The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at: https://www.emerald.com/insight/1363-951X.htm PIJPSM 47,2 Policing Asian communities in the United States: a systematic literature review and discussion 150 Received 17 April 2023 Revised 19 June 2023 Accepted 20 June 2023 Hyeyoung Lim Department of Criminal Justice, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA Brian Lawton Department of Criminal Justice, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York, New York, New York, USA, and John J. Sloan Department of Criminal Justice, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA Abstract Purpose – This article aims to synthesize published research on the policing of Asian communities in the United States. Design/methodology/approach – This is a systematic literature review using PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Findings – Sixteen studies were reviewed. Five examined violence by police against Asian community members and reported rates for Asians closer to those against Whites than against members of other groups. One study found no relationship between violence against police and increased minority representation on the force. Four studies reported conflicting results regarding traffic stops of Asian motorists and in general perceptions of police anti-Asian bias. One study illustrated how racialization processes reproduce inequality both between racial-ethnic categories and within them. Five studies examined Asian community members’ general attitudes toward/satisfaction with police and reported—with qualifications—generally favorable attitudes and satisfaction with them. Originality/value – This is the first systematic literature review of policing Asian communities in the United States. Keywords Police, Asian, Community, Ethnicity, Bias, Procedural justice, Race Paper type Literature review Policing: An International Journal Vol. 47 No. 2, 2024 pp. 150-166 © Emerald Publishing Limited 1363-951X DOI 10.1108/PIJPSM-04-2023-0053 Introduction According to the United Nations Population Division (cited in Hanna and Batalova, 2021), in late 2020 about 15% of the 114.9 million migrants from Asia resided in North America—mainly the United States where Asian Americans are the fastest growing segment of the population. Between 2000 and 2019, the US population of Asian Americans increased by 81%, which outpaced a 70% increase among Hispanics and a 20% increase in the Black population (Budiman and Ruiz, 2021a, b). The 2020 Census also shows that Asian American residents are highly represented (their share of the area population is larger than is the group’s share of the national population) in California, Washington, Texas; in portions of the Southeast; in large metropolitan areas on the East coast; and in many small towns in all parts of the country (see Frey, 2021). These racial or ethnic enclaves (e.g. San Francisco’s Chinatown) may serve as “safe havens” for newly arriving immigrants, in what MacDonald and MacDonald (1964) dubbed “chain migration,” as the enclave provides new arrivals access to housing, jobs, and socializing and allows them to recreate some of the amenities associated with their former countries (Terzano, 2014). This paper forms part of a special section “Policing and Asian communities: An area that has been neglected by police scholars”, guest edited by Hyeyoung Lim, Brian Lawton and John J. Sloan. Among the 22 million Asians in the United States, 83% are single-race, non-Hispanic, 14% are multiracial and 3% are of Hispanic origin (Budiman and Ruiz, 2021a, b). Asian Americans are also ethnically diverse: More than 20 countries in East and Southeast Asia and the Indian subcontinent—each with their own history, culture and languages— represent the origins of Asian Americans (Budiman and Ruiz, 2021a, b). Further, nearly 85% of Asian Americans identify as belonging to Chinese, Indian, Filipino, Vietnamese, Korean and Japanese origin groups (Budiman and Ruiz, 2021a, b). To illustrate, recent focus groups of Asian Americans convened by the Pew Research Center indicated that respondents felt the pan-ethnic “Asian” label represented only a part of how they thought of themselves [1]. Recently arrived immigrants, for example, said they were drawn more to their ethnic identity than to the United States originated pan-ethnic “Asian” identity, while US-born participants shared how they sometimes identified as Asian but at other times identified with their ethnic origin and as Americans (e.g. Vietnamese American). Members also noted a disconnect between how they saw themselves and how others viewed them and that this disjuncture sometimes led to maltreatment of them or their families, especially during certain epic historical periods such as WWII, the Vietnam War, 9/11, and the COVID-19 epidemic (Ruiz et al., 2022). Beyond the ethnic heterogeneity of Asian American communities is the fact these communities’ members include not only the newly arrived, but first-, second- and thirdgeneration (and beyond) immigrant members. The new immigrants may be struggling with assimilation challenges arising from language barriers, cultural stigma against seeking outsiders’ help, a reluctance for pursuing litigation and the host country’s often overarching stereotype of Asians as the “model minority” (Hwang, 2021). Conversely, more established community members may have overcome many of these challenges, while still seeking full integration into American life. To illustrate this generational heterogeneity, in a recent study of Asian American voters’ policy preferences, Kim (2021) described the existence of two distinct subgroups of Asian Americans. One group consists of relatively young, second- or third-generation natives, who are politically liberal, racially conscious, college-educated members of the middle class. Typically of East Asian or Indian ethnicity, this group is largely comprised of members of the professional class (e.g. lawyers and doctors) residing in big cities and been physically integrated into white residential neighborhoods and workspaces. In contrast, members of the second group are older, disproportionately male, politically conservative and first-generation immigrants born outside the United States of Southeast Asian ethnicity (e.g. Cambodian or Vietnamese) who may not be proficient in English. Kim (2021) suggests this generational divide among Asian Americans has been ironically present in recent well-publicized attacks on Asian Americans. Older, more conservative first-generation immigrants have more often been the victims of these attacks rather than have younger, more liberal and college-educated second-generation natives. These dynamics of population expansion via immigration, along with the ethnic, geographic and generational heterogeneity of Asian American communities, can result in Asian Americans being ignored and/or left behind when agency decision-makers are developing culturally