with other men and who later sponsor their children and female family members in reunification efforts (Kinefuchi, 2010). This unique history supports the idea that premigration circumstances should be considered in attempts to understand immigrant youth and families’ adjustment, especially since such factors are bound to interact with post-migration experiences.

Different types of families also have different levels of social and economic capital , which are interrelated with both pre- and post-migration circumstances. It should be recognized that all immigrants bring with them a particular set of characteristics and experiences that can promote or hinder their subsequent adjustment. While reasons for migration are important for all immigrant populations, they might be especially meaningful among families who settle in new immigrant destinations, either due to the large proportion of refugees who have relocated to these areas or due to the somewhat pioneering decision to voluntarily move to an area where few ethnic supports and resources are available. Notably, reasons for migration could also interact with other individual characteristics discussed (e.g., race, socioeconomic status, gender) to jointly affect how families adjust to their new surroundings.

Community Factors

Social position and individual characteristics alone do not directly affect development. Rather, it is the interplay between these factors and individuals’ experiences with the broader community that has an influence (Garcia Coll et al., 1996). We highlight features of the receiving community that can impact Asian Americans in rural and new immigrant destinations. Some reflect broad, macro-level constructs (e.g., racism, social reception, segregation). Others reflect more proximal influences of schools and neighborhoods (e.g., institutional resources). Collectively, these community-level variables are central to our theoretical model because they represent contextual circumstances that are perhaps most distinctive for Asians in new immigrant settings. They also permeate layers of the environment and affect daily interactions with family, peers, schools, and other community structures.

The social reception of the receiving community and, more specifically, perceived discrimination in schools and neighborhoods can shape daily experiences and the way individuals culturally adapt and define themselves (Laosa, 1990; Portes & Rumbaut, 2001). Asian Americans in rural and new immigrant destinations face the challenge of having to adjust in environments that are often predominantly White and that have only recently experienced a boom in foreign-born presence. The underlying social reception in such communities could be positive or negative. Some could adopt a genuine openness and curiosity about the cultural diversity and traditions that newcomers add. There could be a sense of welcome and efforts to integrate the foreign-born or second-generation immigrant into existing social spheres. Yet, while some community members might view the growing ethnic diversity a boon, others might view newcomers as competition and outcasts (Singer, 2004). Xenophobia and lack of cultural familiarity could exacerbate conflict between groups. Asian Americans could also experience an objectification of their ancestry and stereotypes about who they are (Armenta et al., 2013).

At a more extreme level, racism and related mechanisms could serve as major obstacles in Asian Americans’ community integration. Theory and research have long evidenced the negative influence of discrimination (Sellers & Shelton, 2003). Moreover, recent work suggests that the modern face of discrimination has changed from overtly rejecting experiences to those that are subtle and ambiguous (e.g., microaggressions) (Sue et al., 2007). Microaggressions can be seen through unfamiliarity with a particular culture, such as when Asian subethnicities are racially grouped and assumed to be similar, or from general stereotypes, as when Asian Americans, even those who are second or third generation, are assumed to have limited English proficiency (Armenta et al., 2013). Discrimination and unfair treatment could leach into the school system as well. In a qualitative exploration of discrimination reported by Asian American adolescents in the Southeastern USA, open-ended descriptions revealed that discriminatory experiences with teachers were notable, with 13 % of individuals describing situations in which a teacher or school authority figure treated them differently because of their race or ethnicity (Bhattacharjee & Kiang, 2012). Although more work needs to be done, particularly with respect to systematic comparisons across new and traditional receiving sites, it is likely that Asian Americans in new settlement areas experience forms of racism that are both institutional as well as symbolic and subtle in nature. Indeed, in a comparative study of Latin Americans in different geographic settings, youth from new immigrant destinations reported more instances of ethnic discrimination compared to those from traditional areas of migration (Potochnick et al., 2012).

On the more optimistic side, experiences of discrimination could create shared challenge and camaraderie, which could ultimately strengthen cultural ties and newcomers’ adaptation (Tatum, 2003). However, one of the reasons that discrimination and its effects could be particularly rampant in rural and new settlement areas is the isolation and lack of social support that newcomers are likely to experience, possibly leading to internalized oppression, depression, and poor identity development (Evans et al., 2014). Indeed, segregation and feelings of isolation are additional community-level factors that can be problematic for many reasons.

