Reflexivity In Applied Linguistics Opportunities Challenges And Suggestions Sal Consoli

Reflexivity In Applied Linguistics Opportunities
Challenges And Suggestions Sal Consoli download
https://ebookbell.com/product/reflexivity-in-applied-linguistics-
opportunities-challenges-and-suggestions-sal-consoli-48754344
Explore and download more ebooks at ebookbell.com

Here are some recommended products that we believe you will be
interested in. You can click the link to download.
Reframe Team Reflexivity Realize Do No Harm Applied To The Cases Of
Burnout Prevention And Speak Up Freely In Teams Felix Wittke
https://ebookbell.com/product/reframe-team-reflexivity-realize-do-no-
harm-applied-to-the-cases-of-burnout-prevention-and-speak-up-freely-
in-teams-felix-wittke-47604222
Reflexivity In Vedic 1st Edition Vernica Orqueda
https://ebookbell.com/product/reflexivity-in-vedic-1st-edition-
vernica-orqueda-51645996
Reflexivity In Economics An Experimental Examination On The
Selfreferentiality Of Economic Theories 1st Edition Dr Serena Sandri
Auth
https://ebookbell.com/product/reflexivity-in-economics-an-
experimental-examination-on-the-selfreferentiality-of-economic-
theories-1st-edition-dr-serena-sandri-auth-2179256
Reflexivity In Social Research Emilie Morwenna Whitaker Paul Atkinson
https://ebookbell.com/product/reflexivity-in-social-research-emilie-
morwenna-whitaker-paul-atkinson-36246774

Reflexivity In Social Research Emilie Morwenna Whitaker Paul Atkinson
https://ebookbell.com/product/reflexivity-in-social-research-emilie-
morwenna-whitaker-paul-atkinson-37303170
Reflexivity In Language And Intercultural Education Rethinking
Multilingualism And Interculturality 1st Edition Julie S Byrd Clark
https://ebookbell.com/product/reflexivity-in-language-and-
intercultural-education-rethinking-multilingualism-and-
interculturality-1st-edition-julie-s-byrd-clark-5154292
Reflexivity In Criminological Research Experiences With The Powerful
And The Powerless Karen Lumsden
https://ebookbell.com/product/reflexivity-in-criminological-research-
experiences-with-the-powerful-and-the-powerless-karen-lumsden-5379164
Discourse Reflexivity In Linear Unit Grammar The Case Of Imdb Message
Boards Cameron Smart
https://ebookbell.com/product/discourse-reflexivity-in-linear-unit-
grammar-the-case-of-imdb-message-boards-cameron-smart-7020084
The Reflective Leader Reflexivity In Practice Ian Robson
https://ebookbell.com/product/the-reflective-leader-reflexivity-in-
practice-ian-robson-49939652

This edited collection provides research-informed guidance on how
reflexivity may be practised in applied linguistics research. Specifically,
we promote reflexivity as an essential hallmark of quality research and
argue that doing reflexivity confers greater transparency, methodological
rigour, depth, and trustworthiness to our scholarly inquiries.
The collection features perspectives from different sub-fields of applied
linguistics, including intercultural communication, language education,
and multilingualism, and draws on data from a range of settings,
including language cafés, classrooms, workplaces, and migration and
displacement contexts. Each chapter follows a unified structure: theoretical
background, context of the empirical study used as a backdrop for the
chapter, an analysis of how reflexivity played out throughout the study,
and conclusions which include takeaway points for other researchers.
This approach allows readers to gain a sound understanding of the
challenges and affordances of doing reflexivity in concrete examples
of applied linguistics research whilst also gaining guidance on how to
nurture and report on researcher reflexivity as this unfolds throughout
the lifetime of a project.
This book will appeal to students and scholars in applied linguistics,
particularly those with an interest in research methods in the areas of
language education, multilingualism, and intercultural communication.
Sal Consoli is Assistant Professor in Language Education at the Moray
House School of Education, University of Edinburgh. Previously, he
worked at other universities in the UK and Hong Kong. His research
examines the psychology of language learning and methodological
debates in the domains of narrative inquiry and practitioner research.
Sara Ganassin is Senior Lecturer in Applied Linguistics and Communication
in the School of Education, Communication and Language Sciences,
Newcastle University, UK. Her research examines the interplay of
language, culture, and identity in contexts of mobility and displacement.
She co-authored Intercultural Challenges for the Reintegration of
Displaced Professionals (2022, Routledge).
Reflexivity in Applied Linguistics

Contexts of Co-Constructed Discourse
Interaction, Pragmatics, and Second Language Applications
Edited by Lori Czerwionka, Rachel Showstack, and
Judith Liskin-Gasparro
Second Language Prosody and Computer Modeling
Okim Kang, David O. Johnson, Alyssa Kermad
Reconsidering Context in Language Assessment
Transdisciplinary Perspectives, Social Theories, and Validity
Janna Fox and Natasha Artemeva
Evaluation Across Newspaper Genres
Hard News Stories, Editorials and Feature Articles
Jonathan Ngai
Understanding Variability in Second Language Acquisition,
Bilingualism, and Cognition
A Multi-layered Perspective
Edited by Kristin Kersten and Adam Winsler
Crosslinguistic Influence in L3 Acquisition
Bilingual Heritage Speakers in Germany
Eliane Lorenz
Bilingual Writers and Corpus Analysis
Edited by David M. Palfreyman and Nizar Habash
Reflexivity in Applied Linguistics
Opportunities, Challenges, and Suggestions
Edited by Sal Consoli and Sara Ganassin
For more information about this series, please visit: www.routledge.com/
Routledge-Studies-in-Applied-Linguistics/book-series/RSAL
Routledge Studies in Applied Linguistics

Reflexivity in Applied
Linguistics
Opportunities, Challenges,
and Suggestions
Edited by Sal Consoli and
Sara Ganassin

First published 2023
by Routledge
605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158
and by Routledge
4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an
informa business
© 2023 selection and editorial matter, Sal Consoli and Sara
Ganassin; individual chapters, the contributors
The right of Sal Consoli and Sara Ganassin to be identified as
the authors of the editorial material, and of the authors for
their individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with
sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act
1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted
or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic,
mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented,
including photocopying and recording, or in any information
storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from
the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be
trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for
identification and explanation without intent to infringe.
ISBN: 978-0-367-71117-7 (hbk)
ISBN: 978-0-367-71122-1 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-1-003-14940-8 (ebk)
DOI: 10.4324/9781003149408
Typeset in Sabon
by Apex CoVantage, LLC

List of contributors vii
Foreword x
EMA USHIODA
1 Navigating the waters of reflexivity in applied linguistics 1
SAL CONSOLI AND SARA GANASSIN
2 Emotional reflexivity during a global health crisis:
emotion ‘work’ in online health communication research 17
MARGO TURNBULL AND XIAOYAN IVY WU
3 ‘Making the familiar strange’: reflexivity in linguistic
ethnography within a context of former legal
professional practice 35
JUDITH REYNOLDS
4 Journeying through languages and voices: A reflexive
account of researching teachers’ language practices in
the multilingual and multicultural context of Mauritius 55
ARUNA ANKIAH-GANGADEEN AND PASCAL NADAL
5 “There would be no project if I were to disregard my
own self!”: An autoethnography of becoming reflexive
as a doctoral student in applied linguistics 74
SAMUEL C. S. TSANG
6 Critical reflexive phenomenography in a study abroad
context: navigating Arab sojourners’ international
academic experiences in Britain 96
ANAS HAJAR
Contents

vi Contents
7 Researching language cafés: engaging the researcher’s
authentic multilingual self 115
NURIA POLO-PÉREZ
8 Collaborative reflexivity through feedback dialogues:
developing the research and the doctoral researcher 134
MAXINE GILLWAY AND HUGO SANTIAGO SANCHEZ
9 Reflexivity, emerging expertise, and Mi[S-STEP]s:
A collaborative self-study of two TESOL teacher educators153
LAURA M. KENNEDY AND PETER I. DE COSTA
10 Reflexivity and the production of shared meanings in
language and sexuality research 171
HELEN SAUNTSON
11 Learning from the messiness of research: Reflexivity in
sharing sessions with domestic migrant workers 190
HANS J. LADEGAARD
Afterword. Journey into applied linguistics: reflecting on
reflexivity and positionality 207
LI WEI
Index 211

Contributors’ bibliographical notes
Aruna Ankiah-Gangadeen is the Head of Curriculum Development,
Implementation and Evaluation at the Mauritius Institute of Educa-
tion. She is also involved in teacher education. Her research interests
are mainly related to curriculum studies, educational policies, and lan-
guage teaching and learning in multi-lingual contexts.
Peter I. De Costa is an Associate Professor in the Department of Lin-
guistics, Languages & Cultures and the Department of Teacher Edu-
cation at Michigan State University. He is the co-editor of TESOL
Quarterly and the First Vice-President of the American Association
for Applied Linguistics.
Maxine Gillway is Director of the Centre for Academic Language and
Development at the University of Bristol, UK. She has over 35 years
of experience as a language educator in Spain, Greece, Turkey, the
United Arab Emirates, and the UK.
Anas Hajar is a graduate of Warwick University, UK, holding a PhD in
language education. He is currently an associate professor and the
PhD Programme Director in the Faculty of Education at Nazarbayev
University, Kazakhstan. He is interested in the areas of shadow educa-
tion, education abroad, and language learning strategies.
Laura M. Kennedy is an Assistant Professor in the School of Education,
Leadership, and Public Service at Northern Michigan University.
Drawing on (auto)ethnographic, narrative, and case study methodolo-
gies, Laura explores the lived experiences and professional identity
negotiations of novice teachers and teacher educators through col-
laborative teacher-researcher partnerships.
Hans J. Ladegaard is Professor in the Department of English & Com -
munication at the Hong Kong Polytechnic University. Before moving
to Hong Kong, he taught at universities in Denmark and the UK. His
Contributors

viii Contributors
research interests include language attitudes and stereotypes, intercul-
tural communication, language and gender, migration narratives, and
discourse analysis.
Li Wei is Director and Dean of the UCL Institute of Education and
Chair of Applied Linguistics at University College London (UCL). His
research covers various aspects of bilingualism and multilingualism.
He is Fellow of the British Academy, Academia Europaea, Academy of
Social Sciences (UK), and the Royal Society of Arts (UK).
Pascal Nadal works as Deputy Director at the Mauritius Diocesan Ser -
vice of Catholic Education. Prior to this, he was a senior lecturer in
English at the Mauritius Institute of Education and at the University
of Seychelles. His research interests revolve mostly around languages,
creolistics, curriculum studies, and educational policies.
Nuria Polo-Pérez is Lecturer in Spanish and Doctoral Researcher at
Durham University, UK. Her research explores “language cafés” as
meaningful sites for language socialisation. She is author of the book
chapter “Languaging in Language Cafés: Emotion Work, Creating
Alternative Worlds and Metalanguaging”, in Vally Lytra et al. (2022)
Liberating Language Education.
Judith Reynolds is Lecturer in Intercultural Communication in the School
of Education, Communication and Language Sciences, Newcastle
University, UK. Her research focuses on how language and culture
intersect, and how both shape identities, in professional and work-
place settings in particular.
Hugo Santiago Sanchez is Associate Professor at the University of Bath,
UK. He has over 25 years of professional experience in Argentina, Bra-
zil, and the UK. He specialises in language teacher cognition, teacher
education, and social justice. His current projects investigate critical
pedagogy, migrant language education, and sexuality education.
Helen Sauntson is Professor of English Language and Linguistics and
Director of the Centre for Language and Social Justice Research at
York St John University in the UK. She specialises in teaching and
researching language, gender, and sexuality and has published numer-
ous books, chapters, and journal articles in this area.
Samuel C. S. Tsang holds a DPhil in education from the University of
Oxford. His chief research interests include language education and
policies for ethnolinguistic minority learners in multilingual urban
contexts. He currently works at the Education Bureau of the Hong
Kong Special Administrative Region Government.
Margo Turnbull is Research Assistant Professor in the Department of
English and Communication at the Hong Kong Polytechnic University.

Contributors ix
Margo is particularly interested in mixed methods research that
explores the complexities of human communication in the context of
health, infection control, end-of-life care, and knowledge translation.
Ema Ushioda is a Professor and Head of applied linguistics, University
of Warwick, UK. She has research interests in L2 motivation and
autonomy and has collaborated on various publications with Zoltán
Dörnyei. Her most recent book is Language Learning Motivation: An
Ethical Agenda for Research (Oxford University Press, 2020).
Xiaoyan Ivy Wu is a communication researcher in the Department of
English and Communication at the Hong Kong Polytechnic Uni-
versity. Her research focuses on patient care in Hong Kong public
hospitals and community-based services. She is also interested in inter-
cultural communication and cross-cultural adaptation of international
students.

