The group analysis section will take the findings of the qualitative interviews and establish connections to relevant, supporting literature and media stories.
Through the analysis, we can apply students' responses to related models and theories such as Sussman's Cultural Identity Model (CIM), and several
authors' application of models based on the Theory of Social Distance. It will compare the students' various responses, highlight important patterns that appeared throughout all the interviews, analyze the students adaptability and place in local academia and society, and discuss their future plans and the their impacts on society. The group analysis will cover the interviews of students in Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan respectively.
One element that is paramount to the group analysis is the students' language ability and acquisition. Language ability refers to their self-perceived ability to function in the local language (Cantonese in the case of the SARs), and the academic language (English). Academic literature as well as common assumption suggests that language ability of foreign people is directly related to their adaptability to the new environment and their social interactions with the local population.
Hong Kong Analysis
In Hong Kong, all students acknowledged that they were attracted to the universities in the territory by English-medium academic programs, and perceived Cantonese to be a barrier in adapting to the local environment and to establish social ties with the locals. Whether the students were proficient in Cantonese or not, they all stated that it was a challenge to them and their mainland classmates upon arriving. Unlike many sociological studies that analyze foreign students' experiences in an overseas setting, the mainland Chinese students in this study share the same race and traditional culture as the people in Hong Kong. Therefore, one of the major factors differentiating the two societies is the use of Cantonese and English and differing historical roots such as Hong Kong's colonial rule by Britain and the Cultural
Revolution in mainland China. A unique element of Hong Kong education is that local and mainland students are both studying in a non-local language environment (in English) and are arguably equally disadvantaged and studying in a leveled out playing field more so than in a conventional overseas study abroad environment. In addition, Hong Kong students are also considered Chinese nationals along with their mainland classmates.
Although some Chinese students had excellent Cantonese and English abilities, the interview findings indicated that simply knowing the languages or majoring in translation would not warrant these students to adapt better or to establish better social relations with local people. It was rather their
perception of their place in the school environment and their willingness to exert themselves to learn and use Cantonese in a social context, not simply a professional one. The students that mentioned participation in extracurricular activities tended to have more local and international friends as well as an
overall more satisfying experience in Hong Kong. Analysis by Postiglione and Lee of social distance among social groups in Hong Kong using
Schumann's social distance model (Schumann 1976) displays several findings pertaining to language acquisition and social distance (Postiglione and Lee 1998):
1. Dominance - unequal power structure.
2. Integration - social distance between the language learning group and the target group will be increased without intention of acculturation, assimilation, or integration.
3. Enclosure- without common activities, clubs and associations, social distance will increase.
4. Cohesion- the more internally cohesive the language learning group the greater the social distance.
5. Size - the larger the language learning group, the greater social distance.
6. Congruence - the more similar the culture of the two groups, the less social distance.
7. Attitudes - negative attitudes lead to greater distance.
8. Residence – the less time the learning group stays in the target area, the greater the distance
In the context of this study, the “learning group” would be the mainland students in Hong Kong, and the “target group” would be their local
counterparts. Particularly the points of integration, enclosure, cohesion, size and attitudes explain the significant social distance between these two
groups, and why students excelling in languages experienced social
exclusion from the local population. Although the point of residence pertains
only temporally, one could argue that circumstances and location of
residence also play a role. For example, students living in dorm facilities that only associate with their mainland roommates will tend to associate less with the local population.
Sociological studies show that local perception of foreign student's home country (or territory) lead to the factor of national status affecting student's adaptive ability. Richard Morris's study of foreign students in the United States suggests that students from countries which are generally less well known by American people were subject to naïve questions or unintentional insults, while students from Western European countries were idolized and gained positive reinforcement (Morris 1960). This may help explain reasons beyond the ones presented in the social distance model why students like Ms.