appropriate justice system responses to Asian American needs. In particular, identifying and understanding the relationship that Asian American communities have with local police is thus important, if for no other reason than for ensuring appropriate services geared to both native and immigrant Asian Americans are integrated into the larger justice system. Notably absent from research on first- and second-generation racial and ethnic minorities’ perceptions of local US police are studies of the relationship between local police and Asian communities in the United States despite the dramatic growth of these communities, the wellspring of anti-Asian sentiment that appeared during the COVID epidemic, and increasing Policing Asian communities 151 PIJPSM 47,2 152 demands by some politicians that local police enforce immigration law (Wu et al., 2013). Baluran (2022, p. 2) suggests this knowledge gap concerning the policing of Asian American communities is “. . . Attributable to small population size, data scarcity, and the persistence of the model minority myth.” To uncover what is known about the policing of Asian communities in the United States, the current study presents results from the first systematic literature review (Fink, 2014) of published research on the policing of Asian American communities in the United States using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA; see Page et al., 2021). Because PRISMA is comprehensive, we focused our review on multiple aspects of existing studies including details of their methodology, their theoretical and analytical frameworks, major results and the studies’ research and policy implications. According to Shaffril et al. (2021), such reviews help researchers discover patterns; develop comprehension of the depth, breadth and details of existing knowledge; and facilitate researchers’ identification of knowledge gaps warranting investigation. Methodology Recognizing that “policing Asian communities in the United States” covers a spectrum of outcomes, our systematic review was limited to studies published in English and appearing in refereed journals. We further limited our focus to research related to interactions occurring between police and the public in the United States (locations outside the United States were included as long as comparisons were made with US locations). We then developed a predetermined list of keyword filters to identify relevant articles housed in Criminal Justice Abstracts and Scopus [2]. The filters were keywords appearing in article titles or abstracts. Although the search terms we used were not intended to be exhaustive, they nonetheless highlighted common Asian communities found in the United States and included the terms “Asian,” “Chin,” “Korea,” “India,” “Vietnam,” “Filip,” “Japan” and “Cambodia “ with each term, other than “Asian,” combined with a wildcard function (*) to ensure no exclusions occurred due to terminology. We used additional criteria to focus the search on articles in print or published Online First whose author(s) were affiliated with a US college or university. Finally, after a preliminary search demonstrated a problem with search engines confusing “American Indian” and “India*,” we excluded articles relating to “American Indians.” PRISMA stages Figure 1 illustrates the stages of the search that resulted in 2,440 initial hits; each article’s abstract including duplicates was then reviewed by two of the authors to determine inclusion. A total of 83 articles passed initial review [3]. After closer review of the articles’ abstracts, 29 were deemed relevant for inclusion. The primary reasons for the reduction from 83 to 29 articles were because (1) the study location was outside the United States; (2) the study was not empirically based (i.e. was purely theoretical or analytical); (3) the study did not focus on interactions occurring between the police and the public; (4) the study failed to include data on race or provided no analysis of racial or ethnic Asians; or (5) the article was a duplicate. To ensure data quality and accuracy, the three coauthors each coded the remaining 29 articles on key characteristics, met multiple times to review and discuss each authors’ coding and reached consensus about each study’s characteristics. In doing this, we determined that 13 studies were not relevant to our research question and would be excluded: two law reviewtype articles, 10 articles that measured opinions of local police regarding Asians but did not include how interactions with Asian residents may have shaped officers’ opinions and one article whose reliance on aggregate-level secondary data made its relevance difficult to Identification Policing Asian communities Records identified from: Scopus (N = 1,383) Criminal Justice Abstracts (N = 1,057) 153 Records screened Records excluded Scopus (N = 53) (N = 2,357) Screening CJA (N = 30) Records sought for retrieval Record Doubles Scopus (N = 32) (N = 21) CJA (9) Both (21) Included Records excluded: Unique records retrieved Non-US population (N = 9) (N = 29) Non-research article (N = 24) Records included in review (N = 16) Records excluded: Law Journal (N = 2) Nonspecific (N = 1) No Interaction (N =10) Source(s): Authors own creation determine. The end result of the process was consensus among the coauthors on a final set of 16 articles that are found in Table 1 along with the characteristics we coded for each article. Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram for selecting articles in the review Key topics Dataset Quantitative Cross Sectional2 Quantitative Cross Sectional2 Traffic Stops Secondary No/No No Secondary Yes/Yes Yes Quantitative Cross Sectional1 Survey Research Qualitative Cross Sectional1 Survey Research Quantitative Cross Sectional1 Survey Research Other3 Police discretion in police-citizen traffic encounters Police discretion in the disposition of traffic stops; Spatial Disproportionality Global satisfaction with police; Police effectiveness; Police integrity; Police demeanor Perception of the police Primary No/No Yes Primary No/No Yes Mixed Global satisfaction with police; Contact with the police Primary No/No Yes Quantitative Cross Sectional1 Survey Research Other Police bias Primary Yes/No Yes Sample (N)/ location Operationalizing race/size of sample Research design CJC Mixed (10210)/ Midwest Asian (832) CJC Mixed (3060)/ Pacific Northwest Asian (284) Wu et al. (2011) CJC General population (412)/ DE, NY, PA Chinese (412) Vogel (2011) CJC General population (1219)/CA Asian (66) Wu et al. (2012) CJC Chinese (350) Wu et al. (2013) CJC General population (350)/ NYC, Philadelphia, Two Cities in Delaware General population (388)/ NYC, Philadelphia, Two Cities in Delaware Author(s) Moon and Corley (2007) Greenleaf et al. (2008) Chinese (307) PIJPSM 47,2 154 Table 1. Articles included in the current study Context Theory used/ tested Journal type* Traffic Stops Other Policy recommendations (continued ) Journal type* Sample (N)/ location Operationalizing race/size of sample Research design Chu and Song (2015) CJC General population (444)/ NYC, Toronto Taiwan (135) China (160) Hong Kong (73) Vietnam (20) Other (13) Ozkan et al. (2016) CJC Mixed (1813)/ USA Asian (N/A) Quantitative Cross Sectional2 Survey Research Quantitative Author(s) Key topics Dataset Other Police efficacy Primary No/No Yes Other Assaults on the police; Minority representation in police department Secondary Yes/Yes Yes Policy recommendations Policy recommendations Context Terms Dataset Theory used/ tested Quantitative Cross Sectional2 Quantitative Cross Sectional1 Other Civilian injuries sustained via police use of force Police misconduct Secondary No/No No Primary Yes/Yes No Quantitative Cross Sectional2 Mixed Methods Cross Sectional2 Other Police use of force; Killed by police Secondary No/No No Other Average annual rates of death by police violence Mixed No/No No Author(s) Journal type Sample (N)/ location Operationalizing race/ size of sample Research design Mooney et al. (2018) Medicine/ Health Other (92386)/ CA Asian (1957) Graziano and Gauthier (2019) Edwards et al.(2019) CJC General population (1197)/CA Asian (297) Other Asian (N/A) Schwartz and Jahn (2022) Other General population/ USA Mixed (3155)/ USA AAPI (167) Context Theory used/ tested Other (continued ) Policing Asian communities 155 Table 1. Sample (N)/ location Operationalizing race/ size of sample Research design Yuan et al. (2022) CJC General population (3756)/CA Asian (1327) Medina et al. (2022) Other General population (1727)/USA N/A (“Other”) Quantitative Cross Sectional1 Survey Research Quantitative Cross Sectional2 De Trinidad Young et al. (2022) Baluran (2022) Other Other–Asian immigrants (1103)/CA Other–Asian descendants (36)/USA Asian (452) Author(s) Quantitative Cross Sectional1 Qualitative Cross Sectional1 Interviews Context Terms Dataset Theory used/ tested Other Perceptions of police bias Primary Yes/Yes Yes Other Deaths during police interaction; Sociospatial ecology; Racial bias Health and psychological distress Experienced racialization Secondary Yes/No No Primary No/No Yes Primary Yes/Yes No Other Other Southeast Asians (17); East Asians (7); South Asians (6); Other Asians (6) Note(s): * CJC 5 Criminal Justice and Criminology ** Other 5 sociology, psychology, National Academy of Science 1 Cross sectional collected at one time point 2 Cross sectional data collected in waves 3 Reporting victimization; Routine patrol encounters; Media accounts of police misconduct Source(s): Authors own creation Sociology PIJPSM 47,2 156 Table 1. Journal type Policy recommendations Analysis and results The 16 studies included in the review were published between 2007 and 2022 (we did not set a prior start or end date for article inclusion). Among them, 31% (n 5 5) were published in 2022. Most (62.5%, n 5 10) were published in criminology/criminal justice journals (e.g. Journal of Criminal Justice, Policing: An International Journal, Police Quarterly). The remaining studies appeared in a sociology journal (Baluran, 2022), a medicine/public health journal (Mooney et al., 2018) and journals representing other disciplines (De Trinidad Young et al., 2022; Edwards et al., 2019; Medina et al., 2022; Schwartz and Jahn, 2022). Research designs Most studies were cross-sectional, with eight (50%) using data collected from one or more samples at a single time point (Baluran, 2022; De Trinidad Young et al., 2022; Graziano and Gauthier, 2019; Vogel, 2011; Wu et al., 2011, 2012, 2013; Yuan et al., 2022). Seven (43.7%) studies were repeated cross-sectional, meaning the data were collected from different people over more than one period such as 60 months of state-level hospital ER admissions (Chu and Song, 2015; Edwards et al., 2019; Greenleaf et al., 2008; Medina et al., 2022; Moon and Corley, 2007; Mooney et al., 2018; Schwartz and Jahn, 2022). One study (Ozkan et al., 2016) used multiple sources containing multiple years of data. The majority used quantitative methods to gather data (81.3%, n 5 13), two studies (12.5%) used qualitative methods (Baluran, 2022; Vogel, 2011) and one study (1.25%) used mixed methods (Schwartz and Jahn, 2022). Most of the studies used primary data collected from surveys (69.2%, n 5 9) or interviews (7.7%, n 5 1). Three studies (23.1%) used secondary data collected from many sources (e.g. the US Census, Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS), and Fatal Encounters Dot Org) [4]. Contextual focus, sample designs and sample characteristics Contexts examined by the articles varied. Thirteen studies (81.3%) were coded as “other” contexts (mostly “not applicable” since no specific context was being studied), while two studies focused on traffic stops (Greenleaf et al., 2008; Moon and Corley, 2007), and one study examined traffic stops, street searches and victim reporting (Wu et al., 2012). Just under one-half of the studies (43.8%, n 5 7) used a population of cases or incidents such as traffic citations issued (Moon and Corley, 2007; Greenleaf et al., 2008; Ozkan et al., 2016; Mooney et al., 2018; Edwards et al., 2019; Schwartz and Jahn, 2022; Medina et al., 2022). Five studies (31.2%) used nonprobability samples (Wu et al., 2011, 2012, 2013; Baluran, 2022; Chu and Song, 2015), and two studies (12.5%) used mixed sampling designs (Graziano and Gauthier, 2019; Yuan et al., 2022). One study (6.25%) employed a probability sampling method (Vogel, 2011). Most of the studies’ sample members included only Asian residents (75%, n 5 12; Baluran, 2022; Chu and Song, 2015; De Trinidad Young et al., 2022; Edwards et al., 2019; Graziano and Gauthier, 2019; Mooney et al., 2018; Schwartz and Jahn, 2022; Vogel, 2011; Wu et al., 2011, 2012, 2013; Yuan et al., 2022); four studies (25%) included Asian residents and police officers (Moon and Corley, 2007; Greenleaf et al., 2008; Ozkan et al., 2016; Medina et al., 2022). Among the sixteen studies, five included sample members from California (De Trinidad Young et al., 2022; Graziano and Gauthier, 2019; Mooney et al., 2018; Vogel, 2011; Yuan et al., 2022); four studies included sample members from New York City; and five studies (Baluran, 2022; Edwards et al., 2019; Medina et al., 2022; Ozkan et al., 2016) used national-level samples. Other studies included sample members from a “Midwestern state” (Moon and Corley, 2007) and a “Pacific Northwestern state” (Greenleaf et al., 2008). Four studies included sample members from multiple locations including Delaware, New York City and Philadelphia (Wu et al., 2011, 2012, 2013) and New York City and Toronto (Chu and Song, 2015). Policing Asian communities 157 PIJPSM 47,2 158 Regarding sample populations, nine of the studies (56.2%) targeted local community members regardless of gender, age or other specific characteristics (Chu and Song, 2015; Edwards et al., 2019; Graziano and Gauthier, 2019; Medina et al., 