In this month’s Lead the Change (LtC) interview, Taeyeon Kim shares her work in raising the voices of marginalized Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) scholars in the field of educational leadership. Her research places emphasis on the intersection of leadership and policy. Before serving as an Assistant Professor of Educational Administration at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, she completed her Ph.D. in Educational Administration at Michigan State University. The LtC series is produced by Alex Lamb and colleagues from the Educational Change Special Interest Group of the American Educational Research Association. A pdf of the fully formatted interview is available on the LtC website.
Teayeon Kim
Lead the Change (LtC): The 2024 AERA theme is “Dismantling Racial Injustice and Constructing Educational Possibilities: A Call to Action.” This theme charges researchers and practitioners with confronting racial injustice directly while imagining new possibilities for liberation. The call urges scholars to look critically at our global past and look with hope and radicalism towards the future of education. What specific responsibility do educational change scholars have in this space? What steps are you taking to heed this call?
Taeyeon Kim (TK): When I think about the 2024 AERA theme in the context of educational change, it’s all about asking ourselves, “What kind of changes are we striving for and how do we get there?” This year’s AERA theme strongly encourages us to focus on transforming the educational landscape, which has long been marred by racism and White supremacy, into a more humane and liberating space.
In response, it’s crucial for scholars in the field of educational change to take responsibility for harnessing our collective knowledge to create more equitable education systems. Traditional approaches to change, usually labeled as “reform” and “improvement” in education, have often been driven by accountability policies rooted in neoliberal thinking (See critique from Au, 2022; Lipman, 2007; Tuck, 2013). Many educational change scholars have pushed back against this trend, exploring system perspectives (Fullan, 2015), professional capital (Hargreaves & Fullan, 2012), social justice (Flórez Petour & Rozas Assael, 2020; Rincón-Gallardo, 2018), and organizational learning (Mulford, 2005) as valuable tools for driving change. At the same time, it is essential to reevaluate these approaches through a critical lens and align them with more recent scholarship on disrupting institutional racism and Whiteness (Diamond & Gomez, 2023; Irby, 2022; Ishimaru & Galloway, 2021; Pailey, 2020; Ray, 2019).
As a leadership scholar, I see my role through three interconnected strands in my scholarship. First, my research focuses on reexamining policy through the lens of equity-centered leadership practices. This work closely aligns with my role as an educator, where I frequently emphasize the concept of the “administrative posture of neutrality” (Khalifa, 2020, p. 47). This concept underscores how administrators often concentrate solely on quantifiable factors and Khalifa (2020) warns that this tendency allows leaders “to avoid and deny racialized claims held against them by focusing on indisputable factors and maintain full control of the discourse around the school” (pp. 46-48). Through my research, I shed light on how policy mandates and rules shape administrators’ actions and how these,
sometimes inadvertently, perpetuate racism and White supremacy. This perspective informs my teaching as many of my students are aspiring educators looking to take on administrative roles. I take seriously my
responsibility of supporting them to critically analyze the system, imagine new possibilities for liberation, and empower marginalized students.
My research also amplifies the voices of racialized communities. For instance, in a recent collaborative inquiry (Kim et al., 2023), I had the opportunity to revisit and make sense of my own experiences as a racialized individual in the U.S. My co-authors and I challenged systemic racism and White supremacy by
collectively sharing counter narratives from Asian American communities. Another example is that I’ve been working closely with other Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) scholars, to convene AAPI-focused sessions the University Council of Educational Administration (UCEA) convention meetings. Despite being one of the fastest-growing populations in the U.S. (Budiman & Ruiz, 2021), research on this topic in P-12 leadership has been limited. Throughout these efforts, I aim to normalize and center the voices of marginalized AAPI communities in the field of educational leadership while challenging White and Eurocentric norms in research and practice.
“I aim to normalize and center the voices of marginalized AAPI communities in the field of educational leadership while challenging White and Eurocentric norms in research and practice.”
Furthermore, as a transnational immigrant scholar, I bring a global perspective to understanding racism. I acknowledge that racism operates differently in various parts of the world, often intertwined with imperialism, colonization, and capitalism in the global history. These historical factors have left a
lasting impact on many countries that were colonized and Global South. This transnational view enables me to explore multiple dimensions in shaping social construction of race and racism. While in the United States, racialized groups are often categorized as people of color, in other places like East Asian
countries, nationality and ethnicity play a significant role in shaping perceptions of race (See N.Y. Kim 2008, 2015; Yu, 2022). Consequently, I’m committed to promoting cross-cultural dialogues about racial injustice and “equity grammar” (Kim et al., 2023, p. 9).
