In popular rhetoric, immigrant-origin youth are often seen for what they lack. Elements such as lower proficiency in the language of the host country and lack of economic security are what people focus on. Developmental studies on immigrant-origin youth are also often underfunded, which makes it a challenge to proliferate strength-based research on this topic. Indeed, research usually focuses on the problems or challenges they face rather than their strengths or potential. There is a need to reframe the focus on risk factors in the development of immigrant-origin youth. This reframing does not ignore challenges but instead contextualises them. It creates space for resilience, cultural assets, and agency, and explores what would happen if the youth were viewed through a strength-based lens instead.

In research, immigrant-origin youth have traditionally been portrayed as ‘vulnerable’, ' at-risk’, or ‘deficient.’ Due to their exposure to migration-related stressors, they are frequently depicted as inherently fragile. These stressors include language barriers, family separation, or displacement. According to this interpretation, immigrant-origin youth require ongoing assistance and protection. Although these factors may exist, these representations often ignore their cultural strengths, autonomy, and adaptability.

Viewing individuals through the lens of ‘fragility’ may pathologize ordinary cultural adjustments, making them appear abnormal. This distinction between ‘fragile immigrant youth’ and ‘normally adjusted youth’ makes the former seem constantly like outsiders. That is, constantly framing this group in a risk-based view focuses on failure rather than success. Interventions are also often intended to "prevent problems" rather than "foster thriving”. As such, immigrant-origin youth may begin to internalize views about themselves as fragile.

This issue of fragility is also prominent in education-based research. Immigrant-origin youth are compared to norms framed according to the average of a different country and culture. This standardization does not account for inherent individual differences, which, rather than being viewed via a lens of marginalization, should be seen as strengths. For instance, being bilingual has often been seen as a marker of lower vocabulary knowledge instead of as a cognitive asset. This bias can also be seen in psychological literature, which emphasizes that "acculturation gaps" among families are fundamentally problematic rather than occasionally adaptive.

This framing in research affects policy formation and broader........

© Psychology Today