2022; Vogel, 2011; Wu et al., 2011, 2012, 2013; Yuan et al., 2022). Four studies (25%) drew their samples from a mixture of community members, K-12 schools, college/university students and/or faculty and police or community organizations (Greenleaf et al., 2008; Moon and Corley, 2007; Schwartz and Jahn, 2022; Ozkan et al., 2016). We coded three studies as “other” because their samples came from specific populations such as new immigrants (De Trinidad Young et al., 2022), persons of “Asian descent” (Baluran, 2022) or hospital emergency room visits/admittances (Mooney et al., 2018). Dependent or outcome variables used in the studies Dependent variables or outcomes in the studies were varied and included: police efficacy/ effectiveness (Chu and Song, 2015; Wu et al., 2011), global satisfaction with police (Wu et al., 2011), assaults on police officers (Ozkan et al., 2016), police misconduct (Graziano and Gauthier, 2019), police bias/racialization (Baluran, 2022; Wu et al., 2013; Yuan et al., 2022), police interaction resulting in civilian death or injury (Edwards et al., 2019; Medina et al., 2022; Mooney et al., 2018; Schwartz and Jahn, 2022), perceptions of the police (Vogel, 2011) and immigration enforcement (De Trinidad Young et al., 2022). Half of the sixteen studies measured one outcome variable (50%, n 5 8), while the other half examined two or more outcome variables (Baluran, 2022; Chu and Song, 2015; De Trinidad Young et al., 2022; Greenleaf et al., 2008; Moon and Corley, 2007; Wu et al., 2011, 2012, 2013). Independent variables used in the studies Among the sixteen studies, twelve (75%) used race/ethnicity as a primary predictor. Studies in which race was not a main predictor were those focusing on a single racial/ethnic group such as members of the Chinese community (25%, n 5 4; Chu and Song, 2015; Wu et al., 2011, 2012, 2013). Most studies used the term Asian (56.2%, n 5 9), while 6 studies (37.5%; Baluran, 2022; Chu and Song, 2015; Schwartz and Jahn, 2022; Wu et al., 2011, 2012, 2013) focused on specific Asian subgroups. One study included Asians but put them into an “Other” category along with Pacific Islanders, Native Americans/Alaskans and those from Middle Eastern countries (Medina et al., 2022). Categorizing Asians or Asian Americans/Pacific Islanders (AAPIs) as “Other” was common when other racial or ethnic groups were included due to the relatively small number of sample members, especially when cross-sectional data for a single year were used. Most commonly, the breakdown of racial/ethnic group membership included White, Black, Asian and “Other” (Greenleaf et al., 2008; Moon and Corley, 2007); American Indian/Alaska Native (Edwards et al.); or Hispanic/Latino (Graziano and Gauthier, 2019; Mooney et al., 2018; Vogel, 2011). One study (De Trinidad Young et al., 2022) compared Asian and Latinx immigrants. Across the studies, both predictor and outcome/dependent variables were measured using self-reports (56.2,% n 5 9; Baluran, 2022; Chu and Song, 2015; De Trinidad Young et al., 2022; Graziano and Gauthier, 2019; Vogel, 2011; Wu et al., 2011, 2012, 2013; Yuan et al., 2022), police reports (12.5%, n 5 2; Moon and Corley, 2007; Greenleaf et al., 2008), crime data (6.3%, n 5 1; Ozkan et al., 2016) and other measures (25%, n 5 4; Edwards et al., 2019; Medina et al., 2022; Mooney et al., 2018; Schwartz and Jahn, 2022). Theories and conceptual framework employed There were seven articles (43.7%; Baluran, 2022; Graziano and Gauthier, 2019; Greenleaf et al., 2008; Medina et al., 2022; Ozkan et al., 2016; Wu et al., 2013; Yuan et al., 2022) that used at least one theory as a framework for the study and five (71.4%) of them tested the theory (Baluran, 2022; Graziano and Gauthier, 2019; Greenleaf et al., 2008; Ozkan et al., 2016; Yuan et al., 2022). Theories used in the studies included racial threat theory (Greenleaf et al., 2008; Ozkan et al., 2016), group position theory (Graziano and Gauthier, 2019; Wu et al., 2013; Yuan et al., 2022), conflict theory (Graziano and Gauthier, 2019; Medina et al., 2022; Ozkan et al., 2016; Yuan et al., 2022), formal control theory (Ozkan et al., 2016), the “racial-ethnic gradient hypothesis” (Graziano and Gauthier, 2019), a “multifaceted discrimination model” (Yuan et al., 2022) and status construction theory (Baluran, 2022). We also coded the conceptual framework of a study when an identified theory was absent, but theory-based or theory-derived concepts were used by the study or emphasized in the literature review (37.5%, n 5 6; Baluran, 2022; Chu and Song, 2015; De Trinidad Young et al., 2022; Greenleaf et al., 2008; Moon and Corley, 2007; Mooney et al., 2018). For example, “racial profiling” was used by Moon and Corley (2007) and Greenleaf et al. (2008), while Chu and Song (2015) used “police efficacy” as the conceptual framework to explain how policing styles affected Chinese immigrants’ perceptions of the police. The framework of “biased policing” was used and tested by Mooney et al. (2018). Two studies implied the use of a “structural racism” framework (De Trinidad Young et al., 2022) and a “differential racialization” framework (Baluran, 2022). Studies’ results Across the 16 studies, outcomes for members of Asian communities on the many dependent variables (DVs) were compared to the outcomes on the same DVs for members of other racialized or ethnic groups including White, Black and Latino/a/x. We then grouped the studies into four overarching categories: violence by police, violence against police, police bias/discrimination and attitudes toward/satisfaction with police. Four of the studies (Edwards et al., 2019; Medina et al., 2022; Mooney et al., 2018; Schwartz and Jahn, 2022) examined comparative levels/rates of police violence—measured as a traumatic and fatal injury suffered by a victim—against members of racialized and ethnic minority communities. One additional study, De Trinidad Young et al. (2022), examined the association between Asian and Latinx immigrants’ cumulative immigration enforcement experiences and self-reported health (SRH) and psychological distress and tested interactions by ethnicity and citizenship. Three of these studies—Mooney et al. (2018), Edwards et al. (2019) and Medina et al. (2022)—found rates of police violence against Asians were closer to rates for Whites and were thus significantly lower than rates of violence against other racialized/ethnic minorities. Schwartz and Jahn (2022) found a large variation in the rates at which different AAPI groups experienced fatal police violence during 2013–2019, with rates particularly high for Pacific Islanders. Schwartz and Jahn (2022) argued the dramatic differences underscored the necessity of national/ethnic data for describing inequities in the risk of fatal police violence and have public health importance given the implications of fatal police violence for the health of people of decedents’ communities, especially among smaller