As I write the Foreword to this deeply thought-provoking collection of
studies on reflexivity in applied linguistics, the world is slowly emerging
from two years of a global pandemic that has directly impacted people’s
lives, ways of living, and, in many cases, livelihoods. At the time of writ-
ing, Europe has also been plunged into its darkest hour since the Balkan
wars in the 1990s, with lives and livelihoods shattered in Ukraine and
mass migration tragically in process. With the horror of this reality played
out daily on our screens through news and social media channels, none of
us can remain emotionally unaffected and detached. Furthermore, in our
complex interconnected world, global supply chains and energy markets
are now reeling, which will impact all our lives for months and years to
come. In short, whatever our own background and history and however
we may position ourselves socially, culturally, and politically, we are all
affected and implicated by what is happening in the world, and we each
have our own perspectives, biases, and feelings towards it. We are inex-
tricably part of the complex evolving context we live in, and our context
is part of our individual and collective consciousness and subjectivity.
However, when it comes to the smaller localised worlds of our aca-
demic research in applied linguistics, our ‘person-in-context’ (Ushioda,
2009)—or ‘researcher-in-context’—subjectivities are not always explic-
itly foregrounded in our research processes or in our writing-up practices.
Instead, in our written accounts of these research processes, acknowl-
edgement of these subjectivities is often accorded just a brief conventional
statement on procedures adopted to minimise bias and maximise reliabil-
ity and data integrity. Space is not always given to reflecting on our per-
sonal ontologies and their potential impact on the research we do, or on
the various identities, experiences, attitudes, values, and memories—or
‘life capital’ (Consoli, 2020; 2022)—that we bring to the research con -
text and that shape and enrich our interactions with the people involved
in our research and that shape and inform our understandings of the
issues under focus. As the co-editors of this collection of studies make
clear, the purpose of the volume is precisely to give space and voice to
such reflexivity—that is, to the practice of reflecting critically on our own
Foreword

Foreword xi
beliefs, values, judgments, and behaviours during the research process
itself and on how these may shape and influence the research process and
the social realities we are investigating.
While researcher reflexivity as a concept and as a practice is now well
established in qualitative inquiry in the social sciences in general, it seems
that reflexivity has been somewhat slower to infuse our research and
writing up practices in applied linguistics. Perhaps because of the more
‘positivist’ disciplinary traditions (e.g., linguistics, psychology, cognitive
science) and associated discourses that have underpinned much work in
our field, there remains a tendency to adopt impersonal third-person nar-
ratives in our accounts of research. Such narrative styles do not lend
themselves to incorporating reflexivity on the researcher’s own history,
identities, and positionality within and influence on the research context
and on the relational complexities that may ensue. Rather, it is almost as
if the researcher were airbrushed out of the narrative altogether, or, to
borrow a literary allusion here (and drawing on the ‘life capital’ of my
own Irish educational and cultural background), it is as if the researcher
were like the omniscient author or artist described in James Joyce’s A
Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man (1916), who ‘like the god of crea -
tion, remains within or behind or beyond or above his handiwork, invis-
ible, refined out of existence, indifferent, paring his fingernails’. Indeed,
in their contributions to the current volume, both Nuria Polo-Pérez and
Anas Hajar (citing Dervin & Byrd Clark, 2014) critically reference the
detached objectivity of these god-like authorial positions in such research
narratives. As they and others argue and amply illustrate throughout
this volume, the researcher is not an invisible detached figure who gen-
erates knowledge (like James Joyce’s invisible ‘god of creation’) but a
complex human being with a social identity, ontology, and subjectivity
who becomes an integral part of the research and relational processes
through which knowledge is shaped. Here, I am reminded of another
Irish literary allusion (drawing again on my life capital) that (echoing
Kramsch, 2002) I have previously used elsewhere ( Ushioda, 2015). This
is where, in the final line of his poem ‘Among School Children’, William
Butler Yeats poses the rhetorical question ‘How can we know the dancer
from the dance?’—that is, how can we separate the researcher from the
research process, since the research does not exist or take shape without
the researcher?
As noted earlier, the value of a collection such as this is that it provides
dedicated space for forms of researcher reflexivity that are often lacking
or given only rather cursory conventionalised attention in standard pub-
lished accounts of research. In this sense, the collection offers a diverse
and richly detailed range of illustrative perspectives on what reflexiv-
ity looks like, how it is realised, and how it impacts the research pro-
cess and the researcher’s own development in different areas of inquiry
and at different stages of inquiry within applied linguistics. At the same

xii Foreword
time, in providing a dedicated forum for extended accounts of researcher
reflexivity, the volume also necessarily exposes one of the major chal-
lenges that taking a reflexive orientation to one’s research entails, which
is that (as Helen Sauntson highlights in the conclusion to her chapter)
reflexivity requires time and space. Looking through the collection as a
whole, I think it is perhaps quite telling that most (though not all) con-
tributions locate the discussion of reflexivity primarily within the context
of research that has constituted the author’s (or a co-author’s) doctoral
study. After all, doctoral research typically extends over three to four
years full-time (and even longer if part-time), and it is typically written up
in an extensive text stretching over 80,000 words or more, thus affording
the researcher both time and space to become and to be deeply reflexive.
It is perhaps rather more difficult to develop and incorporate this level of
reflexivity within research studies that are constrained by much shorter
timescales and difficult to articulate this reflexivity meaningfully when
reporting on research within the confines of more highly condensed jour-
nal articles.
Yet, whatever the challenges of developing and exercising reflexiv-
ity in our research practices and of incorporating it into our writing-up
practices, the value and importance of engaging with these challenges
are unquestionable. This is an unequivocal message that comes through
strongly across the chapters in this volume. Significantly, too, a key theme
that emerges across the collection is that reflexivity is far from being a
solitary process or a self-focused and narcissistic process. Rather, reflex-
ivity develops and is mediated through processes of interaction, dialogue,
and collaboration with others—peers, supervisors, mentors, colleagues,
participants, stakeholders. This practice of ‘collaborative reflexivity’
(between doctoral researcher and supervisor) is a central focus of the
chapter by Maxine Gillway and Hugo Santiago Sanchez, and it also fea-
tures in various forms in other chapters (such as ‘co-mentoring’ in the
chapter by Laura M. Kennedy and Peter I. De Costa). Perhaps an impor-
tant point to note here (drawing on my own experience and life capital
as a doctoral supervisor over many years) is that the benefits of collabo-
rative reflexivity lie not only in the researcher’s development but also in
the supervisor-mentor’s development and growth in self-awareness as a
reflexive practitioner and researcher.
In short, whether we are relatively novice or seasoned researchers
in applied linguistics, we are all learning to become (more) reflexive in
our practices; to become (more) aware of our positionality, biases, and
assumptions; and to understand (better) how these subjectivities shape
our contexts of inquiry and the processes and outcomes of our research.
Sal Consoli (a former doctoral student of mine with whom I have enjoyed
many dialogues on reflexivity) and Sara Ganassin have thus put together
a highly valuable collection of experiential insights that will help all of

Foreword xiii
us in our (continuing) reflexive learning journeys as applied linguistics
researchers.
Ema Ushioda
University of Warwick
April 2022
References
Consoli, S. (2020). Understanding motivation through ecological research: The
case of exploratory practice. In R. Sampson & R. Pinner (Eds.), Complexity
perspectives on researching language learner and teacher psychology (pp. 120–
135). Multilingual Matters.
Consoli, S. (2022). Life Capital: An Epistemic and Methodological Lens for
TESOL Research. TESOL Quarterly, 56(4), 1397–1409.
Dervin, F., & Byrd Clark, J. S. (2014). Reflexivity in research and practice:
Moving on? In J. S. Byrd Clark & F. Dervin (Eds.), Reflexivity in language
and intercultural education: Rethinking multilingualism and intercultural-
ity (pp. 234–238). Routledge.
Kramsch, C. (2002). Introduction: How can we tell the dancer from the dance? In
C. Kramsch (Ed.), Language acquisition and language socialization: Ecological
perspectives (pp. 1–30). Continuum.
Ushioda, E. (2009). A person-in-context relational view of emergent motivation,
self and identity. In Z. Dörnyei & E. Ushioda (Eds.), Motivation, language
identity and L2 self (pp. 215–228). Multilingual Matters.
Ushioda, E. (2015). Context and complex dynamic systems theory. In Z. Dörnyei,
P. D. MacIntyre, & A. Henry (Eds.), Motivational dynamics in language learn-
ing (pp. 47–54). Multilingual Matters.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003149408-1
1 Navigating the waters
of reflexivity in applied
linguistics
Sal Consoli and Sara Ganassin
Introduction
Broadly speaking, reflexivity refers to the sets of dispositions and activi-
ties by which researchers locate themselves within the research processes
whilst also attending to how their presence, values, beliefs, knowledge,
and personal and professional histories shape their research spaces, rela-
tionships, and outcomes. Despite the currency of reflexivity in several
social sciences, applied linguistics seems to have been slow to recog-
nise and foster this dimension of research praxis. This edited collection
therefore represents an effort to provide research-informed guidance
on how reflexivity can be understood and practised in applied linguis-
tics research. Specifically, each chapter explores how reflexivity can be
embraced, implemented, and represented across all research stages, from
conceiving of a research idea, planning, fieldwork, and data analysis to
representation of findings, in a diverse range of research projects. With
this edited collection, we seek to promote greater recognition of reflex-
ivity as an essential hallmark of quality research and argue that doing
reflexivity confers greater transparency, methodological rigour, depth,
and trustworthiness to our scholarly inquiries.
Given the engagement of applied linguistics with social needs, changes,
and issues, we have always been a community of researchers implicated
with people irrespective of our onto-epistemological affiliations and
methodological preferences. It is perhaps the moral commitment to gen-
erate knowledge exchange and translate our investigations into ‘social
impact’ that in the end serves our society beyond academia. Significantly,
numerous calls have urged a stronger focus on the ethical and social util-
ity of research (e.g., Hua, 2020; Ladegaard & Phipps, 2020; Ortega,
2005; Rose, 2019; Ushioda, 2020), and these have contributed to the
emergence of new currents within applied linguistics, resulting notably in
the well-documented ‘social turn’, ‘critical turn’, and ‘multilingual turn’.
With their close attention to the actors (and beneficiaries) of our soci-
ety, these research orientations have truly placed the human beings of
our investigations at the centre of the academic enterprise. For example,

2 Sal Consoli and Sara Ganassin
in the sub-field of language education, there has been a surge of stud-
ies which have brought learners and teachers to the fore by highlight-
ing their own perspectives more squarely through practitioner research
(e.g., Hanks, 2017; Pinner, 2019; Rebolledo et al., 2016; Sampson, 2016)
and alternative forms of research engagement which still foreground the
chief stakeholders of language education (e.g., Banegas & Consoli, 2021;
Jackson, 2014).
Researchers in the domains of intercultural communication and mul-
tilingualism have given prominence to the transformational power of
reflexivity, through researchers’ and participants’ perspectives, especially
in contexts of displacement (Georgiou, 2022; Young et al., 2022), migra-
tion (Ganassin, 2020), internationalisation of higher education ( Holli-
day, 2017), and student mobility (Holmes, 2014). Through retrospective
accounts of their research experiences, researchers have demonstrated
how trust and relationship building are not just important to gain access
to a research context and engage participants in fieldwork processes, but
they are also crucial to enhance the rigour and depth of their studies.
Significantly, the ‘humanness’ embedded within our inquiries could be
represented more fully and clearly if we openly acknowledged the com-
plexities that characterise our research journeys from start to finish. To
reach a level of maximum transparency and clarity in this process, we
would also envisage a critical analysis of ‘the personal histories that pro-
pel our own scholarly activities and alignments’ (Prior, 2016; p ix) even
before the conception of the specific research project in question. To do
so, we encourage the (social) practice of researcher reflexivity with a view
to embracing the human dimensions of all those involved in our stud-
ies, participants and researcher(s) alike. In a nutshell, this is the impetus
which led to this book. We, Sal and Sara, realised, through our own
research experiences, that when conducting research for/with/on/about
people, a myriad of questions, challenges, surprises, and opportunities
directly affect the well-planned methodological designs underpinning our
projects.
In his narrative and practitioner research work, Sal has often grap-
pled with issues and questions of power dynamics and performance of
identity in relation to forging and sustaining ethically sound researcher-
participant relationships as well as (re)presenting everyone’s voice in
publications. Before and during her doctoral journey, Sara worked as
a researcher and practitioner in the voluntary sector, and this experi-
ence somehow motivated and shaped her research trajectory. Indeed, her
engagement with migrant and refugee groups, and especially women and
young people often facing destitution and deportation, alerted her to the
importance of conducting research that is ethical and reflexive.
Importantly, by conducting social research, we often face dilem-
mas and questions about the very notion of humanity embedded in
our inquiries which, after all, is the fundamental nexus that binds us,

