Increasingly, the importance of reflexivity has been acknowledged in higher education research. In this paper, I reflect on my experience of researching lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) university students in Hong Kong. The focus is not on the findings that emerge from the in-depth interviews conducted per se, but on the methodological reflections of the research process itself. Particularly, I focus on the notion of ‘vulnerability’ in the qualitative research literature which suggests that some study topics are particularly sensitive and some interviewees are especially vulnerable. I argue that because LGBT students in Hong Kong live under the governance of family biopolitics and the colonial legacy of religious dominance in secondary education, they are subjected to enormous social pressure to reject or conceal their LGBT identities. In that sense, they can be conceived as vulnerable interview subjects. However, LGBT students, especially those who are in the closet, redefined the interview as an occasion to ponder their identity struggles, and to release problems and worries that in everyday life they can share with no one. For some LGBT students, knowing of the very existence of the research itself and participating in the research were empowering. The LGBT students had the capacity to shape the meanings of the interview, thus, they were far from being completely vulnerable. Quite unexpectedly, I found myself as a researcher in a relatively vulnerable position, feeling emotionally overwhelmed by the research and feeling guilty of not doing ‘enough’ for the LGBT students. This paper argues that although researchers need to continue to pay attention to the ethics of conducting culturally sensitive research, the vulnerability of some interview subjects should not be overestimated. Otherwise researchers risk further silencing the voices of those who are already socially marginalized. I also contend that qualitative research should acknowledge researchers’

Since the late 1970s, some feminists in North America, the UK, and Australia have celebrated what have traditionally been considered woman's traits, particularly the educating and nurturing of children, the care of the elderly, and the low level of criminal violence among women. The "difference" feminism has appealed to many women because it promotes the view that women's qualities and ways of life are as important, serious and valuable as men's. Working from this theoretical perspective, Nel Noddings developed a feminine ethics of caring. She believes that men and women approach moral problems differently, men are guided primarily by principles, propositions, justification, and fairness and women are guided more by a commitment to maintain caring relationships. Noddings rejected the notion that principles and rules should be the major guide of ethical decisions and argues that caring, a primary attribute of women, is the foundation of ethical response. Noddings has applied an ethics of caring to curriculum development and educational reform. She proposed that if standards arising from women's culture were to guide educational planning, we would have more caring communities. She believes that when men's experiences are used as a standard for curriculum development, the contributions of women towards the improvement of social conditions are often devalued. Women's interests such as childcare, poverty, and peace often are not included in the curriculum. Social studies curriculum would focus on human relationships, with family at the center of the curriculum. Children's social consciousness would be raised because more attention would be paid to social issues. Women's ethics of care and maternal thinking would serve as standards for changing the culture of the schools. Few would disagree with Nodding's suggestion that social issues be given more serious attention in school curriculum. Many realize that the way we educate our children today will influence the types of communities

This paper offers a critical review of research in the area of gender and education in Hong Kong, and suggests the plausible circumstances contributory to its impoverished development. While it is found that "gender" has been touched upon in diverse educational literature, the way the concept is conceptualised has been limited and there has been little or no mentioning of gender in teachers’ education in the territory. Gender is popularly used as a demographic variable and, at best, equated with sex roles. In both cases, the use of the concept is devoid of what we consider a more sophisticated understanding of gender as a social construction, as relational in nature, as entangled with power relations, which, in short, fails to explain how education and gender regulate. The relatively limited conceptualisation in the field of education can be explained in two main ways. First, there has been a lack of a dialogue between the educational literature and sociological literature in the territory, where the latter is comparatively more developed. Secondly and more crucially, the limited development can be partly to do with the fact that gender equity in education is deemed a non-issue in the local community. As studies have demonstrated, Hong Kong people embrace the society as openly egalitarian with abundant opportunities for social betterment, in spite of the social injustice that many encounter. Furthermore, the locals, especially the middle class, tend to resort to individualistic and privatised strategies when confronting difficulties and uncertainties, and more so when investment in their children’s education is concerned. Against a background of increasing educational privatisation, we argue for the urgency to have a more refined theoretical understanding of gender, a re-conceptualisation of the importance of schooling in relation to gender, and the execution of gender-sensitive pedagogies and teachers training in Hong Kong.