ethnic groups or tightknit ethnic communities, and point to limitations of previous studies on police violence that ignored national/ethnic heterogeneity within larger racial/ethnic groups. De Trinidad Young et al. (2022) examined the cumulative effects of racialized exclusion via surveillance, police profiling, and deportation on Asian and Latinx immigrants’ self-reported health (SRH) and mental health. They found Asians’ and Latinx’s cumulative immigration enforcement experiences were associated with worse self-rated health and increased psychological distress. Their study provided rarely identified population-level evidence on the cumulative effects of multiple forms of immigration enforcement on the physical and mental health of Asian and Latinx immigrants. Policing Asian communities 159 PIJPSM 47,2 160 Ozkan et al. (2016) examined violence against police officers testing the hypothesis that increased minority representation in policing was inversely related to violence (assaults, homicides) against the police using four secondary datasets (LEOKA, census data, UCR crimes cleared by arrest data and LEMAS data). After estimating separate count regression models for violence against police for Black, Hispanic and Asian representation, Ozkan et al. (2016) found that increased minority officer representation was not significantly related to assaults on police whether assessed individually, with organizational variables or with organizational and community variables. They posited that despite the fact that police agencies may have a history of poor relations with the communities, resulting in aggressive efforts to recruit minorities and significantly enhance their representation among sworn officers, those negative perceptions toward the police continue due to that history. Two studies examined police bias/discrimination in the discretion exercised during traffic stops. Moon and Corley (2007) found that Asian drivers were less likely to be searched but more likely to receive legal sanctions than White drivers and that overall, both legal and extralegal factors (i.e. types of traffic violation, time, officer type) significantly affected officers’ decisions during traffic stops. Greenleaf et al. (2008) examined racial disproportionality in the distribution of 3,000 police warning citations by testing three hypotheses: law enforcement, traffic enforcement and racial threat. They found the greatest support for the racial threat hypothesis: African American motorists were at a greater risk of receiving a traffic ticket while driving in the most affluent beats of the large northwestern city in which the study was conducted. In contrast, except for White motorists, Asian motorists were at much lower risk of receiving a ticket. Graziano and Gauthier (2019) examined whether a racial/ethnic hierarchy or gradient existed among members of racialized or ethnic minority groups in perceptions of local police misconduct and bias using survey data collected from 1,197 adult (age 18 or older) residents of a mid-sized California city. The authors reported that Asian attitudes about police misconduct and bias were indistinguishable from those of Whites, thereby challenging the hierarchy of perceptions thesis. Yuan et al. (2022) examined factors associated with public perceptions of police bias and whether perceptions of racial discrimination mediated the relationship between race/ ethnicity and perceptions of police bias—measured as a three-item scale—using survey data collected from a representative sample of 3,756 adult residents in San Jose (CA) with particular focus on a diverse set of minority groups, including Blacks, Hispanics and Asian residents and across immigrant generations. The authors reported that Latino, Black and Asian American respondents were more likely to have had experiences with racism and report police as biased than White residents, similar to what has been reported in other studies. They also reported that racial and ethnic disparities in assessments of police bias disappeared when controlling for direct and indirect experiences of racism and that controlling for race/ethnicity, first-generation immigrants were less likely to report having experienced indirect forms of racism than second- and third- or greater generation immigrants, while immigrant generation status was unassociated with reported direct experiences with racism. Baluran (2022) used qualitative data collected from 36, one-on-one intensive interviews with Asian adults (ages 21–30) with at least one prior contact with the police. Using these data, Baluran illustrated how racialization processes reproduce inequality not only within but between existing monolithic racial–ethnic categories. Finally, Wu et al. (2011, 2012, 2013) examined over 350 Chinese immigrants’ satisfaction with police, the nature and impact of police contacts on satisfaction with the police and perceptions of police bias using survey data collected in New York City, Philadelphia, and two cities in Delaware. Wu et al. (2011) reported that (1) the majority of Chinese immigrants were generally satisfied with the police who served their communities and gave high ratings for officer demeanor, integrity and effectiveness; (2) immigrants viewed local police more positively when they lived in neighborhoods with a high degree of collective efficacy and few crime and disorder problems; (3) exposure to media reports of police misconduct significantly reduced Chinese immigrants’ global satisfaction and specific evaluations of police effectiveness, integrity and demeanor; and (4) compared to US-born immigrants, foreignborn Chinese immigrants displayed significantly lower levels of satisfaction with police effectiveness and demeanor. Wu et al. (2012) examined the frequency and nature of police contacts, the social distribution of police contacts and the effects of direct and vicarious contacts with police on global satisfaction with local police. Wu et al. (2012) reported that (1) in comparison to the general public, Chinese immigrants had higher rates of contact with local police; (2) the majority of Chinese immigrants’ contacts were police initiated, but their proportion was smaller than that of African Americans, Hispanics and Asian/Pacific Islanders; (3) over onehalf of the immigrants had a police-initiated contact due to traffic law violations and/or traffic accidents, a figure much higher than that reported in other studies; (4) significant correlates for immigrants’ police-initiated contacts included age (older), gender (male) and vicarious contacts with police via a family member, while age (older) and vicarious contact were the only significant correlates of citizen-initiated police contact; and (5) whether Chinese immigrants had recent voluntary or involuntary contact with police did not have any significant impact on their global satisfaction with the police, but a significant positive link was found between