Navigating the waters of reflexivity in applied linguistics 3
‘human’ researchers, to the ‘other’ humans involved or envisioned in our
work (i.e., participants and beneficiaries). This edited collection there-
fore aspires to identify, analyse, and celebrate the humanity driving our
actions and experiences throughout our investigations, showing how our
researcher humanity interacts with that of the other people in our work,
ultimately elucidating how these ensembles of human experiences and
interactions organically influence and shape the research journey and all
its processes and outcomes. This line of thought about research is the
catalyst for how we envisioned reflexivity in the chapters of this book.
What is reflexivity?
It is now well documented that the broad field of social sciences has
experienced a ‘reflexive turn’ (Archer, 2010, 2012; Denzin & Lincoln,
1998; Foley, 2002), a turn which is sustained by research approaches
that invoke a close examination of the researcher’s ‘origins, biography,
locality, and ‘intellectual bias’ (Blackman, 2007, p. 700) whilst recog -
nising the ‘humanness’ embedded in the processes and content of our
research (e.g., Dean, 2017). The field of applied linguistics has been no
exception in that the practice of reflexivity has percolated through vari -
ous domains (e.g., Canagarajah, 1996; Giampapa & Lamoureux, 2011;
Mann, 2016; Prior, 2016; Talmy, 2011), but what does it exactly mean
to be a reflexive applied linguistics researcher? And how can reflexivity
be practised throughout a research project? Although answers to such
questions remain elusive, each of the chapters in the volume seeks to help
us better understand the various dimensions of reflexivity in practice and
reflexivity as practice. We will now discuss the various conceptual com-
ponents of reflexivity, whilst avoiding prescriptive and universal state-
ments, as we articulate our own stance within this vast and complex
terrain.
Reflexivity is not a new phenomenon in the social sciences. Early
forms of reflexivity or reflexive practice can be traced to developments
in psychology (e.g., Potter, 1996), anthropology (e.g., Clifford & Mar-
cus, 1986), sociology (e.g., Bourdieu, 1990), and human geography
(e.g., McDowell, 1992) and even earlier schools of thoughts such as
Confucianism (Kim, 2003). For a historical excursus of the evolution of
reflexivity, see May and Perry (2017). Whilst it is impossible to provide
a definition which does justice to the diverse traditions that have con-
tributed to our understanding of this phenomenon, we align with views
which characterise reflexivity in relation to the researcher’s dispositions
and actions to acknowledge their own presence within the research pro-
cesses, thereby identifying how their positionalities (e.g., subjectivities,
experiences, commitments, epistemological orientations) may shape the
social reality under investigation (e.g., Denzin, 2001; Denzin & Lincoln,
2011; Fook, 2002; Norton & Early, 2011; Talmy, 2011).

4 Sal Consoli and Sara Ganassin
Byrd-Clark and Dervin (2014, pp. 2–3) construe ‘reflexivity as an
ongoing, multifaceted, and dialogical process’, and they go on to main-
tain that ‘reflexivity is not something that one can truly observe because
the observer has an impact on this reflexivity’. Therefore, researchers
must attend to what is referred to as ‘discourses of reflexivity’ or ‘repre-
sentations of reflexivity’ in order to reflect this messiness and complex-
ity. We strongly support this view, and the chapters of this book will
offer an array of empirical experiences which illustrate the potentiali-
ties and manifestations of reflexivity across a range of applied linguistics
domains. Dean (2017) unpacks the legitimacy of reflexivity by highlight-
ing that, for a long time, we, social scientists, have concerned ourselves
with issues of objectivity to the point of erasing our own ‘humanness’
and that of the people we research. It is worth noting that the researcher/
researched relationship, a debate that has its roots in ethnography (e.g.,
Hammersley, 2007; Rampton et al., 2004), represents one of the core
dimensions of reflexivity. Significantly, numerous voices in the litera-
ture have highlighted the complexities of doing research which involves
human beings and which ultimately discredits notions of objectivity and
universal truths for the very fact that working closely with individual
participants and focussing on their idiosyncrasies reduces the ability to
study a phenomenon with detachment. By the same token, we recognise
the difficulty of yielding generalisations which fail to reflect the multi-
layered realities and/or stories of individual people. Rigg (1991), for
instance, has referred to ‘the messiness that comes with opening the study
to real people living real lives’ (p. 536). Similarly, Rabbigde (2017) has
noted the need to ‘embrace reflexivity’ and produce research that is more
‘inclusive’ of ‘important subjective elements’ (p. 970).
Grenfell and Pahl (2019) highlight the definitional intricacies of the
term reflexivity and its association with similar concepts, such as ‘reflec-
tion’ and ‘reflective’. They characterise the latter as ‘a sense of casting
back, or returning to source’, thereby portraying the act of being reflec-
tive as ‘thoughtful, meditative or even deliberate actions’ (Grenfell &
Pahl, p. 19). By contrast, they conceptualise being reflexive as ‘the way
someone doing an action is also the recipient of it’. This thus entails a
reassessment of the relationship between subject and object and the self-
reference whereby reflexivity represents ‘the way that a person’s thoughts
and ideas’ become part and parcel of what they do and know (Grenfell &
Pahl, p. 19). This terminological debate then raises questions such as:
what does it mean to know? How do we acquire or generate knowledge?
How do we express and share knowledge? These questions, too, will be
addressed in each chapter of the book, with authors illustrating step by
step how they proceeded from research design through data generation
and analysis to representation of findings.
As mentioned above, reflexivity has gained much currency as a research
practice within the broad domain of social sciences, and it has become

Navigating the waters of reflexivity in applied linguistics 5
clear that social life refers to the ensemble of reflexive experiences through
which individuals generate, maintain, negotiate, and revisit their identi-
ties and actions, including the production of knowledge (Giddens, 1991).
Bourdieu has suggested the notion of epistemic reflexivity, which consists
in a critical reflection upon the social circumstances and experiences that
enable us to generate social knowledge (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992).
In particular, Bourdieu (1991) made the case for reflexivity when arguing
for a sociology of sociology in light of the fact that social scientists ineluc -
tably possess biases and, consequently, they must become cognisant of
the effects of their own dispositions, their own internalised subjectivi-
ties (i.e., habitus), and how these may affect their researcher objectivity.
From this perspective, reflexivity helps recognise researchers’ personal,
professional (and other?) ecologies (Prior, 2016), and it is only through
scrupulous reflexivity (i.e., self- and other-awareness) that researchers’
biases and dispositions and their effects on knowledge-making can be
accounted for.
In this light, Byrd-Clarke and Dervin (2014, p. 23) maintain that while
researchers are often open about the tough questions faced throughout
the research journey, ‘they do not fully address their own stance, life
trajectories, struggles (including the unfamiliar), negotiation of position-
alities (e.g., questioning transparency of self-representations), or engage-
ments throughout the research’. This is not to say that applied linguists
have not been sensitive to the importance of being selfaware (e.g., Block,
2003; Darvin, 2015; Mann, 2016; Norton & Early, 2011; Prior, 2014).
However, reflexivity is frequently reduced to a sketch
of one’s positional-
ity or motivation for a research topic (Prior & Talmy, 2021), eschewing the meaningful intricacies of one’s own personal and professional stories. This ultimately results in research reports that allegedly give prominence to research participants’ voices and conceal the researcher’s (powerful) voice and its influence over the research as a whole (Prior, 2016). In more
radical cases, accounts of self-representations are absent from research reports and publications or reduced to a short sentence in an already small methods section. Relatedly, McKinley (2019) points to the dan- gers of producing ‘decontextualised research publications’ which do not reflect the ‘messiness of the real world’ and the very human twists and turns that our inquiries may take. McKinley thus promotes the practice of reflexivity to uncover the ‘messiness and discomfort that can occur’ in social inquiry concerned with people. Significantly, McKinley’s stance helpfully discourages researchers from succumbing to the pressures of conducting ‘methodologically perfect’ research and writing neat and care-
fully crafted publications. Reflexivity therefore serves as a practice which not only facilitates an honest representation of the tortuous messiness of social research but also yields (more) nuanced research findings which invariably emerge from multiple layers of interpretation and analysis. As such, doing reflexivity means doing greater justice to the often-silenced

6 Sal Consoli and Sara Ganassin
polyvocal interactions between researchers and participants and the dia-
logical multiplexity which stems from such interactions and encounters.
In this light, we argue that the emergence of the ‘reflexive turn’ has caused
the grand notions of ‘methodological perfection’, ‘neutral validity’, or
‘objectivity’ in knowledge production to lose some ground.
Nevertheless, Consoli (2022) notes that the practice of reflexivity has
frequently been promoted as a means to (unwittingly?) revert back to
principles of research rigour and validity that bear a positivist orientation
and which, as discussed earlier, are less relevant to social inquiry that is
fundamentally concerned with people, their idiosyncrasies, and unique
experiences. In particular, Consoli points out that reflexivity has been
advocated through discourses of alert, warning, and danger not only to
spot the ‘researcher self’ in their empirical work but to ensure that the
very researcher self (or selves) may not prejudice the rigour and overall
quality of the investigations. In this light, reflexivity serves to ‘carefully
self-monitor the impact of their biases, beliefs, and personal experiences’
on research (Berger, 2015, p. 220). Similarly, reflexivity has been equated
to the researcher’s ability to tell ‘confessional tales’ about the ways in
which they may ‘affect’ the robustness of the methods used and the valid-
ity of the research outcomes (Finlay, 2002). Consoli thus argues that
these discourses reduce reflexivity to a practice of ‘supervision’ to moni-
tor the researcher’s presence and behaviour and prevent them from ‘dam-
aging’ or ‘contaminating’ the research altogether.
To counter this perspective, Consoli (2020; 2022) proposes that the
researcher’s life capital should be regarded as a source of invaluable
insights that further enrich the multi-layered analyses and representations
of research data and findings. Life capital ‘can be understood through the
richness of one’s life experiences’, and, as such, it ‘entails memories, desires,
emotions, attitudes, opinions, and these can be relatively positive or nega-
tive and explicit or concealed depending on how the individual manages,
shares and employs their life capital.’ (Consoli, 2020; p. 122). Research -
ers are thus encouraged to bring their own life experiences (personal and
professional) to their inquiries. Crucially, this view does not recommend
unbridled reflexivity to the extent where researchers bring (or push) them-
selves so much to the centre that their writing is more about themselves
than their
researched phenomena
(see Atkinson, 2014). Instead, we pro-
mote a form of researcher reflexivity ‘which recognises, respects and cel-
ebrates the researcher’
s self (selves) rather than a reflexivity which strictly
wards off any impact the researcher may have on their work’(Consoli
(2022, p. 10). Researchers thus need to appreciate the richness and diver-
sity of their own life capital without fearing that this may ‘damage’ their work. In keeping with this ‘anti-contamination’ debate, it is worth not-
ing that reflexivity has also been characterised as comprising two inter-
acting dimensions: prospective and retrospective (Edge, 2011; Attia &
Edge, 2017), whereby prospective reflexivity concerns ‘the effect of the

Navigating the waters of reflexivity in applied linguistics 7
whole-person-researcher on the research’, and retrospective reflexivity
concerns ‘the effect of the research on the researcher’ (Attia & Edge,
2017, p. 35). Specifically, this reiterates that a researcher, their context,
and the researched phenomenon are all interconnected through a symbi-
otic complex and dynamic relationship driven by ‘mutual shaping, recip-
rocality and bi-directionality’ (Mann, 2016; p. 28).
Why this book? Why now?
Over the past decade there has been a growing interest in reflexivity
and researcher positionality in applied linguistics (Attia & Edge, 2017;
Creese, 2015; Edge, 2011; Ganassin & Holmes, 2020; Mann, 2016).
This book contributes to this growing body of work, but it is also dis-
tinctive in that it emphasises the practical application of reflexivity at
all stages of research. To date, there has been little exploration of how
researchers implement a conceptual understanding of reflexivity at differ-
ent stages and junctures of the research process and what underpins their
research practices in terms of their identity, self-positioning, and relation-
ship to their data and participants.
With this book, we propose a perspective on reflexivity that values our
multiple identities such as researchers, teachers, and intercultural experts
as well as other dimensions which characterise our individual life capital
(Consoli, 2020, 2022), including memories, desires, emotions, attitudes,
and beliefs. These identities, personal histories, and idiosyncrasies are not
to be seen as ‘dichotomous; rather, they [draw] on each other to facilitate
exchange, alter power differentials, and access data’ (Srivastava, 2006,
p. 211). Therefore, the exercise of reflexivity is required by the researcher
to constantly acknowledge one’s self in the research processes, where
the self does not contaminate the research. On the contrary, we argue
that the self is a research resource (Cousin, 2010) intimately connected
with the methods we adopt, the participants we envision and select, the
data we co-create, and the modes and modalities of finding dissemina-
tion. Researchers are encouraged to inspect their assumptions about ‘the
researched’ and how these may impact the relationships with their par-
ticipants. For example, when researching multilingually, as researchers,
we do not require a shared ‘identity’ or linguistic repertoire but rather a
disposition to explore and articulate who we are—our background, per-
sonal history, ideological stance and linguistic competences—and what
we decide to do throughout the lifetime of our inquiries (Holmes et al.,
2013; Ganassin & Holmes, 2020). We, of course, recommend this reflex -
ive practice for all research topic areas in applied linguistics.
Therefore, the reflexive approach we advocate here promotes and sus-
tains a vision of applied linguistics research as a practice shaped by the
positionings (e.g., personal history, gender, race) of both the researcher
and the researched (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000; Ganassin, 2020). This