Research in the area of student's learning approaches has been conducted by numerous educators since the late 1970's (e.g. Marton & Saljo, 1976; Ramsden & Entwistle, 1981; Biggs, 1985, 1987). Marton & Saljo (1976) have suggested two basic approaches to learning, viz. "surface" and "deep" approach. A surface approach describes the intention to reproduce information in compliance with externally imposed task demands while a deep approach involved an intention to understand. Biggs (1985, 1987, 1993) added a third one, the "achieving" approach. According to Biggs (1993), the achieving approach is based on the ego-enhancement aiming at the achievement of high grades. Similar to the surface approach, the focus is not task-centred but on the recognition gained from top performance. The strategy is to organize time, workplace, and syllabus coverage cost effectively, with much use of cue-seeking, systematic use of study skills, planning ahead, allocating time according to task importance. Biggs (1985, 1987) has developed two different versions of questionnaires in his survey study with Australian tertiary and high school students, viz. "Study Process Questionnaire" (SPQ) and "Learning Process Questionnaire" (LPQ) respectively. Many of these studies of learning approaches were conducted with university / college students in western countries to identify what kind of study approaches were adopted and to relate the chosen study approaches with other variables such as academic achievement. Judith's (1992) study of the learning processes in distance learning students concluded that deep motivation was a way to success, but to succeed in gaining credit and good grades, deep strategy, achieving motive and achieving strategy were also needed. This was in support of the meaning assigned by Biggs to achieving approach. Studies employing Biggs' instruments have also been replicated in various situations and contexts, (e.g. Biggs, 1992; Watkins & Hattie, 1981, 1985; Watkins & Ismail, 1994

It is probably true that the teaching hierarchy in primary schools in many countries remains gendered, as men still disproportionately occupy more leadership positions than women. However, in recent years, some countries, such as Hong Kong, also notice a steady growth of female head teachers in the teaching force. How can we make sense of an increased access to leadership positions of women? And more curiously, how do male head teachers in primary school make sense of the rise of female leaders? This paper attempts to explore the situation by critically examining the perspectives of male principals in primary schools – a “successful minority” who is thus far an under-researched group in the field of gender and education. By focusing on the narratives of 12 male head teachers who talked about the rise of female leaders and any possible differences between female and male principals, this qualitative study aims to problematize men’s views and illuminate the complexity of gender equity in education. As the paper unfolds, all male principals interviewed regarded the rise as “natural” not simply because there are more female teachers in the pipelines, but more importantly women have now overcome their obstacles, as they become more educated; get married later; bear fewer or no children; stay single; and are more career—minded. More importantly, it has also identified three main discourses that men used to make sense of “gender differences”: a) women and men principals communicate differently; b) women are more thorough but men think ‘big’; c) women manage and men lead. However, when those “differences” are closely examined, most men actually perceive women principals and their styles of leadership as less competent. In other words, even though some women have gained access to position of leadership, their effectiveness as leaders is being questioned by their counterparts, as “leadership” is still conceptualized as a male and masculinedominated domain. Implications of this

A wealth of literature on gender identities undertaken by western research communities shows that gender scripts have real consequences for male and female teachers' identity constructions. Social expectations and stereotyped images of men and women teachers affect teachers' gender identities as well as their professional experiences and opportunities (Biklen, 1995; Casey, 1990; Coffey & Delamont, 2000; Smedley, 2007; Tamboukou, 2000; Wayne & Blye, 2006). There has been growing research efforts into research on Chinese women primary teachers (Chan, 2004; Luk-Fong, 2010). Little published work on Hong Kong Chinese men and women secondary teachers have been found. Understanding teachers' gender identity is important because the way gender dynamics has worked to shape teachers' gender identities in their school days may field results for the students they interact with. Sabbe and Aelterman (2007), in their comprehensive review on gender in teaching, rightly spell out that 'teaching is historically and culturally imbued with multiple discourses and subjectivities of gender' (p. 529). This chapter portrays gender identity construction, negotiation and renegotiation of two Hong Kong Chinese teachers, Shuijing and Baibin, who both have been involved in painstaking struggles with their gender identities but with varied learning backgrounds. Their narratives aim to illuminate understanding of: - How the gender identities of the Hong Kong Chinese male and female teachers were negotiated and renegotiated, their varied institutional experiences, and; - Crucial elements contributing to gender identity negotiations.