satisfaction with the recent contact and overall global satisfaction with local police. Finally, Wu et al. (2013) found that the majority of Chinese immigrants generally thought highly of local police and trusted police to be honest and effective. However, Chinese immigrants were also suspicious about equal police treatment of all groups, a finding that reflects the complicated nature of the concept “public perceptions of the police.” Vogel (2011) examined overall perceptions of local police measured as a six-item index consisting of items relating to police officers being helpful, responding quickly, being trustworthy, being respectful, being too tough on people (reverse coded) and being fair. The index was assessed using survey data collected from more than 1,200 White, Black, Hispanic and Asian residents living in four local police department designated divisions of a large economically and ethnically diverse urban center in southern California. Vogel (2011) reported that most respondents in this survey held the police in high regard but that race (African American, Asian—of which 30% were of Cambodian ethnic descent) remained a significant predictor of negative perceptions of police after controlling for contextual and police contact variables. Chu and Song (2015) used survey data collected from over 400 adult Chinese immigrants residing in New York City and Toronto to compare immigrants’ attitudes toward police efficacy and overall perceptions of police in both cities. The authors reported that in their overall evaluations, Chinese immigrants in Toronto tended to hold more positive attitudes toward police, had more respect for the police and were less likely to perceive police prejudice than their counterparts in New York. There was no significant difference between the two groups concerning police efficacy in dealing with crime and police providing adequate protection. Immigrants in New York were more likely to perceive slow responses from the police to their complaints than immigrants residing in Toronto. Policy and practice recommendations Among the 16 studies, eleven (68.7%) included policy and practice recommendations (Chu and Song, 2015; De Trinidad Young et al., 2022; Greenleaf et al., 2008; Medina et al., 2022; Mooney et al., 2018; Ozkan et al., 2016; Vogel, 2011; Wu et al., 2011, 2012, 2013; Yuan et al., Policing Asian communities 161 PIJPSM 47,2 162 2022). In total, these studies provided 33 policy and practice recommendations of the following types: law or agency-related policy (54.5%, n 5 18), community advocate-related (6%, n 5 2), professional-related (36.4%, n 5 12) and others (3%, n 5 1). Discussion To identify the current status of research on the policing of Asian communities in the United States, the current study systematically reviewed 16 studies published in English in refereed journals, by scholars from US institutions, and contained in Criminal Justice Abstracts and Scopus databases. Several patterns emerged from our review. First, little research has been done on Asian immigrants’ perceptions of/relationships with local police. Instead, most research on the relationships between police and members of racialized or ethnic minority communities has focused on African Americans and more recently, Latino/a/x communities. The exclusion of Asian communities from studies of the policing of racialized/ethnic minority communities may be due to (1) the “model minority” myth which assumes Asian Americans have been fully integrated into American society and therefore no systematic issues relating to the policing of these communities exist and therefore need studying and (2) only with the recent significant growth of Asian Americans as a share of the total population have police scholars begun examining relationships between the police and these communities. Second, a majority of the studies reviewed were conducted using primary data collected from locations almost exclusively found on the East and West coasts of the United States, especially southern California (31.2% of the studies) and New York City (25% of the studies). While true that California and New York rank among the states having 10% or more Asian populations (Monte and Shin, 2022), there are also significant Asian populations (∼10%) in the states of Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Texas, Virginia and Washington (US Department of Health and Human Services Office of Minority Health, 2023) that could also be studied and in doing so, significantly expand the existing knowledge base. Thus, the geographic diversity of Asian communities has been largely ignored. Most studies included in our review used primary data collected on samples of “Asians” whose members’ ethnic origins went mostly unreported. This convention of grouping members of different Asian subgroups into a single, larger group ignores the cultural, geographic and political experiences of subgroup members and how these factors influence police interactions with members of Asian communities. This issue is further exacerbated when participants are asked to identify race and are only allowed to provide a single answer, as well as when Hispanic ethnicity is offered as an option for a respondent’s “race.” To illustrate, the 2020 US Census reported that over four million US respondents self-identified as Asian in combination with another race; over a quarter of a million respondents selfreported as Asian and Hispanic. The lack of specificity as to the ethnicity of members of “Asian” samples could be partially responsible for some of the inconsistent findings reported across multiple studies investigating similar issues. Further, most studies included in the current systematic review focused on Asian residents (75%, n 5 12). Although four studies examined both Asian residents and the police, the data used in those studies were secondary. In other words, no single study included in our review examined Asian police officers’ experiences with and perceptions of Asian communities or their experiences within police agencies. While the absolute number of Asian police officers is admittedly small, it is nonetheless important to identify Asian officers’ within-group and in-community experiences to understand the policing of Asian racialized and ethnic communities. In addition, we found that one-half of the articles published in criminal justice/criminology journals used and/or tested the tenets of at least one theory, while only two of six studies published in other disciplines’ journals used/tested a theory. We also found eight of ten articles published in criminal justice-related journals presented policy implications and recommendations, while only one study (De Trinidad Young et al., 2022) published in a different disciplinary journal did so. Future research, regardless of disciplinary origins, should continue theory testing and include results-based policy implications/ recommendations. Our review reveals