8 Sal Consoli and Sara Ganassin
book fundamentally aims to recognise and portray applied linguistics
researchers not only as knowledge-makers but also as the critical onto-
epistemological life force of the research processes and data they generate.
A common approach to doing reflexivity in applied linguistics has con-
sisted of short autobiographical accounts which narrate the researcher’s
journey to fieldwork and their relationship with the research partici-
pants. However, this autobiographical approach to reflexivity has been
criticised as a practice which researchers may adopt to solely legitimise
their research processes (Sharma, 2020). Another criticism concerns the
potential to place a strong focus on these research processes, thereby
detracting from the research phenomenon and findings (Fortune & Mair,
2011). Significantly, despite the robustness of some studies following this
approach (e.g., De Costa, 2014; Norton & Early, 2011), the dominant
form of autobiographical reflexivity may lead to some kind of ‘researcher
narcissism’, leaving readers with little understanding about what actually
happened in the field (Fortune & Mair, 2011). This means that many
studies written in the form of autobiographical narratives do not fully
illustrate how the researcher relates to the researched, and vice versa.
Therefore, with this book, we present reflexivity as an essential prac-
tice which will support applied linguistics researchers in examining their
subjectivities and life capital and how these shape the social phenom-
ena under investigation. Importantly, reflexivity is required not just for
the researched realities but also for ‘worldmaking’ strategies (Goodman,
1978, p. 7; Prior & Talmy, 2021). In other words, the researcher does not
present their participants but ‘represent[s]—constitute[s]—construct[s]
them’, making explicit the tacit knowledge of their lifeworld (Schutz,
1967). As such, this book aims to establish itself as an important guide
for reflexive approaches to research design, fieldwork, data analysis, ethi-
cal conduct, and data (re)presentation. We therefore extend the practice
of reflexivity from autobiographical considerations about fieldwork to all
the other, equally important, stages and processes of applied linguistics
research.
Aims of the book
The book has the following aims:
• To document how researchers in different areas of applied linguis-
tics (e.g., intercultural communication, language education, multilin-
gualism) deal with questions of identity and positioning throughout
the research processes and in the contexts where their studies are
undertaken, constructed, and disseminated, as well as in relation to
their participants and co-researchers.
• To critique the theoretical and methodological approaches
that researchers employ to address challenges and capitalise on

Navigating the waters of reflexivity in applied linguistics 9
opportunities which emerge from the analysis of their own position-
alities at various stages of the research process.
• To offer applied linguistics researchers theoretical and data-driven
guidelines on how to position themselves in relation to the researched
phenomena and participants throughout a given research project.
This takes into account the dynamic complexities of research partici-
pants and how their involvement may change throughout the lifetime
of one single research project
• To offer guidance on how to practise researcher sensitivity to gain
in-depth understandings of the power dynamics undergirding the relationships between researchers and the researched.
Structure of the volume and chapter contents
The volume includes ten chapters where 14 contributors working in a variety of global contexts explore their multiple identities—as research- ers, teachers, supervisors, and intercultural experts—and how the inter-
actions between these identities shape their research processes. The volume elucidates the importance of reflexivity to propel researchers in examining their own positionalities and experiences and related impact on their social inquiries. The collection features perspectives from dif-
ferent sub-fields of applied linguistics, including intercultural commu-
nication, language education, and multilingualism, and draws on data from a range of settings, such as language cafés, classrooms, workplaces, and migration and displacement contexts. Each chapter follows a uni-
fied structure, that is, theoretical background; context of the empirical study used as a backdrop for the chapter; an analysis of how reflexivity played out throughout the study; and conclusions, which include takea- way points for other researchers. This approach allows readers to gain a sound understanding of the challenges and affordances of doing reflexiv-
ity in concrete examples of applied linguistics research whilst also gaining guidance on how to nurture and report on researcher sensitivity as this unfolds throughout the lifetime of a project. Furthermore, contributors expertly unpack some ethical dimensions of reflexivity and share practi- cal suggestions for other researchers, novice and experienced, interested in adopting a similar reflexive stance.
Another feature of the volume concerns its researching multilingually
orientation which acknowledges the importance of all the languages pre-
sent in the research context (Holmes et al., 2022). Researching multi-
lingually is defined as ‘the process and practice of using, or accounting for the use of, more than one language in the research process’ (Holmes et al., 2016, p. 101). We encouraged our contributors to acknowledge the linguistic resources present (or absent) in their research context as well as their own (researcher) life capital with a view to illustrating the linguis- tic choices made throughout their investigations. In this spirit, chapters

10 Sal Consoli and Sara Ganassin
which draw on data collected in languages other than English include the
data in their original languages as well as the English translation. This
representational decision was instrumental in offering as faithful as pos-
sible representation of participants’ and, we shall add, researchers’ voices
(Ganassin & Holmes, 2020).
Chapter 1 has stated the rationale, aims, and theoretical context of the
collection. It has provided a brief overview of how reflexivity has been
conceptualised and how we—Sal and Sara—understand it and envision
its practice within applied linguistics.
Chapter 2, ‘Emotional Reflexivity During a Global Health Crisis:
Emotion “Work” in Online Health Communication Research’, is situ-
ated in the multidisciplinary field of health communication research with
emphasis on the COVID-19 health crisis. Turnbull and Wu draw on a
series of audio interviews conducted in Hong Kong during the COVID-
19 pandemic to unpack notions of emotion work and emotional reflexiv-
ity. They argue that emotions and emotional reflexivity influence context,
management, and productivity of a qualitative interviews even when
researchers and participants do not have face-to-face interactions. Their
work offers important insights to researchers committed to conduct-
ing robust research whilst facilitating emotional connection with their
participants.
In Chapter 3
, ‘ “Making the Familiar Strange”: Reflexivity in Linguis-
tic Ethnography Within a Context of Former Legal Professional Prac-
tice’, Judith Reynolds shares her experience as an early career researcher with a background as a legal professional. She draws on the concepts of prospective and retrospective reflexivity (Attia & Edge, 2017) to revisit her doctoral study on lawyer–client communication in asylum and refu- gee legal advice. Her analysis reveals the impact that a doctoral research-
er’s professional experiences and identities outside the academy can have on both research processes (e.g., fieldwork) and research products (e.g., research artefacts, the final thesis, our own identity, and development as researchers). The chapter includes practical suggestions for doctoral students and their supervisors to engage in retrospective reflexivity as a fundamental part of the research journey.
A retrospective analysis of a doctoral journey is also presented in Chap-
ter 4, ‘Journeying Through Languages and Voices: A Reflexive Account of Researching Teachers’ Language Practices in the Multilingual and Multicultural Context of Mauritius’. Aruna Ankiah-Gangadeen and Pas-
cal Nadal revisit a narrative life history project on the language experi-
ences and pedagogical practices of early childhood education teachers in Mauritius. The chapter guides us through a journey from initial reflexiv-
ity to subsequent denial and eventual acknowledgement of how Aruna’s study and her positionality impacted the community she researched.
In Chapter 5, ‘“There Would Be No Project if I Were to Disregard My
Own Self!”: An Autoethnography of Becoming Reflexive as a Doctoral

Navigating the waters of reflexivity in applied linguistics 11
Student in Applied Linguistics’, Samuel C. S. Tsang investigates the role
of reflexivity in a doctoral project on language policy and planning
related to Chinese language provision for ethnolinguistic minority learn-
ers across primary and secondary schools in post-1997 Hong Kong. He
argues that practising reflexivity should be a central part of the quality
assurance process of producing sound research with implications for the
renewal of the researcher self(ves) and the provision of doctoral research
training.
In Chapter 6, ‘Critical Reflexive Phenomenography in a Study Abroad
Context: Navigating Arab Sojourners’ International Academic Experi-
ences in Britain’, Anas Hajar explores the significance of reflexivity in
study-abroad research, sharing reflections from a longitudinal study on
the experiences of international student sojourners. The chapter fore-
grounds phenomenography as a methodology to practise critical self-
reflexivity and consider issues from multiple perspectives rather than
limiting oneself to a single orientation.
In Chapter 7, ‘Researching Language Cafés: Engaging the Researcher’s
Authentic Multilingual Self’, UK-based Spanish researcher and language
teacher Nuria Polo-Pérez focuses on intentionality and authenticity in
multilingual ethnographic research on language cafés as informal events
for socialisation and language learning. She offers guidance to other mul-
tilingual researchers who want to engage in a process of self-exploration
throughout the different stages of their projects from inception to dissem-
ination. The chapter argues that engaging ‘the authentic multilingual self’
requires personal investment as we—researchers—develop awareness of
the linguistic spaces that we occupy, of the power relations at play in the
research context, and of the knowledge that we co-construct by using dif-
ferent languages with others.
The relationship between supervisee and supervisor and the multi-
plicity of one’s researcher identities are also central to the discussions
in Chapter 8, ‘Collaborative Reflexivity Through Feedback Dialogues:
Developing the Research and the Doctoral Researcher’. Maxine Gillway
and Hugo Santiago Sanchez explore the development of collaborative
reflexivity as well as the importance of reflexive feedback dialogue in a
qualitative exploration of variability in feedback practices at a British
university. The chapter presents an honest account of the mixed emo-
tions caused by Maxine’s dual identity as novice researcher and experi-
enced practitioner and how these resulted in challenges and opportunities
as she engaged in an ongoing dialogue with her supervisor.
Chapter 9, ‘Reflexivity, Emerging Expertise, and Mi[S-STEP]s: A Col-
laborative Self-Study of Two TESOL Teacher Educators’, explores reflex-
ivity in the context of TESOL teacher education from the perspectives
of US-based practitioners and researchers Laura M. Kennedy and Peter
I. De Costa. The chapter offers a number of practical recommendations
to others working in similar contexts as readers are invited to embrace

12 Sal Consoli and Sara Ganassin
the mi[s-step]s that they might encounter in their professional lives and
use them as pivotal learning opportunities to enhance their professional
development.
Chapter 10, ‘Reflexivity and the Production of Shared Meanings in
Language and Sexuality Research’, characterises reflexivity as a research
dimension which facilitates relationship-building between researcher and
participants, with a particular focus on sexual orientation in qualitative
research. As she offers an account of her reflexive engagement through-
out a project on the discursive constructions of gender and sexuality
identities in schools, Helen Saunston shares insights that will be useful
to researchers who seek to explore other dimensions of language and
minoritised identities, such as race, ethnicity, and gender.
Issues of race, ethnicity, and gender are also central to Chapter 11, the
final chapter of the volume, ‘Learning from the Messiness of Research:
Reflexivity in Sharing Sessions with Domestic Migrant Workers’. Hans J.
Ladegaard engages with critical reflexivity and the role of the researcher-
social activist as a co-narrator of women’s narratives in relation to an
ongoing research project about the lives and experiences of Filipina
and Indonesian domestic migrant workers in Hong Kong. Through an
analysis of situated discourse, the chapter acknowledges participants as
co-constructors of knowledge and insists that research for and with dis-
enfranchised groups needs to be shared beyond the academic community.
Finally, we are delighted about the inclusion of a Foreword by Prof
Ema Ushioda, who shares her views on the timely publication of this vol-
ume in relation to the rapidly shifting landscape of applied linguistics and
our world more broadly. In his Afterword, Prof Li Wei revisits his own
journey into applied linguistics and discusses the increasingly significant
social impact of our research on policy and practice, thereby highlighting
the importance of reflexivity as a means to bolster the strength of our
work and its social ramifications
In conclusion, this book suggests that we ought to move away from
discourses which construe the researcher as a source of methodologi-
cal limitations or contamination and rather become (self)aware and
develop a disposition to identify, understand, capitalise on, and cel-
ebrate the impact researchers may have on their project planning, par-
ticipants, data generation, analysis, representation, and dissemination.
While this volume is of most obvious and direct application to the field
of applied linguistics, it equally contributes to broader educational
debates and thinking around ‘good research practice’. Crucially, each
chapter shows that embracing researcher reflexivity means becoming
not only honest and transparent about one’s research(er) trajectory but
also making oneself vulnerable whilst unpacking the various challenges
and opportunities faced throughout a study and after. This sense of
vulnerability not only offers additional layers of meaning and rigour
to our inquiries but also shines a novel light on our practices, thereby