LtC: In your work, you apply critical lenses and interrogate commonly used educational terms and
narratives to examine how educational leaders navigate accountability landscapes. What are some of the major lessons the field of Educational Change can learn from your work and experience?
TK: In my research on the intersection of leadership and policy, I’ve delved into the concept of “accountability.” While typically associated with responsibility, the term has taken on various meanings across different fields, leading to an expansive operational definition. Within education policy, accountability serves both as a means and an end goal (Suspitsyna, 2010). However, I’ve observed that the prevailing discourse on accountability, shaped by large policy initiatives like Every Student Succeed Act (ESSA), tends to emphasize high-stakes policies, at the expense of relational aspects of accountability working in P-12 schools. This led me to investigate how leaders in practice perceive and enact accountability in their day-to-day roles.
My research in this area urges Educational Change scholars to consider whose viewpoints are driving transformative changes. Drawing from my background as a former elementary school teacher in South Korea and a current leadership scholar, I focus on equity-driven leaders’ perspectives. Recognizing the power dynamics between policymakers at the top and practitioners implementing accountability
efforts for diverse stakeholders, I frame accountability based on how policies are enacted and how these professionals operate within their contexts. Informed by policy sociology (Ball, 1993, 2015) and the idea of street-level bureaucracy (Lipsky, 2010), my research resists confining accountability within predefined policy scripts (See Kim, 2022, 2023). My framing of policy from the viewpoints of leaders also aligns with my methodological approaches to understand accountability. I use qualitative methods inspired by portraiture (Lawrence-Lightfoot & Davis, 1997), which blends elements of phenomenology and ethnography. This approach enables me to reveal rich, contextualized narratives that shed light on the
intricate challenges of accountability enactment in school settings. These examples underline the importance not only of the nature of changes being pursued, but also whose interpretations hold significance. Recent trends in the field of Educational Change emphasize the importance of including voices from communities and students, providing deeper insights into fundamental questions about change and its implementation through policies.
“I argue that leaders must adopt a multidimensional comprehension of the change process, grounded in values of equity and social justice, to ensure sustainable and meaningful changes.”
Moreover, my research accentuates the human facet of leading change. In my Harvard Educational Review paper, I theorize the “human side of accountability” (Kim, 2023, p. 313). This concept spotlights the leadership space where school principals grapple with the dual pressures of meeting student needs and adhering to policy mandates while minimizing inadvertent harm to marginalized students. This might involve complying with the law and policy mandates they disagree with for job continuity. Navigating such complexities necessitates ethical decision-making and a dedication to rebuilding trust and prioritizing underserved students. Given the unpredictable and multifaceted nature of implementing
changes, I argue that leaders must adopt a multidimensional comprehension of the change process, grounded in values of equity and social justice, to ensure sustainable and meaningful changes. With COVID-19 and rapid technological advancement, our educational landscapes have become infused with AI and technology-induced transformations. Within this context, my research also prompts
questions to educational change scholars: How can we incorporate these non-human (or posthuman) elements into the endeavor of “humanizing” leadership for driving change?
LtC: In some of your recent work, you use AsianCrit to examine your experiences as a Korean woman living in the racialized context of the United States. This deeply personal and incredibly important piece shares the narratives of fellow early career scholars in higher ed as well. How might your insights help us realize inclusion and justice in higher education and K-12?
TK: In light of the profound impacts of COVID-19 on Asian American communities and the surge of Asian Hate crimes, my inquiry team of five early career Korean American faculty members explored our racialized experiences in the U.S. We approached this inquiry through the lens of AsianCrit (Iftikar & Museus, 2018; Museus & Iftikar, 2014), which is a subgroup of critical race theory (CRT) (See Kim et al., 2023). We initially formed a reading group to deepen our understanding of AsianCrit. Over time, this group organically transformed into an identity-informed peer-mentoring space, where we came to recognize the immense value of collaborative inquiry and collective storytelling. There are two significant
contributions our research makes in the pursuit of inclusion and justice.
