Abstract

This article deploys text mining and quantitative analysis to survey the breadth of the Asian American literary corpus and the scholarship framing it. We have built a database covering all scholarship in the MLA bibliography, Amerasia, and the Journal of Asian American Studies that studies a literary work under the rubric of Asian American. For the works and authors cited, we collected a wealth of metadata from publisher and genre to gender, ethnicity, and more. Asian Americanists have long debated the definition of Asian American literature, but we have not traced the choices of scholarly attention that have accreted over decades and hundreds of publications to shape a canon. The results here reveal the systemic effects and inequalities generated by those choices. They confirm a long-suspected bias toward contemporary literature. They reveal troubling ethnic inequalities. The literatures of Asian American ethnic groups beyond the six most studied groups receive minimal attention. Korean American literature has leaped to second most studied, resulting in a reconfigured East Asian American hegemony: Chinese, Korean, and Japanese. This was enabled by a troubling decline in studies of Filipinx American literature, once central to the field. Much Filipinx American literature is today studied outside the Asian American framework entirely. Meanwhile, the conflation of Chinese American literature with Asian American literature has intensified. The field’s rhetoric of diversification has masked persistent inequalities in our critical practices. More encouragingly, the corpus has surpassed gender equity, placing women writers at the center of the field. The work of building the Asian American corpus we would want is far from over. Data-driven methods can be powerful allies in the self-scrutiny necessary to this work.

Highlights

  • Asian American literature has grown dramatically in recent decades, reflecting a broader acceleration in contemporary cultural production.[1]

  • We have built a database covering all scholarship in the MLA bibliography, Amerasia, and the Journal of Asian American Studies that studies a literary work under the rubric of Asian American

  • Asian Americanists have long debated the definition of Asian American literature, but we have not traced the choices of scholarly attention that have accreted over decades and hundreds of publications to shape a canon

Read more

Summary

JOURNAL OF CULTURAL ANALYTICS

The Asian American literary corpus is too large for most scholars in the field to be familiar with in its entirety or to grasp through close reading alone. This article is the opening report from a long-term project that strives to bridge the separations between Asian American literary studies and digital humanities. It aims to show how DH methods, when combined with the critical consciousness of ethnic studies, can yield rich benefits in both directions. As Asian American literary studies has become institutionalized and large enough to have its own internal canon, these calls to vigilance must put more stress on the field’s own canonbuilding practices. This is an opportunity for cross-field dialogue. To examine the field’s scholarly choices for their aggregate effects and systemic inequalities, quantitative methods are powerfully revealing, even necessary

Jade Snow Wong
Tracking Scholarly Attention
Ethnic Inequalities
Findings
Thematic Inequalities
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.