Given the long history of Asian settlement in West Coast urban areas or places like New York City, Asian immigrants who settle in these traditional gateway communities tend to become fairly well integrated relatively quickly. The multiple generations of Asian Americans found in these areas have established a strong presence not only in neighborhoods and communities but also within the school system, local businesses, service sector, and political environment. However, different developmental processes could face newcomers who are received in new immigrant destinations, which likely lack the institutional and social infrastructure to support their community integration (Bailey, 2005; Park & Iceland, 2011).

Segregation in new immigrant destinations can take the form of residential, social, economic, or ethnic isolation (Evans et al., 2014). In North Carolina, Southeast Asian refugees are often housed in low-income apartments with few opportunities to interact with mainstream Americans, especially if job segregation (which is also common) also exists (Kinefuchi, 2010). In manufacturing and blue collar jobs, immigrants often work in entry-level positions and have little contact with advanced laborers and professionals who tend to represent the mainstream community. Work segregation could also result from bias in terms of hiring, salary, and ceiling effects. In some cases, employers promote job segregation by fostering ethnic antagonism and a split labor market where immigrants are perceived as competing with the mainstream for jobs, displacing workers, and lowering wages (Bonacich, 1972). Such assumptions could create further social segregation marked by conflict, tension, and perhaps even mistrust and fear.

Segregation could also be directly experienced by immigrant children and youth. With limited social, institutional, and community resources, rural and new immigrant destinations could offer less in terms of organized social activities for youth, especially in comparison to the opportunities found in traditional areas of migration. The implications of such limited resources are weighty given that extracurricular involvement is widely beneficial to academic development and social and psychological well being (Eccles, Barber, Stone, & Hunt, 2003), with recent work pointing to particularly strong effects for first-generation youth (Camacho & Fuligni, 2014).

Notably, some segregation could be voluntary, such as when immigrants purposefully concentrate in areas due to affordable housing, proximity to resources and jobs, and comfort and familiarity of same-ethnic peers (Park & Iceland, 2011). In new destinations, however, ethnic enclaves tend to be smaller, less concentrated, or nonexistent and, as such, segregation can take on a different meaning than in urban, ethnically dense areas. In some cases, segregation might not even be possible, such as in small communities where few institutional resources (e.g., library, community center, schools) must be shared by all (Waters & Jimenez, 2005).

In terms of community resources, the influx of newcomers has put substantial demands on existing infrastructure in many rural areas (e.g., schools, health care system) and has forced these communities to immediately adapt to the demographic change (Singer, 2004). Challenges could arise if communities are unprepared or unwilling to accommodate their changing demographics. On the other hand, the arrival of new residents can help to revitalize small, rural communities through increased activity such as property sales and rentals or simply keeping schools and local organizations populated and energized (Singer, Hardwick, & Brettell, 2008).

Language resources are also vital. Limited heritage language support in schools could serve as a barrier to child and youth adjustment (Kuk & Lichter, 2010). Few language supports in receiving communities could similarly challenge adults’ integration and force them to rely on children as language brokers or translators (Singer, 2004). Moreover, the scarce availability of external resources is not only a practical concern but could convey the subtle message that newcomers are inferior, not welcome, or do not belong. While language supports are growing for Spanish-speaking immigrants in new destinations, the diversity in languages spoken among Asian immigrants makes providing such resources a particularly difficult challenge to address.

Taken together, the influence of the receiving community on Asian Americans in rural and new immigrant destinations is widespread and significant. The variables in our model intersect in complex and dynamic ways, and all of these community factors (e.g., discrimination, segregation, resources) are linked to the overall size and ethnic diversity of the community itself (Portes & Rumbaut, 2001). With negative social perceptions of the influx of immigrants, newcomers are likely to experience multiple levels of segregation. Discrimination in areas where ethnic density is low and where individuals have a sense of social isolation could be particularly harmful (Potochnick et al., 2012). A lack of infrastructure and few economic, cultural, or social resources could hinder adaptation and lead to further feelings of isolation. Not having same-ethnic peers to commiserate and share negative experiences with or to revel in achievements also presents challenging social circumstances (Tatum, 2003). Alternatively, communities that embrace change could work with newcomers to create effective strategies for integration and promoting adjustment. As movement into new immigrant areas is still growing, more work is needed to understand complex social and community factors and to develop concrete ways to celebrate such demographic change, for newcomers as well as the mainstream.