First, our research underscores the utility of CRT, particularly AsianCrit, in empowering Asian-immigrant or international students as they navigate the process of “Asianization.” This term refers to the process of racially marginalized individuals in the U.S. becoming “Asian” due to the influence of Whit supremacy and nativist racism that shape our daily lives (Iftikar & Museus, 2018; Museus & Iftikar, 2014). Our study shows that AsianCrit can be a valuable tool for Asian Americans and Asians living in the U.S. to challenge the multiple labels placed upon Asian Americans through discourses like the model minority myth, yellow peril, and perpetual foreigner. Additionally, our stories provide insight for other racial groups to understand the systemic racism and biases that affect Asian communities in the U.S.
Our work also extends the AsianCrit scholarship by adding a layer of transnationality to AsianCrit, emphasizing an intersectional understanding of identities. As we found the images of Asian Americans being constructed by Western gaze, we argue that the existing AsianCrit scholarship does not fully address experiences and voices of the first-generation Asian immigrants and/or newcomers in the U.S. (Kim et al., 2023). In this way, our research aligns with decolonial efforts to challenge the prevailing Black-White framing of racialized experiences in building coalition for social justice and solidarity (See
Liou & Boveda, 2022). We urge leaders in K-12 and higher education to acknowledge the hybridity and complexities within the umbrella terms created to categorize racialized groups, such as Asian American, AAPI, and BIPOC.
Second, in fostering a sense of belonging and inclusion, my research suggests that higher education systems should recognize the value of identity-based communities where scholars can establish their scholarly positions, challenge multiple layers of marginalization, and foster solidarity and healing (hooks,
2003). We noticed that opportunities for discussing our racial identities were scarce during our graduate school experiences. Even though we often collaborate in academia, the support from the system often prioritizes research quantification and “funding” (Yoon & Templeton, 2019). Contrary to university Diversity Equity Inclusion (DEI) statements, international students, especially non-native English speakers, are sometimes viewed through a deficit lens (Wang & Sun, 2021) and seen merely as revenue
sources (Yao & Mwangi, 2022). Our research prompts essential questions: What does “diversity” truly mean? For whom? How can we create genuine support networks? In navigating these questions, it’s worth noting that peer-mentoring can provide enhanced chances for collaboratively building knowledge and fostering relationality. Unlike traditional mentoring, peer mentoring fosters equitable partnerships and creates a “third space” (Gutiérrez, 2008) where members can feel safe to share and revisit themselves. This ultimately can contribute to racial identity development toward solidarity.
“What does “diversity” truly mean? For whom? How can we create genuine support networks?”
LtC: Educational Change expects those engaged in and with schools, schooling, and school systems to spearhead deep and often difficult transformation. How might those in the field of Educational Change best support these individuals and groups through these processes?
TK: There are various approaches to consider, and one valuable insight I’d like to share is rooted in the scholarship that views leadership as organizing, moving away from the traditional heroic and individualistic approaches that still dominate the field of educational leadership, even within discussions of social justice leadership (Kim & Mauldin, 2022). To shift this mindset and challenge the status quo, as
highlighted by Ethan Chang in the Lead the Change issue of February 2022, it’s crucial to reconceptualize leadership as a praxis of organizing (Ishimaru, 2013). This means building systems and partnerships that prioritize equity and solidarity with those who are most affected by the changes we seek to implement. Embracing power “with” approaches (Loomer, 1976) to lead change is instrumental in creating a space for a more nuanced perspective on the challenges we face and the potential solutions. By adopting these power “with” approaches to leadership, I think the field can foster discussions about the types of systems that can be most effective and how these systems can be utilized to promote more
equitable educational experiences. This shift in perspective has the potential to open up new avenues for dialogue and action, ultimately contributing to a more just and inclusive educational landscape.
LtC: Where do you perceive the field of Educational Change is going? What excites you about Educational Change now and in the future?
TK: To answer this question, let me start by reflecting on some key moments in my life that resonate with the field of Educational Change. One standout memory goes back over a decade when I first delved into the second edition of the Handbook of Educational Change. I was captivated by the interdisciplinary nature of the theories and their application to empirical evidence across various educational contexts. This experience had a profound impact on me, leading me to choose the analysis of professional capital as the topic for my Masters’ thesis. Another significant moment occurred at the art museum in Toronto during the Educational Change SIG meeting at the 2019 AERA conference. I found myself surrounded by scholars from different regions and with diverse disciplinary backgrounds. We sat together, engaging in dynamic conversations about the essence of change in education – not just the “how” but also the
“why.” During this meeting, I had the privilege of connecting with both established leaders and enthusiastic students based in Toronto, further enhancing my perspective on educational change. More recently, the COVID-19 pandemic has prompted Educational Change scholars to generate knowledge and innovative ideas, challenging the conventional grammar of schooling. This collective effort was exemplified in the special issue titled “The Changes We Need: Education Post COVID-19,” in which I had the opportunity to contribute an essay informed by a project in Korea.