Joyce and Ms. Charlene had difficulty making local friends and had relatively negative experiences in school. When inquired about how she introduces herself in Hong Kong, Ms. Joyce explained:
“I say I'm from Xi'an (西安), but most Hong Kong people don't know anything about Xi'an. I know many foreigners know Xi'an. But Hong Kongers only know about cities like Beijing, Shanghai, and maybe Guangzhou because it is near Hong Kong” (Ms. Joyce part 2, 19:00).
Ms. Charlene also responded to the same question in a similar way by saying:
“I would say I'm from Hebei province. But many people here are not familiar with Hebei at all. So most of the time I end up saying I'm from 'around Beijing' in order for them to understand” (Ms. Charlene part 2, 12:55). Although a seemingly trivial question, it reveals that they feel that
local Hong Kong people have little knowledge or recognition of their hometowns. Even Ms. Xi who was possibly the most positively adaptive student, introduced herself as being from Beijing rather than actually being from a small ethnic minority village in Hunan. She justified this by saying her undergraduate university was in Beijing, so she therefore identifies with Beijing. Without directly indicating so, she may also be prompted to say Beijing, as it is a more familiar city to Hong Kongers. In this case, the
concept of locational status (what Morris called national status) is a factor to adaptation as well as identity development.
Literature based on a similar study surveying 1,146 foreign students' adaptability in a Canadian university concluded that “one of the most
important elements in successful adaptation is skill with the language in the host society.” (Fletcher and Stren 1989). The case of Hong Kong is slightly more complicated given that English is the language used in schools and determines their academic success, while Cantonese, although sharing a writing system with Mandarin, is an unintelligible dialect that is necessary to function on all levels of Hong Kong society. That is not without saying that Mandarin is becoming a language of ever increasing importance to Hong Kong and its local education system. Many changes in Hong Kong's primary and secondary education curricula to further incorporate Mandarin courses were instigated within Hong Kong's own education bureau before the 1997 handover (Adamson and Lai 1997). Authors such as Law speak of a
decolonization and sinofication process of Hong Kong higher education in the 1980's and 1990's in which staff and administration positions in Hong Kong universities were filled by ethnic Chinese, many of which were
Mandarin-speaking. This was mostly done due to the Hong Kong education
bureau's preparation of future exchange with the newly opened PRC, in which Mandarin would be more necessary (Law 1997). Mainland students generally acknowledged that Mandarin had become a secondary language in Hong Kong, particularly since the handover, which may decrease incentives to learn Cantonese. However, English is an international language and the language that would determine their ability to study and work in Hong Kong and abroad and is therefore of high importance to them. Therefore, they may be more motivated to overcome the barrier of English in order to excel in school and their careers.
Analysis of Hong Kong people's perception of mainland China is not a part this study. However, it is important to clarify possible reasons why Hong Kong society has a general negative perception of mainland people.
Research suggests that Hong Kong media has acted as a dominant force in creating an image of mainland Chinese people within Hong Kong society over the past 40 years. According to Mathews, Ma, and Lui (2008), decades of local Hong Kong media have built a strong sense of local identity and a weak national identity in Hong Kong despite post-handover efforts by the SAR government to re-sinofy Hong Kong society. They also drew a
comparison of Hong Kong TV programming in the 1970's and 80's to more recent programming, showing evidence of a shift in depictions of mainland Chinese. Mainland characters were originally depicted as “ignorant of social norms”, “uncivilized”, “lazy”, “lawless”, and “uneducated”, resulting in the new immigrants being nicknamed “Ah Chans” after a pathetic mainland Chinese TV character that encompassed all mainland stereotypes. By the 1990's, mockery of mainland characters had significantly diminished and stories of mainlanders success in Hong Kong became more prevalent
(Mathews, Ma, Lui 2008). The authors believe such shifts were due to Hong Kong media companies' increasing market shares in mainland China which influenced the content of their programming. However, media projecting mainlanders in a negative way clearly had an influence on public opinion. A 1982 survey showed that 72% of locals believed that new immigrants were competing for local jobs, 40% believed that they were responsible for
violent crimes, and 24% believed that they were responsible for a burden on government public services (CUHK 1982). Such evidence gives reason to believe that generations who grew up viewing such images in the media continue to hold similar viewpoints. Although media representation may have changed, and more Hong Kong movie stars produce films together with mainland actors or located in mainland China, younger audiences are still equally influenced by the mass media. (Ma 2008) A 2003 survey of Hong Kong university students shows that their attitudes towards the Chinese nation are more influenced by the media than their schools (Fairbrother 2003). There were rather mixed responses from the students in regard to their experiences with the local people's attitudes to them. However,
differences in adaptability seem to be the main factor that corresponded with their response.