Navigating the waters of reflexivity in applied linguistics 13
uncovering and foregrounding researchers’ and participants’ humani-
ties, with all our talents and imperfections, as well as our behaviours,
including our mistakes, trials, successes, and rewards. We firmly believe
that this fresh perspective on research humanity and this sense of vul-
nerability, which undergird the theoretical and practical discussions in
each chapter, have wide application and are relevant to all researchers
in the social sciences.
References
Archer, M. S. (2010). Conversations about reflexivity. Routledge.
Archer, M. S. (2012). The reflexive imperative in late modernity. Cambridge Uni-
versity Press.
Atkinson, P. (2014). For ethnography. Sage.
Attia, M., & Edge, J. (2017). Be(com)ing a reflexive researcher: A developmental
approach to research methodology. Open Review of Educational Research,
4(1), 33–45.
Banegas, D. L., & Consoli, S. (2021). Initial English language teacher education:
The effects of a module on teacher research. Cambridge Journal of Educa-
tion, 51(4), 491–507.
Berger, R. (2015). Now I see it, now I don’t: Researcher’s position and reflexivity
in qualitative research. Qualitative Research, 15(2), 219–234.
Blackman, S. J. (2007). Hidden ethnography’: Crossing emotional borders in
qualitative accounts of young people’s lives. Sociology, 41(4), 699–716.
Block, D. (2003). The social turn in second language acquisition. Georgetown
University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1990). Choses dites, 1987 Eng. In other words: Essays toward a
reflective sociology. Stanford University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power (J. B. Thompson, Ed., G.
Raymond & M. Adamson, Trans.). Harvard University Press.
Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. J. D. (1992). An invitation to reflexive sociology.
University of Chicago Press.
Byrd-Clarke, J., & Dervin, F. (Eds.). (2014). Reflexivity and multimodality in
language education: Rethinking multilingualism and interculturality in acceler-
ating complex and transnational spaces. Routledge.
Canagarajah, S. (1996). From critical research practice to critical research report-
ing. TESOL Quarterly, 29(2), 320–330.
Clifford, J., & Marcus, G. E. (1986). Writing culture: The poetics and politics of
ethnography. University of California.
Consoli, S. (2020). Understanding motivation through ecological research: The
case of exploratory practice. In R. Sampson & R. Pinner (Eds.), Complexity
perspectives on researching language learner and teacher psychology (pp. 120–
136). Multilingual Matters.
Consoli, S. (2022). Life Capital: An Epistemic and Methodological Lens for
TESOL Research. TESOL Quarterly, 56(4), 1397–1409.
Cousin, G. (2010). Positioning positionality. The reflexive turn. In M. Savin-
Baden & C. H. Major (Eds.), New approaches to qualitative research: Wisdom
and uncertainty (pp. 9–18). Routledge.

14 Sal Consoli and Sara Ganassin
Creese, A. (2015). Case study one: Reflexivity, voice and representation in lin-
guistic ethnography. In Linguistic ethnography: Collecting, analysing and pre-
senting data (pp. 61–88). Sage.
Darvin, R. (2015). Representing the margins: Multimodal performance as a tool
for critical reflection and pedagogy. TESOL Quarterly, 49(3), 590–600.
Dean, J. (2017). Doing reflexivity: An introduction. Policy Press.
De Costa, P. I. (2014). Making ethical decisions in an ethnographic study. TESOL
Quarterly, 48, 413–422.
Denzin, N. K. (2001). The reflexive interview and a performative social science.
Qualitative Research, 1(1), 23–46.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (1998). The landscape of qualitative
research. Sage.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2000). Handbook of qualitative research. Sage.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2011). The SAGE handbook of qualitative
research (4th ed.). Sage.
Edge, J. (2011). The reflexive teacher educator: Roots and wings. Routledge.
Finlay, L. (2002). ‘Outing’ the researcher: The provenance, process, and practice
of reflexivity. Qualitative Health Research, 12, 531–545.
Foley, D. E. (2002). Critical ethnography: The reflexive turn. International Jour -
nal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 15(4), 469–490.
Fook, J. (2002). Social work: Critical theory and practice. Sage.
Fortune, D., & Mair, H. (2011). Notes from the sports club: Confessional tales
of two researchers. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 40(4), 457–484.
Ganassin, S. (2020). Language, culture and identity in two Chinese community
schools. Multilingual Matters.
Ganassin, S., & Holmes, P. (2020). ‘I was surprised to see you in a Chinese school’:
Researching multilingually opportunities and challenges in community-based
research. Applied Linguistics, 21(6), 827–854.
Georgiou, A. (2022). Conducting multilingual classroom research with refugee
children in Cyprus: Critically reflecting on methodological decisions. In P. Hol-
mes, J. Reynolds & S. Ganassin (Eds.), The politics of researching multilin-
gually (pp. 111–130). Multilingual Matters.
Giampapa, F., & Lamoureux, S. A. (2011). Voices from the field: Identity, lan-
guage, and power in multilingualresearch settings. Journal of Language, Iden-
tity & Education, 10(3), 127–131.
Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity; self and society in the late mod-
ern age. Polity Press.
Goodman, N. (1978). Ways of worldmaking. Harvester Press.
Grenfell, M., & Pahl, K. (2019). Bourdieu, language-based ethnographies and
reflexivity: Putting theory into practice. Routledge.
Hammersley, M. (2007). Reflections on linguistic ethnography. Journal of Socio-
linguistics, 11(5), 689–695.
Hanks, J. (2017). Integrating research and pedagogy: An exploratory practice
approach. System,
68, 38–49.
Holliday, A. (2017). PhD students, interculturality, reflexivity, community and
internationalisation. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Develop- ment, 38(3), 206–218.
Holmes, P. (2014). Researching Chinese students’ intercultural communica -
tion experiences in higher education: Researcher and participant reflexivity.

Navigating the waters of reflexivity in applied linguistics 15
In J. Byrd Clark & F. Dervin (Eds.), Reflexivity in language and intercultural
education: Rethinking multilingualism and interculturality (pp. 100–118).
Routledge.
Holmes, P., Fay, R., Andrews, J. & Attia, M. (2016). How to research mul-
tilingually: possibilities and complexities. In Zhu Hua (Ed), Research
methods in intercultural communication: A practical guide (pp. 88-102).
Wiley-Blackwell
Holmes, P., Fay, R., Andrews, J., & Attia, M. (2013). Researching multilin-
gually: New theoretical and methodological directions. International Journal
of Applied Linguistics, 23(3), 285–299.
Holmes, P., Reynolds, J., & Ganassin, S. (2022). The politics of researching mul-
tilingually. Multilingual Matters.
Hua, Zhu (2020). Making a stance: Social action for language and
intercultural communication research. Language and Intercultural
Communication, 20(2), 206–212.
Jackson, J. (2014). The process of becoming reflexive and intercultural: Navigat-
ing study abroad and reentry experience. In J. Byrd Clark & F. Dervin (Eds.),
Reflexivity in language and intercultural education: Rethinking multilingual-
ism and interculturality (pp. 43–63). Routledge.
Kim, H. (2003). Critical thinking, learning and Confucius: A positive assessment.
Journal of Philosophy of Education, 37(1), 71–87.
Ladegaard, H., & Phipps, A. (2020). Intercultural research and social activism.
Language and Intercultural Communication, 20(2), 67–80.
Mann, S. (2016). The research interview: Reflective practice and reflexivity in
research processes. Palgrave Macmillan.
May, T., & Perry, B. (2017). Reflexivity: An essential guide. Sage.
McDowell, L. (1992). Doing gender: Feminism, feminists, and research meth -
ods in human geography. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers,
399–416.
McKinley, J. (2019). Evolving the TESOL teaching research nexus. TESOL
Quarterly, 53(3), 875–884.
Norton, B., & Early, M. (2011). Research identity, narrative inquiry, and lan-
guage teaching research. TESOL Quarterly, 45(3), 415–439.
Ortega, L. (2005). For what and for whom is our research? The ethical as
transformative lens in instructed SLA. The Modern Language Journal, 89(3),
427–443.
Pinner, R. (2019). Authenticity and teacher-student motivational synergy: A nar-
rative of language teaching. Routledge.
Potter, J. (1996). Representing reality: Discourse, rhetoric and social construc-
tion. Sage.
Prior, M. T. (2014). Re-examining alignment in a “failed” L2 autobiographic
research interview. Qualitative Inquiry, 20(4), 495–508.
Prior, M. T. (2016). Emotion and discourse in L2 narrative research. Multilingual
Matters.
Prior, M. T., & Talmy, S. (2021). A discursive constructionist approach to narra-
tive in language teaching and learning research. System, 102, 102595.
Rabbidge, M. (2017). Embracing reflexivity: The importance of not hiding the
mess. TESOL Quarterly, 51(4), 961–971.

16 Sal Consoli and Sara Ganassin
Rampton, B., Tusting, K., Maybin, J., Barwell, R., Creese, A., & Lytra, V. (2004).
UK linguistic ethnography: A discussion paper. www.ling-ethno.org.uk
Rebolledo, P., Smith, R., & Bullock, D. (Eds.). (2016). Champion teachers: Sto-
ries of exploratory action research. British Council.
Rigg, P. (1991). Whole language in TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 25(3), 521–542.
Rose, H. (2019). Dismantling the ivory tower in TESOL: A renewed call for
teaching-informed research. TESOL Quarterly, 53(3).
Sampson, R. J. (2016). Complexity in classroom foreign language learning moti-
vation. Multilingual Matters.
Schutz, A. (1967). The phenomenology of the social world. Northwestern Uni-
versity Press.
Sharma, B. K. (2020). Reflexivity in applied linguistics research in the tourism
workplace. Applied Linguistics, 1–23.
Srivastava, P. (2006). Reconciling multiple researcher positionalities and lan -
guages in international research. Research in Comparative and International
Education, 1(3), 210–222.
Talmy, S. (2011). The interview as collaborative achievement: Interaction, iden-
tity, and ideology in a speech event. Applied Linguistics, 32(1), 25–42.
Ushioda, E. (2020). Language learning motivation. Oxford University Press.
Young, T. J., Ganassin, S., Schneider, S. Schartner, A., & Walsh, S. (2022). Inter-
cultural challenges for the reintegration of displaced professionals: A response
to the language learning needs of refugees in Europe. Routledge.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003149408-2
2 Emotional reflexivity during
a global health crisis
Emotion ‘work’ in online health
communication research
Margo Turnbull and Xiaoyan Ivy Wu
Introduction
Conducting robust qualitative health communication research relies on
making interpersonal and emotional connections with the participants
in our research projects. Building relationships of trust in such situations
requires careful preparation and ongoing relational work on the part of
the researcher. Emotions have consistently been identified as key to the
productive exploration of ‘sensitive’ topics in health and communica-
tion research. Stages and processes in research such as ethical approval
and gaining informed consent facilitate this reflexive emotional work,
but Smart (2009) identified a range of other intangibles that are impor -
tant sources of data and key to the negotiation and management of our
research relationships. These intangibles shape our research questions
and relationships whilst giving depth to the data we collect. Smart (2009)
argued that these aspects of research include emotions, body language
and the material ‘things’ used during a research interaction.
Our chapter explores this idea of intangibles that bring life to qualita-
tive research by focusing on ‘emotion work’ (Fitzpatrick & Olson, 2015)
and emotional reflexivity in a series of audio interviews conducted dur-
ing the COVID-19 health crisis. We elaborate further on the notion of
emotion work and link it with Hochschild’s (1983) work on emotional
labour in the second section of this chapter. The rationale for focusing
on emotion work here is twofold: first, emotions and emotional reflexiv-
ity are under-researched in the health and medical fields (Fitzpatrick &
Olson, 2015; Holmes, 2010). This is partly attributable to the tensions
between qualitative and quantitative researchers as the former strive
to demonstrate validity to the latter, who remain heavily influenced by
positivist methodologies such as clinical trials and experiments. Second,
travel restrictions and limitations on interpersonal contact associated
with the COVID-19 pandemic that began in 2020 have meant that social
researchers have had to quickly modify their approaches to conducting
fieldwork. As evidenced by the continuing publication of social research,
many researchers have been able to adapt to using online modalities.