Cultural and Family-Level Resources

Another key component to our model includes the cultural and family resources that could enhance the adjustment and adaptation of youth and families in rural and new immigrant destinations. Like other aspects of our model, these cultural and family variables are intricately linked with other components including community factors previously discussed. Cultural and family resources are permeated by Garcia Coll et al.’s (1996) idea of adaptive culture , which refers broadly to the ways in which individuals negotiate and integrate their lived experiences, such as those that stem from the environment, into their overall sense of self. The specific variables that we highlight as particularly important include ethnic identity, socialization, and culturally relevant aspects of family relationships and values.

Few have examined protective factors among immigrant youth, especially among those in new immigrant destinations, but ethnic identity is a key resource to consider. Ethnic identity can promote psychological, social, and academic adjustment (Evans et al., 2014), as well as protect against negative effects of discrimination and normative stress (Kiang, Yip, Gonzales-Backen, Witkow, & Fuligni, 2006; Sellers & Shelton, 2003). The social connections and pride that come with a strong sense of identity would thus seem beneficial for Asian Americans in new immigrant communities who might be at risk for social segregation and racial discrimination.

Context can shape the way children and adolescents culturally define themselves. In rural and new immigrant destinations, which tend to be predominantly White, maintaining cultural traditions while assimilating to the mainstream could be challenging (Mistry & Wu, 2010; Portes & Rumbaut, 2001). In contrast, among immigrants in metropolitan areas and established ethnic enclaves , children are often exposed to cultural institutions such as temples, community centers, and small businesses, which provide infrastructure for sustaining heritage language and practices (Khandelwal, 2002). In urban enclaves, children in immigrant families are also often exposed to other communities of color and ethnically diverse contexts. Child development in such urban areas can enhance early support for and awareness of ethnic identity, with children being somewhat protected from recognizing their minority status until they venture out from their ethnically dense communities (Mistry & Wu, 2010).

Being in a true numerical minority thus introduces qualitatively distinct circumstances. In a comparative study of Latino/as and Asian Americans in new immigrant versus traditional receiving sites, those in urban communities of Los Angeles were more likely to choose diverse ethnic labels to define themselves and to incorporate the term “American,” whereas those in new immigrant destinations tended to use mostly ethnic heritage labels (Kiang, Perreira, et al., 2011). In turn, such labels have implications for well being and adjustment, with specific heritage labels being linked with healthier adjustment compared to the use of diffuse, panethnic labels (Kiang, 2008). Moreover, ethnic identity development is highly connected to American identity and to establishing a bicultural comfort with both ethnic and mainstream cultures, which can also promote positive development (Garcia Coll et al., 1996; Kiang, Witkow, & Champagne, 2013).

Community experiences can serve as socializing mechanisms, but parents also play a significant role (Kiang, Harter, & Whitesell, 2007). Ethnic socialization messages received from parents could depend on their family’s reasons for migration and include messages that foster cultural pride and ways to cope with mainstream interactions that serve to devalue their group (Hughes et al., 2006). Parents could have different motivations to encourage children to fully assimilate or preserve cultural traditions. For example, Kinefuchi (2010) found evidence for diverse socialization strategies in the Montagnard community in North Carolina—some join Montagnard churches and organizations because of ease and familiarity, while others dissociate from these organizations in order to encourage their children to assimilate. Parents’ own goals and acculturation levels can thus play a large role in their parenting, in the cultural values and behaviors they promote, and in their children’s subsequent levels of cultural understanding.

Language is closely related to acculturation and cultural identification. Few direct comparisons across immigrant destinations have been made, but research does suggest that English proficiency tends to be lower and heritage language proficiency higher among those in new settlement versus traditional areas of migration (Kiang, Perreira, et al., 2011; Singer, 2004; Waters & Jimenez, 2005). As such, parents in rural areas could frequently enlist their children to assist with language brokering, which could, in turn, foster a strong, positive ethnic connection and motivate youth to identify closely with their culture and ancestry (Morales & Hanson, 2005). As stated earlier, new immigrants struggling with English could face difficulties adjusting to the mainstream and are largely dependent on available institutional and community resources.