Such negative attitudes manifest within media stories that reflects negative opinions of mainlanders, and more recently even toward mainland students in Hong Kong. In mid-2013, media sources reported that Hong Kong university students starting a movement called “anti-mainlandization of Hong Kong universities”. The movement was mainly against mainland students taking local job opportunities and public medical services that the students were entitled to while residing in Hong Kong (Global Times 2013).
Even non-local media outlets such as Singapore's Straits Times reported about the movement and anti-mainland sentiment, and it noted that though local Hong Kong students had better chances at being accepted than non-local students despite high competition, the high caliber of mainland
students intensified the competitive sentiment from the local students (Straits times 2013).
Comments from the students shed light on their reception to the negative public opinions of mainland China. For example, Ms. Charlene has felt discriminated against by the language she used, when making a phone call.
She explained: “I made phone calls using Mandarin when I was moving into my apartment, and I received negative feedback from the people answering my calls would refuse to respond in Mandarin and persistently spoke
Cantonese. And their attitude was very bad.”(Ms. Charlene part 2, 08:47).
However, Ms. Charlene seems to hold less than positive attitudes toward mainland China and the political environment there and called the country a
“one party dictatorship”. Ms. Xi's comment “Being communist and being Chinese are not the same thing” shows she shares a similar viewpoint with Hong Kong people by separating her Chinese identity from China's
communist political environment. Mr. Jerry also made similar comments about how his Chinese cultural identity is independent from the mainland political arena which he seems to strongly oppose. Mr. Jerry even explained how this issue of social responsibility among schools in Hong Kong affected his decision-making process.
He explained: “Before I came to Hong Kong I got an offer from HKU and HKST, and Beijing University. Because all three of them gave me an offer
for engineering, but the engineering in Beijing University is not very good.
Not as much as Tsinghua university, but I don't really like that school because they borrow the ideas of the communist party very much. But between HKU and HKST, I believe the engineering program in HKST is better, but I opted for HKU because I did not want to only learn about engineering every day. I feel HKST emphasizes more on academic
achievement, but HKU emphasizes more on social responsibility for Hong Kong and even for China. For example, Occupy Central started from HKU.
So, they care more about social issues.”(Mr. Jerry part 1, 18:30).
These students' opinions show that they would like to disassociate
themselves with mainland China's sociopolitical environment, but maintain a Chinese cultural identity as most people in Hong Kong do. A Hong Kong government survey of local residents found that that while 73% of people felt “proud to be Chinese”, 72% felt “some affairs happening in China make me feel ashamed” (Connolly 2005). These shared feelings and viewpoints of cultural identity among the mainland students may also be an element of attraction to Hong Kong as an alternative Chinese society that is conveyed by Hong Kong media outlets. These students share similar characteristics of their value system with Hong Kong people, and therefore initiate a process of self-selection in which they chose the school that was right for them.