18 Margo Turnbull and Xiaoyan Ivy Wu
However, at the time of writing, there has been limited examination of
how these fundamental changes in the conduct of research have affected
the type of research done and the recruitment and engagement of research
participants. Importantly, some of these changes that were prompted by
the pandemic may persist beyond this global crisis as research budgets
remain tight and physical movement across geographical areas continues
to be restricted. The examination of how our research practices have
changed and at what ‘cost’ is thus of great importance. In this chapter, we
discuss the intangible aspects of research (Smart, 2009) related to emo -
tions and emotional reflexivity in an interview-based study and connect
this discussion to wider considerations of emotional reflexivity in health
communication research.
Theoretical background: health communication,
reflexivity, and emotional labour
The field of health communication research is broad and has dispersed
links to other research domains, including sociology, social psychology,
anthropology, data analytics, psychology, medicine, applied linguistics,
artificial intelligence and, increasingly, ‘big data’. The broadness of the
field is attributable to the complexity of both health and human com-
munication. Health is now understood as much more than the absence
of disease. Contemporary discourses and narratives continue to reflect
the World Health Organization’s 1946 definition of health as ‘a state
of complete physical, mental and social well-being’. Health communica-
tion research, in turn, focuses on exploring the use of and responses to
the wide variety of communication strategies that seek to ‘create mean-
ing in relation to physical, mental, and social well-being’ (Harrington,
2014, p. 9). The complexity of health and communication is particularly
prominent in the ‘sensitive topics’ (Carroll, 2012; Dickson-Swift et al.,
2009) that are often the focus of our research. A heightened awareness
of emotions and relationships in health research also reflects a shift away
from the historical tendency to take a top-down approach to the study
of health problems which can overlook power imbalances between the
researcher and the research participant(s). In recent decades, critical
approaches to social inquiry and health communication research have
increased awareness of the need for reflexivity to be embedded within
our work and draw attention to the values, power relations, and beliefs
(Lupton, 1994) that shape our work. The value of such critical work has
been emphasised through health communication research that considers
the structural inequality shaping the lived experiences of health for differ-
ent population groups (Figueroa et al., 2002; Kincaid & Figueroa, 2009;
Storey & Figueroa, 2012).
Critical health communication research that aims to explore the
lived experiences of health and well-being requires the researcher to

Emotional reflexivity during a global health crisis 19
understand reflexivity. The ideas of reflection and reflexivity in health
communication research share similarities with other fields. Reflec-
tion is concerned with the ‘common practice of thinking back to an
event and assessing it and our conduct in relation to it’ (Iedema, 2011,
p. 183). In contrast, reflexivity refers to how we monitor and influence
‘conducts and contexts in situ . . . reflexivity is collaborative in nature,
diffuse in focus, open-ended in purpose and immediate in effect . . .
reflexivity is a fully internalized and socially distributed . . . practice’
(Iedema, 2011, p. 184). Reflexivity in health communication research
is closely linked to understanding the purpose of the research itself and
the potential for the researcher to (re)shape the stories and experiences
of the participants. Hernández and De Los Santos Upton (2019) high-
light the importance of reflecting on ‘how the composition of a research
team and the cultural knowledge they bring to the table will impact the
experiences of participants’ (p. 9). Reflexivity throughout the research
process is facilitated by careful consideration of issues of power, val-
ues and beliefs and how these influence the formulation of a research
topic, the identities of the researcher and the research participant(s)
as well as the analysis and writing up of research outputs. In contrast
to the dominance of clinical and laboratory-based research in the dec-
ades up to the 1980s, recent years have seen the expansion of research
techniques such as ethnographic fieldwork and the use of video-based
research that aim to capture experiences of ‘health’ in situ ( Iedema
et al., 2018). These approaches are better able to acknowledge the pres-
ence of emotions in the experience of both the researcher as well as the
participant(s).
In this chapter, we draw on recent applications and extensions of Arlie
Hochschild’s formulation of emotion work which originated in her book
The Managed Heart (1983) to focus on emotional reflexivity in health
communication research. Hochschild’s seminal work explored how indi-
viduals used and suppressed emotions in the course of their employment
as they tried to meet the perceived requirements of the employer. Hoch-
schild (1983) initially developed this theoretical framework through the
detailed analysis of how airline employees managed their own emotions
as they fulfilled occupational tasks. This emotion work reflected the need
or requirement to ‘anticipate, interpret, respond to and manage emotions
and behaviours of others’ (Roach Anleu & Mack, 2019, p. 21) in the
workplace context. The purpose of this emotion work is to observe regu-
lations and to meet the ‘goals of the employer’ (Winefield, 2006, p. 194)
by influencing the state of mind of the customer or service user. This
emotion work was done in the course of paid employment and was thus
referred to as emotional labour. Emotion work and emotional labour are
used interchangeably in some of the literature, but in this chapter and in
keeping with the approach of Fitzpatrick and Olson (2015), we will use
the term emotion work.

20 Margo Turnbull and Xiaoyan Ivy Wu
The context of the study: COVID-19 and the new
‘frontlines’ of infection control
To explore emotion work and emotional reflexivity in the domain of
health communication research, we draw on our experience of conduct-
ing an online mixed-methods research study between July and Octo-
ber 2020 during the intensification of the pandemic both globally and
in our local context of Hong Kong. The study itself was motivated by
a growing awareness of and curiosity about the movement of infection
control practices, such as the wearing of personal protective equipment
(PPE) like masks and gloves, out of clinical contexts and into com-
munities and societies more broadly. By this stage many governments
had adopted public health policies of ‘social distancing’ (Ahmed et al.,
2018), shielding of vulnerable people, closing schools and workplaces
and discouraging long-established social practices such as handshaking
and group gatherings, including collective worship and funeral services.
As the crisis unfolded in 2020, the imposition of these regulations was
described as ‘an unprecedented natural experiment’ (DeFilippis et al.,
2020, p. 2) and was predicted to have significant and long-term impacts
upon communities and individuals.
In this context, we were particularly interested in the experiences of
non-clinical occupational groups involved in highly relational work such
as teaching and end-of-life care (broadly defined to include people work-
ing in social care, funeral and religious services) and how the need to
observe and enforce these infection control regulations so broadly affected
their health and well-being. Workers engaged in these intensely relational
jobs are known to experience high levels of emotional investment in what
they do and draw heavily on communication and interaction in order to
fulfil their job tasks and derive job satisfaction (Golightley & Holloway,
2020). Burnout and job exhaustion amongst these occupational groups
are usually high and affect staff retention and productivity (Aiello & Tesi,
2017). The restrictions placed on worker interaction with service users as
well as the new requirement to enforce infection control practices were,
we hypothesised, likely to have an impact on their personal stress and
thus their health and well-being. We also noted that previous health crises
(such as the outbreak of SARS) were found to have significantly impacted
the health and wellbeing of a diverse range of workers, yet a majority of
research attention was directed towards clinical workers (Maunder et al.,
2003; Tam et al., 2004). The limited research focused on non-clincial
workers found that individuals often reported greater stress and trauma
as they were suddenly required to deal with health and clinical issues
that were beyond their areas of knowledge, expertise and preparedness
(Brooks et al., 2018).
The research project itself, entitled COVID-19 and the New ‘Front-
lines’ of Infection Control,
1
involved data collection using an online

Emotional reflexivity during a global health crisis 21
survey incorporating questionnaires often used in research into stress
and emotional labour and follow-up interviews with volunteers from
the survey phase. A total of 20 research participants in Hong Kong
and Australia were recruited through existing social and research net-
works of the broader research team, and the findings of this project are
reported elsewhere (Turnbull et al., 2022). The focus of this chapter is
on data associated with five audio-recorded interviews conducted with
end-of-life workers using telephone and Internet services during the sec-
ond qualitative phase of this project in August and September 2020.
2

Of these five interviews, the first author (MT) conducted two in English
with Australian participants, and the second author (XW) interviewed
three people in Hong Kong in Cantonese Chinese (hereafter referred to
as Cantonese). Interviews were transcribed verbatim, checked for accu-
racy by another research team member and then analysed in the original
language. Excerpts from the Cantonese interviews have been included in
this chapter in Chinese with English translations.
Reflexive scope for this chapter: emotional reflexivity
in online health communication research interviews
This chapter focuses on how emotion work and emotional reflexivity
were enacted within this set of five audio interviews. Interviews are a
popular method of data collection across research fields (Cresswell &
Poth, 2017). However, high-quality and robust interviewing is complex
(Peters & Halcomb, 2015). Additional data such as field notes provide
important sources of contextual information (Phillippi & Lauderdale,
2018), as well as insights into the emotion work done by participants
and researchers. These broader sources of information can facilitate the
robustness of data collection and analysis (Fitzpatrick & Olson, 2015).
Additionally, empirical research has underscored the importance of the
emotion work an interviewer does as they build relationships with inter-
viewees, negotiate roles and rules about the expression of feelings and
emotions (Fitzpatrick & Olson, 2015 ) and respond to the emotions that
emerge during the interview process (Carroll, 2012). This emotion work
draws on the attitudes and experiences of the interviewer and can be
further considered expressions of emotional reflexivity as we respond in
real time to our own and others’ ‘emotions and embodied experiences
through the research process’ (Carroll, 2012, p. 551). This reflexivity
may be evident in the ways we acknowledge, observe and reflect upon
changes in emotions (Carroll, 2012), as well as the emotions we express
and the details about ourselves that we disclose.
In the interview context, the production, expression and interpreta-
tion of emotions are always situated within an interpersonal interac-
tion. Emotions are most obviously expressed through verbalisations and
behaviours such as laughing or crying. Importantly, however, emotions

22 Margo Turnbull and Xiaoyan Ivy Wu
are also embodied or evident in the intangible aspects (Smart, 2009) of
our research practices. Paralinguistic features such as body language,
facial expressions and the way we use the things and artefacts around us
such as the interview space, recording devices and consent and informa-
tion forms (Rolland et al., 2019, p. 287) are also expressions of emotion.
Emotions are interactive and involve both the initial expression as well
as the response from the other interactant. It is these points of interac-
tion that constitute emotion work. For example, if an interviewer asks a
sensitive question and the interviewee provides a response that includes
evidence of verbal or non-verbal stress-related emotions such as anxiety,
the interviewer then needs to manage both their own response as well
as that of the interviewee in ways that are appropriate to the context
of the research interview. This emotion work performs important func-
tions within the research interview and allows us to establish relation-
ships, build trust and demonstrate empathy (Fitzpatrick & Olson, 2015).
Additionally, this emotion work and the associated reflexivity allow the
researcher to engage with sensitive topics that may evoke strong feelings
and responses in the participants as well as the researchers themselves
(Fitzpatrick & Olson, 2015). Even research that does not provoke intense
emotional responses is emotional, as ‘all researchers will feel some kind
of response towards their research and/or their research participants’
(Symon & Cassell, 2012, p. 8). Thus, emotion work extends beyond the
interview itself and can be seen in the questions we do (and don’t) ask,
the way we respond to disclosures and the details we record in our notes
and emphasise in our analysis (Guillemin & Gillam, 2004). In this sense,
emotion work is connected to the ethics of research which goes beyond
procedures such as the process of gaining informed consent (Reid et al.,
2018). Research ethics encompasses consideration of how the research-
er’s values and beliefs are embedded in and expressed throughout the
research endeavour.
To analyse these dimensions of emotion work and emotional reflexiv-
ity in a set of audio interviews, we draw on two sources of data: the origi-
nal interview transcripts (INT) and the transcript of a semi-structured
discussion (SSD) between the authors conducted eight months after the
research project itself. The analysis of these data sources draws on the
content analysis of the interviews and thematic analysis of the semi-struc-
tured discussion. Excerpts from these sources are included in the follow-
ing sections for illustrative purposes.
3
Reflexivity in this study: context work, emotionality
and linguistic modification
The published literature that focuses on emotional reflexivity in qualita-
tive interviews primarily draws on researcher experiences of conduct-
ing empirical face-to-face interviews with research participants (Carroll,