significant knowledge gaps remain concerning the policing of Asian communities. For example, conflicting evidence exists among the studies regarding the “model minority” thesis and its impact on the assimilation of Asian immigrants into American culture. Moreover, generational differences in attitudes toward/perceptions relating to local police are reported in only a few of the studies we reviewed and thus warrant further examination. Baluran (2022) raises the intriguing notion that racialization processes reproduce inequality not only between but within existing monolithic racial–ethnic categories, which should be subjected to further scrutiny and replication. Our review also uncovered a major hurdle researchers face when trying to study the policing of Asian communities in the United States: lack of available data. In practical terms, this translates to difficulty with researchers using secondary data because it simply does not exist. As an illustration, the percentage of agencies contributing to the National IncidentBased Reporting System (NIIBRS) in 2019 among the seven Deep South states included Alabama (0%), Florida (N/A), Georgia (2%), Louisiana (16%), Mississippi (25%), South Carolina (100%) and Texas (57%). The FBI’s hate crime statistics, in turn, are based on NIBRS; the 2021 COVID-19 Hate Crimes Act now requires all agencies to report hate crime incidents based on NIBRS. By December 2021, only Florida had contributed to the Summary Reporting System (SRS), and Mississippi did not have a state program. South Carolina requires NIBRS data only. In other words, Alabama, Georgina, Louisiana and Texas require both SRS and NIBRS, but their contribution to the 2019 NIBRS was low. This lack of secondary data may thus force researchers to collect primary data that pose its own set of challenges including use of nonprobability samples of subjects or qualitative methods that have implications for generalizability. Limitations Like all studies, ours has limitations that warrant identification and discussion. For example, we limited our search to the contents of two databases. Had we included other databases, the number of studies eligible for inclusion might have significantly expanded. The same would be true if we had broadened the search to include research monographs or edited volumes, studies not published in English and studies published outside of refereed journals (e.g. research reports). As mentioned above, we did not include studies whose focus was on police attitudes toward Asian communities. Including those studies would have nearly doubled our sample and might have changed some of our findings. Finally, our article coding strategy was less than exhaustive, which may limit generalizability of our findings. Conclusion As demographic shifts continue in the United States and lead to its population inevitably becoming “majority minority,” examining how local police respond to and engage with Asian racial and ethnic communities becomes an increasingly important scholarly undertaking. Scholarly analyses of the impact that federal immigration policy and enforcement has on local police and their interactions with Asian immigrants also warrants further study. Often, it appears, Asian immigrants’ experiences with immigration officials significantly influence their perceptions of the local police. Policing Asian communities 163 PIJPSM 47,2 164 Because American cities continue to attract Asian immigrants, their police departments face crucial challenges involving language and cultural barriers that have to be overcome. The go-to response to address these issues, and for a litany of conversations on community policing, is to suggest agencies make a greater effort to hire officers who resemble members of the community being policed or train officers to better engage with members of those communities. As noted above, “Asian” does not represent a monolithic community with settled upon collective ideas or standards. Improving police and “Asian” community relations must instead be considered from more of an individualized perspective. Based upon our findings, that nuance must also be incorporated into the way academics examine, identify and conduct research in these communities. The policing of Asian communities involves understanding not only immigration policies and their impact at the local level but identifying and understanding the processes involved with the racialization of Asian immigrants and the implications of those processes for local police. Notes 1. According to Olson (2021, p. 1), in 1968, the pan-ethnic category “Asian American” was born when Chinese and Japanese students at the University of California, Berkeley, created a collective term to refer to student associations that could be used to help mobilize their political action. In 1977, the category “Asian American” was incorporated into civil rights legislation as a component of the “ethno-racial pentagon” through the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Statistical Directive No. 15 (see Kim, 2021). 2. We appreciate the contribution of a reviewer who highlighted an excellent source by Sun and Wu (2018), which is related to the work being presented here, but could not be part of the systematic review because it was a monograph. 3. While the decrease of 97% in the number of potentially included articles may seem problematic, there are two important considerations to keep in mind. First, author affiliation was not necessarily an indicator of the study’s focus: numerous studies that examined police in China, the United Kingdom and other locales were included in the initial draw. Second, as we did not want to limit the outcome of interest, we did not include any characteristics beyond race and police. However, numerous initially included studies had no direct bearing on the topic of the police or police actions during which they engaged members of Asian communities. 