This article analyses how university students in Hong Kong talk about 'self' and 'other'. Three groups of students, Hong Kong Chinese, Mainland Chinese, and Overseas Exchange students, were asked to characterise these three groups in a pre-discussion questionnaire, and subsequently discuss freely what they had written. Selected excerpts from these discussions are analysed, and the analyses show that there are significant differences between the written and the oral responses. The pre-discussion stereotypes appear to be predominantly positive, whereas the students jointly construct predominantly negative stereotypes about 'the other' during their discussions. Different discourse strategies are employed by the three groups to discredit 'the other' and, at the same time, enhance intergroup differentiation and a positive ingroup identity. The findings are discussed vis-a-vis predominantly social psychological theories, and the study highlights that the attempt to create more internationalised universities may be jeopardised if negative intergroup stereotypes prevail. The article suggests that universities should take a more proactive role in promoting anti-racist multicultural education to counter intergroup prejudice and potential conflict.
[Copyright of Language and Intercultural Communication is the property of Routledge. Full article may be available at the publisher's website:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14708477.2013.849718]

In the public discourse about Mainland China (MLC) in Hong Kong (HK), China is usually presented as in group, and the "one-country-one-people" ideology is widely supported. In the private discourse, however, MLC is usually presented as outgroup. This article analyzes spontaneous online discussions from a chat forum where local and non-local Chinese students in an Intercultural Communication class discuss self- and other-categorizations in HK and MLC. The analyses demonstrate that a wide range of mitigation strategies is used, suggesting that students constantly engage in face-threatening activities. The data also show that HK students' stereotypes of MLC are remarkably negative, and that MLC students defend themselves by constructing counter-narratives about the rejected mother and her ungrateful child. The discussion argues that social identity is a flexible concept which constantly changes depending on context and situation, and it suggests that the students' narratives should be seen as examples of different types of discourse: a Western and an Eastern discourse with fundamentally different norms for self- and other-construction. Finally, the paper argues that only by addressing potentially painful issues, and verbalizing taboos in the strained relationship between HK and MLC, is it possible, over time, to reconcile the opposing discourses about "the other"
[Copyright of Journal of Multicultural Discourses is the property of Routledge. Full article may be available at the publisher's website:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17447143.2011.560670]

The picture that often emerges from the research literature on 'Chinese learners' is a caricature of rote-learning, memorization and passivity. This article takes issue with the stereotype. The paper is in three parts. The first part considers the extent to which Chinese culture may influence Chinese learning styles. Some received opinions are counterpoised with more recent reinterpretations. The paper later examines some of the findings from the literature on effective adult learning. The third part explores the extent to which Hong Kong adult learners adopt learning styles consonant with those outlined in the second section. The results of the survey research, action learning projects and case studies considered suggest that Hong Kong adult learners are receptive to new modes of learning and go on to adopt learning styles quite different from those they deployed in school. The arguments are situated within the literature on adult Chinese second language (L2) learning but have wider resonance and application to Hong Kong adult learners in general.
[Copyright of International Journal of Lifelong Education is the property of Routledge. Full article may be available at the publisher's website:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02601370210156745]