Culturally relevant family values represent another central resource. Among Latino/as and Asian Americans, family obligation, or the idea that one should assist the family and help maintain family functioning, tends to be endorsed strongly, and such endorsements have been consistently related to healthy academic and psychological adjustment (Fuligni & Pedersen, 2002). Recent work with Latin Americans has further found that the link between family obligation and academic adjustment is particularly strong for those in rural communities compared to youth in traditional migration areas (Perreira et al., 2010). Other aspects of familism (e.g., respect) are also positive influences in individuals’ lives (Kiang & Fuligni, 2009). Again, such family connections might be especially vital in rural areas given the few sources of same-ethnic social connections. Certainly, the lack of a same-ethnic peer group could hinder positive development through limited social support in the face of discrimination and less access to ethnic exploration with peers with shared backgrounds (Tatum, 2003). Our work with Asian American youth from the Southeastern USA has indeed found that same-ethnic peer relationships are positively associated with ethnic identity (Kiang, Peterson, & Thompson, 2011).

Cultural supports in the form of community resources and family and peer relationships all work to potentially buffer negative interactions at the community level. At the same time, the lack of social or cultural resources could hinder ethnic socialization and exacerbate some of the unique challenges associated with residing in rural or new immigrant destinations. Further research to uncover and build cultural capital, relationships, and other assets to boost healthy development for children and youth in these immigrant contexts should be a priority.

Developmental Outcomes

The utility in outlining a conceptual framework rests in its ability to predict outcomes. Most of the literature on immigrant youth adjustment has centered on samples from traditional areas of migration (e.g., Qin, 2008; Yip & Fuligni, 2002). This is a serious oversight. Given the changing landscape of where immigrant children are found, more work needs to be done to better understand how youth in new destination areas are adjusting.

Perhaps most pressing is the need to examine how individual, community, and cultural factors interact and work together to shape outcomes among Asian American youth in rural and new destination areas and, if possible, in comparison to their urban counterparts. As one example, some of the factors in our model (e.g., discrimination) could have a more intense effect for youth in rural and new immigrant destinations who are likely to have limited same-ethnic social support compared to youth in urban settings or ethnic enclaves . Some research conducted in new immigrant destinations supports this idea in that Southeast Asian youth exhibit greater risk for suicidality and other internalizing problems compared to youth from other backgrounds who represent a larger proportion of the overall population (Supple et al., 2013). It is also possible that well being and adjustment are generally lower among these Asian youth due to their status as relatively new immigrants in these settings, which could be accompanied by social stressors and isolation. However, in a daily diary study, Latino/a youth from rural areas of North Carolina tended to report higher happiness compared to their counterparts from Los Angeles (Potochnick et al., 2012). The existing literature thus appears to be inconclusive at best.

Many outcomes are relevant to youth in rural and new immigrant areas. Psychological and socioemotional adjustment (e.g., depressive symptoms, self-esteem) is critical, but socially oriented outcomes, such as peer relationship quality and feelings of loneliness and isolation, are also pertinent. Research on externalizing and delinquent behaviors is needed given that very little work has examined such outcomes among Asian American youth, regardless of geographic setting. Prior work with a non-Asian sample has found that rural youth were at risk for externalizing symptoms such as substance use and other risk-taking behaviors compared to youth in other settings (Atav & Spencer, 2002; Evans et al., 2014). To our knowledge, no such comparison has been done with rural Asian Americans. Similarly, very little research on more diverse indicators of positive development among Asian Americans exists, such as purpose or meaning, optimism, hope, and other eudaimonic constructs. Academic adjustment should be also considered, especially given the cultural salience of educational success among Asian American families (Thompson & Kiang, 2010). Schools are primary contexts that youth must navigate, and educational supports might be gravely limited in rural and new immigrant settings. As suggested by Garcia Coll et al. (1996), key developmental outcomes also include elements of bicultural competence, as well as adaptive ways of coping with racism, discrimination, and segregation.