Emotional reflexivity during a global health crisis 23
2012; Fitzpatrick & Olson, 2015). In this chapter, we explore emotion
work and emotional reflexivity in the context of audio interviews con-
ducted during the COVID-19 pandemic. This presents a unique perspec-
tive on emotional reflexivity given the focus on the intensity of emotion
work and the need to compensate for the loss of the intangible aspects
that usually add contextual and visual information to interviews.
In the following discussion, we consider how emotional reflexivity
unfolded in these audio interviews and how we, as interviewers, adapted
our practices to facilitate this emotion work. This reflexive practice was
enabled by previous experiences of conducting health communication
research. Margo (MT) has 10 years of experience in public health and
health communication research, and a majority of this work has involved
face-to-face interviews in community settings such as primary health
care services and people’s homes. Similarly, Xiaoyan (XW) has worked
in the field of health communication for five years and has conducted a
range of face-to-face interviews with healthcare professionals in Hong
Kong public hospitals. Our experience of audio interviews was limited,
although XW had participated in a few remote audio-only interviews
as a research participant. In the following, we discuss three key dimen-
sions linked with emotion work and emotional reflexivity in these audio
interviews: (i) creating a bounded research space, (ii) mutual disclosures
and linguistic management of emotion and (iii) emotion work and lin-
guistic management of emotional reflexivity. We conclude the chapter by
considering how analysing these experiences suggests strategies and tech-
niques that can facilitate emotional reflexivity in both audio and face-to-
face interviews.
Creating a bounded research ‘space’ for the interview
The physical location of a research interview sets out a context and a
bounded site in which emotion work can be done. Previous work on
emotional reflexivity within research interviews has suggested that the
location of a research interview can shape power relations between the
interviewer and interviewee (Holmes, 2010). In a site like a university
or hospital, the interviewer may tacitly draw on institutional authority
to legitimise their work or role as the expert interviewer (Fitzpatrick &
Olson, 2015). In contrast, when conducting an interview in someone’s
home, the participant may be in a more powerful position as they con-
trol access to the physical site. Whatever physical site is used, however,
there are stages that set up the relations between the researcher and par-
ticipants and the emotion rules that will shape the interview. Access,
introductions, social rituals such as hand shaking and negotiating seating
arrangements begin to establish a context for discussion.
In audio interviews, however, these physical boundaries are absent.
We both noted that even though there was no physical location for the

24 Margo Turnbull and Xiaoyan Ivy Wu
audio interviews we conducted, we went through some processes to
establish a bounded space in which the interview would take place. This
space was shaped by the procedures of collecting informed consent but
also by the choices in relation to communication that were made by the
interviewees that opened the interview itself. These choices had the effect
of a redistribution of power within the relationship. This became evident
in the semi-structured discussion between the researchers. For MT, a key
difference was in the choice some participants made to do audio-only
interviews:
MT: . . . two of them chose to have audio only connection. So I asked
them if they would like video and audio through Zoom or Skype, but they both chose audio only, which at the time . . . I thought, oh, you know, that’s an interesting choice. . . . perhaps it was for their own privacy or perhaps it was to manage their own emotional con- nections with me as an interviewer as well, or perhaps to take some of the power back. (SSD)
XW, in contrast, noted that her technique of giving interviewees the choice of interview language marked the opening negotiation of the interview:
XW:
I gave them an option . . . I was asking because English is also the
official language in Hong Kong, so I didn’t want to assume anything. So I asked them if they would like to do the interviews in English or Cantonese and all three decided to go with Cantonese.
MT: And how did you feel about offering that language choice?
XW: I feel like I’m empowering them because usually . . . power differ-
entials between the researcher, you know, who actually comes from the institution and has the professional knowledge about the topic. I’m empowering them by giving them the option. And also, I mean, for these qualitative interviews we would want to know more about their experience, their perspectives. . . . I think they could share bet- ter if they get to choose their language. (SSD)
In addition to the physical location of the interview, Fitzpatrick and
Olson (2015) described using material artefacts like tissues and teacups to give a sense of informality within an interview room and to acknowl-
edge the potential for and acceptability of emotions. In the context of audio interviews, however, these physical artefacts were absent; yet, as identified by both researchers, other emotion work was done to negotiate these emotion rules within the virtual research space. For example, we attended to aspects of confidentiality by organizing a private workspace with a reliable phone or internet connection. MT noted that after listen-
ing to the audio files, she became aware of how often she emphasised the steps related to privacy to the participants as a way of compensating for

Emotional reflexivity during a global health crisis 25
the loss of the physical representations of trust and rapport building and
seeking to provide reassurance:
MT: . . . the opening of the interviews is usually a time when I think you
establish trust and you feel that early-stage rapport with an inter-
viewee. . . . Often I’ve done the interviews in people’s homes. . . . So you’re invited into somebody else’s house. You wait to see where they ask you to sit, all those sorts of things. So you get lots of information about them from their context. But that was missing. So I found that I was verbalizing a lot. I think I was talking much, much more than I usually would in a face-to-face interview because I was trying to establish trust and convey some sense of emotion or to try and figure out how they were feeling. (SSD)
XW noted the absence of the ‘small talk’ that usually framed the begin- ning of an interview and contributed to the relations and facilitation of the subsequent emotion work:
XW: . . . when we actually enter the private room and then when we close
the door and have some small talks, chitchat probably . . . during that time, usually what people talk about when they get together is COVID, the pandemic, the situation here, the social distancing regu- lations . . . so talking about that before the interview, actually, brings people together a little bit more, shortens the distance, because at that moment we belong to the same group of people going through the same experience. So I think that ingroup relationship would actually make people feel like, oh, I already know a little bit more about you. And also I feel like in the private room itself says a lot about, you know, the privacy and the trust . . . that would probably have an impact on what they share during the interview. But while doing it over the phone, that relationship is quite distant. (SSD)
Similarly, the end of the interview was marked by additional ‘talking’ that seemed to replace the social and embodied practices like a wave or handshake that usually mark the end of an interaction. MT described asking questions and repeating information to bring a clear close to the interview:
MT: So in terms of ending the interview . . . they came to a sudden and
quite abrupt end. And again, that was partly because of the loss of the social practices that often mark the end of a conversation. So when somebody finishes talking, you can see natural segue to end-
ing the conversation, saying thank you and goodbye, but obviously without any visual feedback . . . it felt like it was kind of guess-
ing. So, again, I used more verbalization, like saying, do you have

26 Margo Turnbull and Xiaoyan Ivy Wu
anything else that you’d like to comment on? And again, I was aware
that if we’ve been face to face, sometimes the hesitation, or the signs
of hesitation, can mean that somebody does want to say something
else whereas that was lost with the audio only. And I found that at
the end of the interviews, I reiterated the information about the pro-
ject itself that I had covered before I started the audio recordings in
terms of the consent and the human research ethics number. (SSD)
XW described emailing each interviewee afterwards to provide addi-
tional follow-up contact and reassurance:
XW: So after the interview, I sent out the email to each participant, just
expressing appreciation for their participation again. I was also saying . . . if they have any colleagues or friends interested in the topic they are very welcome to do the survey. And also if they were interested in the results or anything like that, they could contact me through email . . . sending out that email as a thank you. . . . Actu-
ally they could get some results if they are interested and they know where to find me. So I think that’s somehow reassuring them. (SSD)
This analysis indicates that even in a virtual space, creating some bound- aries and openings and closures of the research space involved emotion work that compensated for the loss of the interpersonal and embodied practices of research. These compensations involved additional linguistic description and discussion and illustrate the importance of the outcomes of emotion work—building trust and negotiating ‘feeling rules’ (Fitzpat-
rick & Olson, 2015, p. 50).
Mutual disclosures and linguistic management of emotion
In addition to the emotion work involved in creating a bounded research
interview space, we noted evidence in the interview transcripts of the
use of linguistic strategies that marked emotional reflexivity. Previous
research has noted the importance of strategies that facilitate emotional
reflexivity such as mutual disclosure and sharing of relevant personal
information (Ezzy, 2010). In face-to-face interviews, paralinguistic
aspects of communication (e.g., facial expressions, gestures, body lan-
guage) support these strategies and establish practices for expressing and
negotiating emotions. In the audio interviews, however, these aspects
were absent. The audio interviews and semi-structured discussion indi-
cated that in the absence of paralinguistic aspects of communication,
greater verbalisation of sharing and rapport building occurred.
In MT’s interviews, there were examples of attempts to build rap-
port and emotional connections through shared experiences or com-
mon knowledge about local events such as the Australian bushfires. On
reflection, MT noted that she, as the interviewer, was more dependent

Emotional reflexivity during a global health crisis 27
on the interviewee engaging verbally with those attempts at disclosure or
sharing of experiences. In face-to-face interviews, a nod or facial expres-
sion would relay potential engagement, but this was absent in the audio
interviews. The effect of this was to put greater emphasis on the need for
linguistic and verbal emotional engagement.
For example, the following extract from an interview transcript shows
attempts at mutual disclosure:
MT:
You said you are a nurse by background?
RP: Correct. [Pause]
MT: Sorry I’m trying to remember the name of the unit you worked at in
[city name]? . . . I used to work at the University [city name]. (INT)
In this exchange, MT linked to a previous detail disclosed by the research participant to her own experience of the city. The research participant gave a minimal response and thus MT tried again to link the discussion to shared experiences.
In contrast, XW observed that she shared less personal information
with interview participants as she was concentrating on discerning the potential emotions of the participant:
XW:
. . . at the beginning or at the end of the interview when I was talking
about the project . . . it was just totally silent so I was not sure how they felt. . . . If we do it face to face, probably I would share a little bit more of my experience, relevant ones, trying to engage. But these uncertainties during the interviews over the phone. . . . Actually, I was a little bit worried or concerned about how they felt about what I said . . . while they were sharing I was also unsure about their, you know, emotional status exactly . . . sometimes you could tell one’s emotion from the non-verbal cues so much more than the words themselves. So I think uncertainty went through the whole conversation. That’s why I felt extremely exhausted after the inter-
view. I spent a lot of time guessing and speculating.
MT:
That’s a very good point . . . you think you did less sharing of per-
sonal experiences because you couldn’t tell how that other person was responding to you, that sharing your personal experiences is very important within qualitative interviews, isn’t it, in terms of building trust and rapport building?
XW:
And to that power differential as well. (SSD)
In XW’s interview transcripts there were few examples of mutual disclo-
sures of information or experiences, and those examples that could be found were very brief:
RP:
我估喺個疫情底下好多呢啲嘅狀況，就唔係咁順暢啦，即係會做得. . .即係我做住運動都要戴口罩呀。[I suspect that under the

28 Margo Turnbull and Xiaoyan Ivy Wu
pandemic there are many scenarios like this. It’s not that smooth. It
could be done . . . which means I even have to wear a mask when
I am exercising.]
XW:
係呀，做唔到gym呀。[Right, can’t even work out.] (INT)
Emotionality in the interviews was also managed through the deploy- ment of certain linguistic strategies. By reviewing the transcripts and identifying linguistic management strategies, MT and XW noted that dis-
cursive markers were frequently used to fulfil pragmatic functions associ- ated with trust and rapport building.
Previous research has described how discourse markers oh and well
are used in interviews, which are described as asymmetrical interactions when compared with conversations between friends (Fuller, 2003). Inter -
viewers often use these ‘response signals’ to indicate that they are lis-
tening to what is being said (Fuller, 2003, p. 43). After reviewing her
interview transcripts, MT noted that she often said okay and thank you
to the interviewee after they responded to a question. This was explained as both a substitute for paralinguistic behaviours such as nodding or eye contact but also an attempt to reassure the interviewee that discussion and emotional disclosure were appropriate.
XW used similar discourse markers to indicate her constant presence
and verbally display active listening to the interviewees. In addition to using these discourse markers, XW also utilized disjunctive questions to comment on what the interviewee shared to acknowledge the emotions that the interviewee had displayed.
RP:
唔可以因為疫情我地乜都唔做，就鬆懈喎。但係我地又唔可以因為
我地太過投入喺服務度，我地衝呀，衝曬上去。咁就令到. . .即係依家成日嗰個抗疫嘅態度好似好唔認真咁樣喎。咁即係掉番轉亦都 concern即係佢哋亦都可能會有個擔心㗎嘛。. . . 真係有啲同我哋講
你唔好上來住啦，遲啲先啦咁樣，亦都有啲咁樣嘅狀況。咁我估我哋一路就啲疫情高高低低，我哋嗰個服務亦都係高高低低咁樣調節中囉。但係有一樣嘢我哋真係好bear in mind嘅就係我地唔可以甩咗個case咁樣囉。係呀，點都要同佢有啲聯絡嘅咁樣囉。 [We could not stay and do nothing at all or slack off because of the pandemic. However, at the same time, we could not be too devoted to the ser-
vice like rushing to their apartments. If we do so, then we don’t seem to be serious about fighting the pandemic. They (the service users) may also have the same concern as we do. . . . Indeed, some of them asked us not to go to their apartments or to postpone the home visit. I think we need to adapt our services based on the development of the pandemic. But one thing that we keep bearing in mind is that we should never drop the case. We must keep in contact with them.]
XW:
都好有挑戰性嘅依家？ [It’s very challenging currently, isn’t it?]
(INT)