“Educational Change is a field that thrives on partnerships and foundational knowledge.”
Reflecting on these moments, it becomes evident that Educational Change is a field that thrives on partnerships and foundational knowledge. It is open to embracing diverse perspectives and has strong capacities to organize and foster changes that prioritize equity and justice, transcending geographical
and epistemological boundaries. In fact, the Journal of Educational Change has published papers that delve into racism in global settings (e.g., Arber, 2003; Rizvi, 2003; Tomlinson, 2003) and critical examinations of biases within educational practices and policies (e.g., Gatimu, 2009; Giroux & Schmidt, 2004). I envision Educational Change as a field that should revisit these foundational principles and actively engage with the latest theoretical advancements in the realm of racial equity to
advance knowledge and practice. By embracing an equity- and justice-oriented mindset with a
sense of urgency, Educational Change can become a catalyst for critical hope (Freire, 2021) in driving meaningful and transformative changes in education.
References
Arber, R. E. (2003). The Presence of an-other: The prescience of racism in post-modern times. Journal of Educational Change, 4(3), 249–268. https://doi.org/10.1023/b:jedu.0000006163.10946.13
Au, W. (2022). Unequal by design: High-stakes testing and the standardization of inequality. Routledge.
Ball, S. J. (1993). What is policy? Texts, trajectories and toolboxes. The Australian Journal of Education Studies, 13(2), 10-17. https://doi.org/10.1080/0159630930130203
Ball, S. J. (2015). What is policy? 21 years later: Reflections on the possibilities of policy research. Discourse: Studies in the cultural politics of education, 36(3), 306-313. https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2015.1015279
Budiman, A. & Ruiz, N. G. (2021). Asian Americans are the fastest-growing racial or ethnic group in the U. S. Retrieved from https://pewrsr.ch/3tbjILO
Chang, E. (2022, Feb). Lead the Change Series Q & A with Ethan Chang. Lead the Change Series, 126, 1-9. Retrieved from https://www.aera.net/Portals/38/docs/SIGs/SIG155/Lead%20the%20Change_EC_Feb%202022.pdf?ver=ExiALXp7L6gxlYoYk-NIOg%3d%3d
Diamond, J. B., & Gomez, L. M. (2023). Disrupting White supremacy and anti-Black racism in educational organizations. Educational Researcher, https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189×231161054
Flórez Petour, M. T., & Rozas Assael, T. (2020). Accountability from a social justice perspective: Criticism and proposals. Journal of Educational Change, 21(1), 157–182. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-019-09361-3
Freire, P. (2021). Pedagogy of hope: Reliving pedagogy of the oppressed. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Fullan, M. (2015). The new meaning of educational change. Teachers College Press.
Gatimu, M. W. (2009). Undermining critical consciousness unconsciously: Restoring hope in the multicultural education idea. Journal of Educational Change, 10(1), 47–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-008-9087-5
Giroux, H. A., & Schmidt, M. (2004). Closing the Achievement Gap: A Metaphor for Children Left Behind. Journal of Educational Change, 5(3), 213–228. https://doi.org/10.1023/b:jedu.0000041041.71525.67
Gutiérrez, K. D. (2008). Developing a sociocritical literacy in the third space. Reading Research Quarterly, 43(2), 148–164. https://doi.org/10 .1598/RRQ.43.2.3
hooks, b. (2003). Rock my soul: Black people and self-esteem. Washington Square Press.
Iftikar, J. S., & Museus, S. D. (2018). On the utility of Asian critical (AsianCrit) theory in the field of education. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 31(10), 935–949. https://doi.org/10 .1080/09518398.2018.1522008
Irby, D. (2022). Stuck improving: Racial equity and school leadership. Harvard Education Press
Ishimaru, A. (2013). From heroes to organizers: Principals and education organizing in urban school reform. Educational Administration Quarterly, 49(1), 3-51. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X12448250
Ishimaru, A. M., & Galloway, M. K. (2021). Hearts and minds first: Institutional logics in pursuit of educational equity. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 57(3), 470-502. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X20947459
Khalifa, M. (2020). Culturally responsive school leadership. Harvard Education Press.
