Hawaii, as a destination for foreign immigrants and internal migrants, is a place of rather mixed blessings. The physical environment is unsurpassed; it is one of the most beautiful spots on the globe. It has a climate that is especially attractive to those coming from other Pacific Islands such as Samoa and the Philippines. It has a relatively good reputation for its social environment, and for its tolerance for ethnic differences and multiple languages. These positive attractions, however, are somewhat counterbalanced by the nature ofthe economy in Hawaii, and the rather high cost oflivingespecially housing-compared to other locations in the United States. The dominance of the economy by tourism, the U.S. military, and large-scale agriculture severely limits the opportunities for occupational and economic mobility. Stratification along ethnic lines could be taken as another sign of the difficulty of settling in Hawaii. The general motives for migration are well documented. In a recent review by DeJong and Fawcett (1 98 l), five major motives were summarized: economic improvement and social mobility, residential satisfaction, affiliation with family and friends, changes in life-styles, and maintenance of community-based social and economic ties, a negative factor which inhibits migration. To what extent are any of the objectives actually obtained by immigrants in Hawaii? In this paper we examine some of the socioeconomic consequences of the migration of Samoans, Koreans, and Filipinos in Hawaii in contrast to local Japanese and Caucasian residents. Special attention is given to income levels, occupational mobility, and difficulty of adjustment as indicated by the incidence of stressful life events. The research results reported here are part of a larger comparative study of the communication patterns and adjustment of these five ethnic groups in Hawaii conducted by the East-West Center's Communication Institute. Other papers have examined the communication patterns and adjustment of the Korean immigrants (Yum 1979, 1982), interpersonal communication networks (Yum and Kincaid 1979), differential patterns of news interest (Wang and Kincaid 1982), interethnic group stereotyping (Yum and Wang 1983), and the cultural convergence of the Korean immigrants (Kincaid et al. 1983). and from resident Japanese-Americans and CaucasianAmericans who were born in Hawaii or migrated there from Japan or the U.S. mainland. Of the Japanese respondents, 93% were born in Hawaii. All data were collected by faceto-face, home interviews by native-language speakers from the same ethnic group. The Korean sample was randomly selected from an exhaustive list of the 249 Korean surnames found in the 1978 Honolulu telephone directory. The list of Koreans in the telephone directory was somewhat biased in that lower income groups and new amvals were not as likely to be listed. Therefore an effort was made to interview a supplementary sample of new arrivals by approaching them through social workers who were working in the Kalihi-Palama area of Honolulu, where a large number of recent amvals were known to be concentrated. Seven percent of the total sample were selected through this approach. Face-to-face interviews were conducted at residences after a brief telephone interview to screen out disconnected numbers and non-Koreans. The Caucasian and Filipino samples were selected by means of a three-stage cluster technique, beginning with census tracts randomly selected in proportion to the known probability of members of those ethnic groups residing within them. Then households were selected systematically from random starting points following a serpentine path through the tract. Finally, each selected household became the starting point for clusters which were identified by means of the Hawaii Telephone Crossreference Directory for Oahu. Potential respondents were then telephoned for screening according to the following eligibility requirements: resident of Hawaii, at least 18 years of age, member of the required ethnic group (for Filipinos, only Ilocanos born in the Philippines), and willingness to participate in the study. The Japanese sample was selected by the same procedures followed for the Korean sample: randomly selected Japanese surnames from the 1978 Honolulu Telephone Directory, prescreened by telephone for eligibility and willingness to participate. The Samoan sample was selected first with a random selection of known Samoan surnames from the Honolulu Telephone Directory. Each name drawn was visited at home and if he/she met the eligibility requirements and was interviewed, then he/she was asked to identify up to 15 other Samoan households in the same neighborhood for interviewing before moving on to the next neighborhood cluster. When 15 interviews were completed in one neighborhood, interviewing was begun in another neighborhood until 200 interviews were conducted. Although the Samoan sample represents the major subgroups of Samoans on Oahu, it does not qualify as a probability sample. Interviewers were instructed to interview the head of the household (or head's spouse) randomly assigned according to sex, to insure an even representation of male and female respondents. If the household head was not married, that person was interviewed regardless of sex.
Read full abstract
Oct 19, 2024
I Marie Joy S Gallemit + 3
Open Access