Model Implications and Future Directions

Empirical tests of the different components of our theoretical model could assist in furthering the field’s understanding of the developmental challenges, resources, and outcomes found among Asian American youth in rural and new immigrant destinations. We reiterate that the factors in our model are relevant for all youth and families, geographic area notwithstanding. However, in our discussion, we highlighted some of the unique ways in which such factors might operate in communities that are newly adjusting to hosting immigrant families.

Indeed, some models of immigrant adaptation might not apply to families in rural or new destinations. For example, the spatial assimilation model suggests that new immigrants are initially drawn toward immigrant-dense urban neighborhoods and ethnic enclaves, where most jobs and opportunities are located (Massey & Capoferro, 2008). As newcomers adjust and gain social mobility, they begin to integrate with the mainstream culture, gradually adopt their attitudes and values, and venture out to more affluent suburbs (Alba & Nee, 2003). These trends appear to be changing, given that many contemporary newcomers are moving directly to the suburbs and rural areas where job opportunities are now located (Singer, 2004). As discussed earlier, in the case of rural Asian Americans, an offshoot of these trends is that there might not be an established enclave in which newcomers can begin the process of acculturation . Hence, the gradual process of settling in segregated communities and later moving to desegregation might not apply (Park & Iceland, 2011). As such, to build on some of the components of our model, systematic investigation of the implications of the new migration patterns and alternatives to assimilation would be helpful. In particular, research is needed on how these new patterns of migration and assimilation might be linked to changes in the broad structure of the macrosystem , existing government policies, such as settlement strategies for refugees or state funding for institutional resources, and more proximal issues regarding contextual and community supports.

In terms of policy, emerging research and our theoretical conceptualization suggest that local governments and institutions should provide language support for immigrant children in school as well as for parents and adults in the community. The receiving community should also be aware of possible social conflict and proactively promote racial harmony, perhaps by educating the public and raising awareness about race and diversity (Kuk & Lichter, 2010). Explicitly examining the effectiveness of such programs could yield vital information on how to best promote newcomers’ integration and child development.

Another meaningful opportunity is for researchers to address issues of intersectionality. Race, culture, gender, sexuality, socioeconomic background, and religion, among other forms of social identity, have always been intricately linked, yet empirical work has yet to investigate their interrelated role in predicting adjustment. Race and class intersect, particularly with respect to social status and inequality. Race, ethnicity, and religion are also intertwined and under-researched, as found in the case of Indian Hindus or Christian Montagnards.

For immigrant youth in new immigrant destinations, religious support could be especially salient and impactful (Evans et al., 2014). In places like the US South, churches are primary social organizations that community members use to connect and build social capital (Putnam, 2000). Prior work has identified religious development as central for rural youth (King, Elder, & Whitbeck, 1997). Through religious services and church-based programs, such as heritage language schools, the church may play an important role in promoting cultural connection and identity. Kinefuchi (2010) found that the church was highly meaningful and represented a strong source of support within the Montagnard community, not just for religious faith but also as a social meeting point. On the other hand, religious institutions could create internal strife. For example, some Hmong communities struggle between Christian-based “new” faiths and traditional beliefs (e.g., shamanism, animism, spirits) (Tapp, 1989). Accordingly, responding to recent calls in the developmental literature to better examine intersectionality, including ways that religious identity can intersect with ethnic identity, could be exceedingly worthwhile.

Lastly, a recurring theme in this chapter is that Asian Americans are heterogeneous. Recent work cautions against the use of panethnic groupings due to significant differences in adjustment and adaptation across Asian subethnicities (AAF, 2014). Although we agree, we also grant that there could be utility for researchers to rely on such categorizations, e.g., in cases where topics under study reflect generalizable processes. Given many Asian ethnic groups’ mobility and settlement in areas that are less urban and less dense with other immigrants and ethnic minorities, there are also cases in which it is simply not realistic or feasible to recruit samples with specific ethnic heritages. In rural communities and new immigrant destinations, we might have to start with a panethnic definition, in order to get numbers that are large enough to examine with meaning. All things considered, the continued investigation of the implications of panethnicity and a more deliberate recognition of the use of panethnic labels in scientific theory and research, while specifically investigating subethnic Asian groups when possible, could help to drive the field forward and further inform our understanding of Asian American development in diverse geographic settings.