Kim, N. Y. 2008. Imperial citizens: Koreans and race from Seoul to LA. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Kim, N. Y. 2015. The United States arrives: Racialization and racism in post-1945 South Korea. In Race and Racism in Modern East Asia (Vol. II): Interactions, Nationalism, Gender and Lineage, edited by R. Kowner, W. Demel, 274–295. Boston/the Netherlands: Brill
Kim, T. (2022). Reimagining accountability through educational leadership: Applying the metaphors of “agora” and “bazaar”. Educational Management Administration & Leadership. Online Advanced. https://doi.org/10.1177/17411432221132100
Kim, T. (2023). The human side of accountability: Dilemmas of reaching all learners. Harvard Educational Review, 93(3), 313-341. https://doi.org/10.17763/1943-5045-93.3.313
Kim, T., & Mauldin, C. (2022). Troubling unintended harm of heroic discourses in social justice leadership. Frontiers in Education. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.796200
Lawrence-Lightfoot, S., & Davis, J. H. (1997). The art and science of portraiture. Jossey-Bass.
Lipman, P., & Haines, N. (2007). From accountability to privatization and African American exclusion: Chicago’s “Renaissance 2010”. Educational policy, 21(3), 471-502. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904806297734
Liou, D. D., & Boveda, M. (2022). The coloniality of false racial binaries: Intersectional consciousness as antiracist expectations for multiracial coalition-building. Educational Studies – AESA, 58(3), 368–385. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131946.2022.2033751
Lipsky, M. (2010). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public service. Russell Sage Foundation.
Loomer, B. (1976). Two conceptions of power. Process Studies, 6(1), 5–32.
Mulford, B. (2005). Organizational learning and educational change. In Extending educational change: International handbook of educational change (pp. 336-361). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
Museus, S. D., & Iftikar, J. (2014). An Asian critical theory (AsianCrit). In M. Y. Danico (Ed.), Asian American society: An encyclopedia (pp. 95–98). SAGE Publications and Association for Asian American Studies.
Pailey, R. N. (2020). De‐centring the ‘white gaze’of development. Development and Change, 51(3), 729-745. https://doi.org/10.1111/dech.12550
Ray, V. (2019). A theory of racialized organizations. American Sociological Review, 84(1), 26-53. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122418822335
Rincón-Gallardo, S. (2018). Social Justice: Section Introduction. In Future Directions of Educational Change (pp. 11-15). Routledge.
Rincón-Gallardo, S. (2020). Educational change as social movement: An emerging paradigm from the global south. Journal of Educational Change, 21(3), 467-477.
Rizvi, F. (2003). Globalization and the cultural politics of race and educational reform. Journal of Educational Change, 4(3), 209.-2011. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JEDU.0000006274.28470.68
Suspitsyna, T. (2010). Accountability in American education as a rhetoric and a technology of governmentality. Journal of Education Policy, 25(5), 567-586. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680930903548411
Tomlinson, S. (2003). Globalization, race and Education: Continuity and Change. Journal of Educational Change, 4(3), 213–230. https://doi.org/10.1023/b:jedu.0000006161.69737
Tuck, E. (2013). Neoliberalism as nihilism? A commentary on educational accountability, teacher education, and school reform. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 11(2), 324-347. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/117718011300900407
Wang, X., & Sun, W. (2021). Unidirectional or inclusive international education? An analysis of discourses from U.S. international student services office websites. Journal ofDiversity in Higher Education, 15(5), 617–629. https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe000035
Yao, C. W., & Mwangi, C. A. G. (2022). Yellow Peril and cash cows: The social positioning of Asian international students in the USA. Higher Education, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-022-00814-y
Yoon, H. S., & Templeton, T. N. (2019). The practice of listening to children: The challenges of hearing children out in an adult-regulated world. Harvard Educational Review, 89(1), 55–84. https://doi.org/10 .17763/1943-5045-89.1.55
Yu, J. (2022). The racial learning of Chinese international students in the US: a transnational perspective. Race Ethnicity and Education, Online Advanced. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2022.2106878
International Education News 