All four of the ethnic minority students were of ethnic groups that primarily use Mandarin as their main language, and are therefore at no linguistic disadvantage as non-Mandarin speaking minorities (Lee 2001). Their physical features and appearance are not different insofar as they would stand out in mainland China or in Hong Kong. Despite Ms. An's ethnic minority group being a predominantly Muslim group, she appeared to be
dressed in modern clothing with no significant variance from most females of the same age group in Hong Kong. She did not wear any head covering or
“hijab” symbolizing Islamic faith among females. There was no particularly significant factors that set them apart from the Han students other than the question of changing nationality which was mentioned earlier. However, there is reason to believe that the locational status factor would be a factor affecting their acceptance even within certain regions of the PRC. Given the fact that all of them expressed high interest in working and even
immigrating overseas, this may give reason to believe that they have higher perceived benefit in going to multiethnic, immigrant countries such as the United States. Even the fact that this study has such a high turnout of ethnic minorities shows that Hong Kong was at least an attractive option to them prior to relocating. Perhaps their ethnic minority status and the connotations associated with them are not present in Hong Kong as they would be in a mainland Chinese context. The methodology of this study was not designed to analyze questions on this intriguing matter. I suggest that researchers conducting studies in mainland China on ethnic minority students ought to base on their attractiveness to studying or immigrating to the SARs or foreign countries.
Sussman's CIM is a useful model in measuring the adaptability and status of foreign student's cultural identities. The foundation of model is to measure to what degree a person has developed a new cultural self and aligned their values with the values of the host society. Sussman's study is a more temporally involved study that follows respondents up until a time of
repatriation, which the author believes to be the time when cultural identity changes are more apparent, and overwhelmingly result in negative responses.
However, due to the limitations of this study, students will only be analyzed based on their changes to their perception shared during the interviews.
The CIM proposes that 4 distinct types of identity shifts may occur upon repatriation (Sussman 2011)
(Table 2)
Sussman's Cultural Identity Model (CIM)
1. Subtractive Identity shift
(High flexibility to new culture, high distress upon return) Subtractive returnees will respond by seeking out other
returnees with similar values in home country. They will also continue to seek opportunities to interact with members of the host culture.
2. Additive Identity shift (Low-Med flexibility, limited distress upon return) May continue to seek out aspects of the host culture in the form of food or language study.
3. Affirmative Identity shift
(Home culture is maintained and strengthened throughout the transition cycle, results in low adaptation) In most cases repatriation for these returnees will be a welcomed relief.
4.Intercultural or Global Identity shift
(Less common, Able to hold multiple cultural scripts simultaneously.) There is low cultural centrality and high flexibility resulting in high adaptation. In some cases repatriates define themselves as world citizens and are able to act appropriately and effectively in many countries or regions by switching cultural frames as needed.
Source: Sussman 2011 P.73-78.
Students such as Mr. Jerry and Ms. Xi show many features of a “subtractive identity” as well as a “global identity”. They both showed extensive efforts
to adapt to Hong Kong society, were active in extracurricular activities, and built a solid social network with the Hong Kong locals. Depending on whom they interacted with, their social interactions with friends involve switching languages and context of conversation. During their interviews, Mr. Jerry insisted on speaking to the researcher in English, while Ms. Xi spoke in Mandarin and would periodically switch to English. They both inquired about the United States after the interviews were over, showing their cultural awareness of and interest in western countries. They both acknowledged that they would have difficulties in readjusting to their hometowns if they were to return, as they have become accustomed to the political freedoms and world-class connectivity that Hong Kong offers. They both had high
aspirations to travel and possibly work abroad in the future. Interestingly, Mr.
Jerry and Ms. Xi had the highest levels of satisfaction among all the students in Hong Kong.
Most of the students such as Ms. Meng, Ms. Yu, Ms. An, and to a lesser extent Ms. Charlene and Ms. Jessie fell into the category of “additive identity” as they did not entirely become integrated in Hong Kong society and retained a high amount of attachment to their hometowns and more frequently associated with other mainland students. Their Cantonese abilities and satisfaction with the education in Hong Kong differed from each other slightly, but they all had a shared interest in using English and befriending
Most of the students such as Ms. Meng, Ms. Yu, Ms. An, and to a lesser extent Ms. Charlene and Ms. Jessie fell into the category of “additive identity” as they did not entirely become integrated in Hong Kong society and retained a high amount of attachment to their hometowns and more frequently associated with other mainland students. Their Cantonese abilities and satisfaction with the education in Hong Kong differed from each other slightly, but they all had a shared interest in using English and befriending