4. Fatal Encounters Dot Org (https://fatalencounters.org) is a comprehensive national database of people who are injured or killed during interactions with police that began as a blog in 2015 by a former newspaper editor and grew exponentially with the assistance of crowdsourcing, volunteer researchers, paid researchers and others. As of early 2023, the dataset lists incidents from January 1, 2000 through December 31, 2021 containing some 30,000 police encounters resulting in civilian injury or death. References Baluran, D.A. (2022), “Differential racialization and police interactions among young adults of Asian descent”, Sociology of Race and Ethnicity, advance online publication. doi: 10.1177/ 23326492221125. Budiman, A. and Ruiz, N.G. (2021a), “Asian Americans are the fastest growing racial or ethnic group in the US”, available at: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/04/09/asian-americans-arethe-fastest-growing-racial-or-ethnic-group-in-the-u-s/ (accessed 10 March 2023). Budiman, A. and Ruiz, N.G. (2021b), “Key facts about Asian Americans, a diverse and growing population”, available at: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/04/29/key-facts-aboutasian-americans/ (accessed 5 March 2023). Chu, D.C. and Song, J.H. (2015), “A comparison of Chinese immigrants’ perceptions of the police in New York City and Toronto”, Crime and Delinquency, Vol. 61 No. 3, pp. 402-427, doi: 10.1177/ 0011128711405008. De Trinidad Young, E., Chen, L., Sudhinaraset, M., Saadi, A., Kietzman, K.G. and Wallace, S.P. (2022), “Cumulative experiences of immigration enforcement policy and the physical and mental health outcomes of Asian and Latinx immigrants in the United States”, International Migration Review, advance online publication. doi: 10.1177/01979183221126726. Edwards, F., Lee, H. and Esposito, M. (2019), “Risk of being killed by police use of force in the United States by age, race–ethnicity, and sex”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Vol. 116 No. 34, pp. 16793-16798, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1821204116, available at: https://www.pnas.org/cgi/ Fink, A. (2014), Conducting Research Literature Reviews: from the Internet to Paper, 4th ed., SAGE, Thousand Oaks, CA. Frey, W.H. (2021), “Mapping America’s diversity with the 2020 census”, available at: https://www. brookings.edu/research/mapping-americas-diversity-with-the-2020-census/ Graziano, L.M. and Gauthier, J.F. (2019), “Examining the racial-ethnic continuum and perceptions of police misconduct”, Policing and Society, Vol. 29 No. 6, pp. 657-672, doi: 10.1080/10439463.2017. 1310859. Greenleaf, R.G., Skogan, W.G. and Lurigio, A.J. (2008), “Traffic stops in the pacific northwest”, Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 3-22, doi: 10.1300/J222v06n01_02. Hanna, M. and Batalova, J. (2021), “Immigrants from Asia in the United States”, available at: https://www. migrationpolicy.org/article/immigrants-asia-united-states-2020 (accessed 6 March 2023). Hwang, W.C. (2021), “Demystifying and addressing internalized racism and oppression among Asian Americans”, American Psychologist, Vol. 76 No. 4, pp. 596-610, doi: 10.1037/amp0000798, available at: https://psycnet.apa.org/ Kim, S. (2021), “Fault lines among Asian Americans: convergence and divergence in policy opinion”, RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 46-67, doi: 10.7758/RSF.2021.7.2.03. MacDonald, J.S. and MacDonald, L.D. (1964), “Chain migration: ethnic neighborhood formation and social networks”, The Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 82-97, available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3348581 Medina, R.M., Brewer, S., Linke, A.M., Nicolosi, E.A., Allain, M. and Tharp, D. (2022), “The sociospatial ecology of deaths during police interactions in the United States, 2016-2020”, Political Geography, Vol. 98, pp. 1-14, doi: 10.1016/j.polgeo.2022.102710. Monte, L.M. and Shin, H.B. (2022), "20.6 Million People in the U.S. Identify as Asian, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander", available at: https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2022/05/aanhpipopulation-diverse-geographically-dispersed.html Moon, B. and Corley, C.J. (2007), “Driving across campus: assessing the impact of drivers’ race and gender on police traffic enforcement action”, Journal of Criminal Justice, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 29-37, doi: 10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2006.11.013. Mooney, A.L.C., McConville, S., Rappaport, A.J. and Hsia, R.Y. (2018), “Association of legal intervention injuries with race and ethnicity among patients treated in emergency departments in California”, JAMA Network Open, Vol. 1 No. 5, pp. 1-10, doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.2150. Olson, A. (2021), “‘Asian American’: is a term that united Asians still relevant?”, Dartmouth News, available at: https://home.dartmouth.edu/news/2021/06/asian-american-term-united-asians-still-relevant Ozkan, T., Worrall, J.L. and Piquero, A.R. (2016), “Does minority representation in police agencies reduce assaults on the police?”, American Journal of Criminal Justice, Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 402-423, doi: 10.1007/s12103-016-9338-6. Page, M.J., et al. (2021), “The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews”, The BMJ, Vol. 372 No. 71, pp. 1-9, doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71. Ruiz, N.G., Shao, S. and Shah, S. (2022), “What it means to be Asian in America”, available at: https:// www.pewresearch.org/race-ethnicity/2022/08/02/what-it-means-to-be-asian-in-america/ (accessed 15 June 2023). Policing Asian communities 165 PIJPSM 47,2 166 Schwartz, G.L. and Jahn, J.L. (2022), “Disaggregating Asian American and Pacific Islander risk of fatal police violence”, PLoS ONE, Vol. 17 No. 10, e0274745, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0274745. Shaffril, H.A.M., Samsuddin, S.F. and Samah, A.A. (2021), “The ABC of systematic literature review: basic methodological guidance for beginners”, Quality and Quantity, Vol. 55, pp. 1319-1346, doi: 10. 1007/s11135-020-01059-6. Sun, I. and Wu, Y. (2018), Race, Immigration, and Social Control: Immigrants’ Views on the Police, Palgrave Macmillan, Long. Terzano, K. (2014), “Commodification of transitioning ethnic enclaves”, Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 341-351, doi: 10.3390/bs4040341. US Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Minority Health (2023), “Profile: asian Americans”, available at: https://minorityhealth.hhs.gov/omh/browse.aspx?lvl53&lvlid563 (accessed 6 March 2023). Vogel, B.L. (2011), “Perceptions of the police: the influence of individual and contextual factors in a racially diverse urban sample”, Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 267-290, doi: 10.1080/15377938.2011.609399. Wu, Y., Smith, B.W. and Sun, I.Y. (2013), “Race/ethnicity and perceptions of police bias: the case of Chinese immigrants”, Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice, Vol. 11 Nos 1-2, pp. 71-92, doi: 10. 1080/15377938.2012.735989. Wu, Y., Sun, I.Y. and Smith, B.W. (2011), “Race, immigration, and policing: chinese immigrants’ satisfaction with police”, Justice Quarterly, Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 745-774, doi: 10.1080/07418825.2010.535009. Wu, Y., Triplett, R. and Sun, I.Y. (2012), “Chinese immigrants’ contact with police”, Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 741-760, doi: 10. 1108/13639511211275634. Yuan, Y., Wu, Y. and Melde, C. (2022), “Does racial discrimination matter: explaining perceived police bias across four racial/ethnic groups”, Policing: An International Journal, Vol. 45 No. 6, pp. 989-1007, doi: 10.1108/PIJPSM-02-2022-0020. Corresponding author John J. Sloan can be contacted at: prof@uab.edu For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website: www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com