Emotional reflexivity during a global health crisis 29
Both MT and XW often summarised the responses of interviewees
and repeated key phrases to facilitate emotional reflexivity during the
interview.
This strategy is frequently used in face-to-face interviews, and XW
described it as effective in the audio interviews as well:
RP:
同埋我覺得嗰個壓力係即係同事會承受，咁就係所有同事都係、成
行都係承受個壓力、就係喺嗰個防疫嗰個感染、即係防疫嗰個措施呢、同埋嗰個服務之間點樣去攞個平衡囉。我覺得即係成個行業都係面臨一樣嘅壓力囉。[Also I think this is the type of stress that all our colleagues and the whole industry are confronted with, the epi-
demic prevention, the infection . . . which means how we can strike a balance between following the infection control regulations and providing the services. I think the whole industry is facing the same pressure.]
XW:
係，嗰個balance好難平衡到呀依家。[Right. It’s very hard to strike that balance now.]
RP: 係呀係呀。大家又未經歷過吖嘛！係咪？[Right. Right. We’ve never
experienced anything like this, haven’t we?] (INT)
When the interviewee verbally expressed negative emotions such as stress or despair, XW paused for about two seconds to provide the inter-
viewees with some space and imply they could continue if they would like to. XW would provide longer pauses in face-to-face interviews (e.g. three to five seconds), but for audio interviews, the participant(s) might attribute these long pauses to a poor phone or Internet connection. MT also observed instances of her laughter as emotional reflexivity within the interviews. However, the laughter was always in response to that of the interviewee—again, in the absence of paralinguistic cues, the inter-
viewee was in a key negotiating position in terms of leading displays of emotions.
Emotion work in linguistic management
of emotional reflexivity
Emotions and emotional reflexivity have a variable impact on researchers
(Carroll, 2012). Although the impact on individuals may be unpredict -
able, the presence of emotions in research is undeniable. The preceding
discussion has traced how emotions and emotional reflexivity unfolded in
the audio interviews in terms of the work that we did to create a research
space and to manage emotions through the deployment of linguistic strat-
egies. These strategies were not necessarily planned in advance but rather
emerged through the combination of our dispositions and prior experi-
ences. Through discussion and reflection well after the conclusion of the
research project, we both felt that this way of interviewing involved more

30 Margo Turnbull and Xiaoyan Ivy Wu
emotion work than face-to-face interviewing. This was reflected in the
dominant emotions we described:
MT:
I felt quite anxious. I’d say it would be the dominant emotion I felt at
the end of the interview as well in case I hadn’t done enough or tried hard enough to make that person feel comfortable or to acknowledge their contribution. So again, I verbally thanked them and acknowl-
edged their contribution and the value of it. But from an emotional perspective, I didn’t feel sure that I’d done that adequately.
XW:
Actually, I was a little bit worried or concerned about how they
felt about what I said . . . while they were sharing I was also unsure about their, you know, emotional status exactly . . . sometimes you could tell one’s emotion from the non-verbal cues so much more than the words themselves. So I think uncertainty went through the whole conversation. That’s why I felt extremely exhausted after the interview. I spent a lot of time guessing and speculating.
MT: But overall, my comments about doing those interviews with audio
connections only was it was very difficult. And I found managing the emotionality of the interview difficult, partly because obviously I didn’t have any of the nonverbal cues that often the signs of emotion and also having to interpret pauses, for example, what does a pause mean in this context? Does it mean the connection is bad? Does it mean they’ve been distracted by something in the background?
XW: I really struggled with that, trying to let the participants know,
I empathize with them, . . . I can feel what they are going through. I can feel their emotion. . . . When one participant mentioned some of their clients are at the end stage of their lives and they felt sorry if they couldn’t fulfil their last wishes or things like that. And I really felt for them. But I was trying really hard to verbalize that, but it’s just so difficult to do, to engage and to show my deep acting to them. (SSD)
In these extracts from the reflective discussion between MT and XW, a sense of anxiety and stress is foregrounded. This may reflect our relation-
ship to the topic itself and the emotionality connected with discussing end-of-life issues as well as our position to issues derived from the pan-
demic (we were all ‘insiders’ affected by the pandemic). However, it can be seen that the work involved in managing emotions linguistically put greater cognitive demands on us as interviewers and increased the risk that we were shifting focus somewhat from the interviewee to our own management of what we were saying and describing. This opens up an important question in relation to the quality of the data collected through audio interviews compared to face-to-face interviews. This is the final point we discuss in the conclusion to this chapter.

Emotional reflexivity during a global health crisis 31
Conclusion
This chapter has focused on emotion work and emotional reflexivity in
a set of audio interviews from a health communication research project.
The analysis and discussion associated with these interviews have shown
the ways in which emotions and emotional reflexivity influence context,
management and productivity of a qualitative interview even when we
are not face to face with our interviewees. It is of note that in the research
analysed here the absence of paralinguistic and embodied elements of
emotion intensified the cognitive and linguistic ‘work’ of the researcher.
This additional work was evident in the use of certain linguistic strate-
gies and the increased verbalization of processes, stages and information.
Drawing on our reflections and analysis, we would suggest the following
strategies for researchers conducting online communication research:
• Consider the importance of field notes even when you are not ‘in’
the field. Field notes are often used to record contextual information and provide important additional research data. We would encour-
age researchers to compile field notes even when conducting online research to capture the strategies, mistakes and adaptations that shape their research practice.
• Link field notes to a reflective diary detailing your research experi-
ences. Interviewing involves well-developed communication skills, and significant adaptations are required when conducting research online. Reflecting on your emotions and responses as an interviewer may provide prompts for ongoing skill improvement.
• Identify and incorporate communication strategies into your research
work. For example, having a clear plan of how and when you are going to make statements about ethics and privacy during an initial interview will ensure that you cover relevant details but also work on developing rapport. Including a follow-up thank you email to a research participant can provide valuable and additional contact. This may be particularly important when research concerns a sensi-
tive topic.
This experience of conducting audio interviews has drawn attention to the importance of emotion work and emotional reflexivity as well as the need for these to be considered overtly in the planning and conducting of online research.
Acknowledgements
We would like to acknowledge and thank Ms Ching Wai Ho and Dr Amos Yung for their support with translation of the Chinese language data.

32 Margo Turnbull and Xiaoyan Ivy Wu
Notes
1 Human research ethics approval for this project was granted by the rel-
evant board at The Hong Kong Polytechnic University (reference number
HSEARS20200805002–01). The research was funded by a grant from the
Departmental General Research Fund of the Department of English, the Hong
Kong Polytechnic University.
2 Other interviews conducted during this project used audio and video con-
nections. It is the audio-only interviews that are of particular interest in this chapter.
3 The following naming conventions indicate the data sources: interviews (INT),
semi-structured discussion (SSD).
References
Ahmed, F., Zviedrite, N., & Uzicanin, A. (2018). Effectiveness of workplace
social distancing measures in reducing influenza transmission: A systematic
review. BMC Public Health, 18, 518.
Aiello, A., & Tesi, A. (2017). Emotional job demands within helping professions:
Psychometric properties of a version of the Emotional Job Demands scale.
TPM-Testing, Psychometrics, Methodology in Applied Psychology, 24(2),
167–183.
Brooks, S., Dunn, R., Amlôt, R., Rubin, G., & Greenberg, N. (2018). A sys-
tematic, thematic review of social and occupational factors associated with
psychological outcomes in healthcare employees during an infectious dis-
ease outbreak. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 60(3),
248–257.
Carroll, K. (2012). Infertile? The emotional labour of sensitive and feminist
research methodologies. Qualitative Research, 13(5), 546–561.
Cresswell, J., & Poth, C. (2017). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choos-
ing among five approaches (3rd ed.). Sage.
DeFilippis, E., Impink, S., Singell, M., Polzer, J., & Sadun, R. (2020). Collabo-
rating during coronavirus: The impact of COVID-19 on the nature of work
(Working paper No. 27612). National Bureau of Economic Research, Cam-
bridge, MA.
Dickson-Swift, V., James, E. L., Kippen, S., & Liamputtong, P. (2009). Research-
ing sensitive topics: Qualitative research as emotion work. Qualitative
Research, 9(1), 61–79.
Ezzy, D. (2010). Qualitative interviewing as an embodied emotional perfor -
mance. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(3), 163–170.
Figueroa, M. E. K., Kincaid, D. L., Rani, M., & Lewis, G. (2002). Communica-
tion for social change: An integrated model for measuring the process and its
outcomes (Communication for social change working paper series: Number 1).
Rockefeller Foundation.
Fitzpatrick, P., & Olson, R. (2015). A rough road map to reflexivity in qualitative
research into emotions. Emotion Review, 7(1), 49–54.
Fuller, J. (2003). The influence of speaker roles on discourse marker use. Journal
of Pragmatics, 35(1), 23–45.
Golightley, M., & Holloway, M. (2020). Editorial: Unprecedented times? Social
work and society post-COVID-19. The British Journal of Social Work, 50(5),
1297–1303.

Emotional reflexivity during a global health crisis 33
Guillemin, M., & Gillam, L. (2004). Ethics, reflexivity, and ‘ethically important
moments’ in research. Qualitative Inquiry, 10(2), 261–280.
Harrington, N. (2014). Health communication: An introduction to theory,
method and application. Taylor & Francis Group.
Hernández, L. H., & De Los Santos Upton, S. (2019). Critical health communi-
cation methods at the U.S.-Mexico border: Violence against migrant women
and the role of health activism. Frontiers in Communication, 4(34), 1–12.
Hochschild, A. (1983). The managed heart: Commercialization of human feeling.
University of California Press.
Holmes, M. (2010). The emotionalization of reflexivity. Sociology, 44(1),
139–154.
Iedema, R. (2011). Creating safety by strengthening clinicians’ capacity for
reflexivity. BMJ Quality and Safety, 20, i83–i86.
Iedema, R., Carroll, K., Collier, A., Hor, S.-Y., Mesman, J., & Wyer, M. (2018).
Video-reflexive ethnography in health research and healthcare improvement:
Theory and application. CRC Press.
Kincaid, D. L., & Figueroa, M. E. (2009). Communication for participatory
development: Dialogue, action, and change. In L. R Frey & K. N. Cissna
(Eds.), Routledge handbook of applied communication research (pp. 506–
531). Routledge.
Lupton, D. (1994). Toward the development of critical health communication
praxis. Health Communication, 6(1), 55–67.
Maunder, R., Hunter, J., Vincent, L., Bennett, J., Peladeau, N., Leszcz, M., Sada-
voy, J., Verhaeghe, L., Steinberg, R., & Mazzulli, T. (2003). The immediate
psychological and occupational impact of the 2003 SARS outbreak in a teach-
ing hospital. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 168, 1245–1251.
Peters, K., & Halcomb, E. (2015). Interviews in qualitative research. Nurse
Researcher, 22(4), 6–7.
Phillippi, J., & Lauderdale, J. (2018). A guide to field notes for qualitative
research: Context and conversation. Qualitative Health Research, 28(3),
381–388.
Reid, A. M., Brown, J., Smith, J., Cope, A., & Jamieson, S. (2018). Ethical dilem-
mas and reflexivity in qualitative research. Perspectives on Medical Education,
7, 69–75.
Roach Anleu, S., & Mack, K. (2019). A sociological perspective on emotion
work and judging. Onati Socio-Legal Series, 1–21.
Rolland, L., Dewaele, J. M., & Costa, B. (2019). Planning and conducting ethical
interviews: Power, language and emotions. In J. McKinley & H. Rose (Eds.),
The Routledge handbook of research methods in applied linguistics (pp. 279–
289). Routledge.
Smart, C. (2009). Shifting horizons: Reflections on qualitative methods. Feminist
Theory, 10(3), 295–308.
Storey, D., & Figueroa, M. E. (2012). Toward a global theory of health behavior
and social change. In R. Obregon & S. Waisbord (Eds.), The handbook of
global health communication (pp. 70–94). West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.
Symon, G., & Cassell, C. (2012). Qualitative organizational research: Core
methods and current challenges. Sage.
Tam, C., Pang, E., Lam, L., & Chiu, H. (2004). Severe acute respiratory syn-
drome (SARS) in Hong Kong in 2003: Stress and psychological impact among
frontline healthcare workers. Psychological Medicine, 34(7), 1197–1204.

34 Margo Turnbull and Xiaoyan Ivy Wu
Turnbull, M., Wu, X. I., & Watson, B. (2022). A comparative study of the impact
of the COVID-19 crisis on the communication practices of end-of-life care
workers. Communication and Medicine.
Winefield, H. (2006). Support provision and emotional work in an Internet
support group for cancer patients. Patient Education and Counseling, 62(2),
193–197.
World Health Organization. (1946). Preamble to the constitution of the World
Health Organization. International Health Conference, New York.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003149408-3
3 ‘Making the familiar strange’
Reflexivity in linguistic ethnography
within a context of former legal
professional practice
Judith Reynolds
Introduction
In this chapter, I explore how I operationalised the concept of reflexivity—
understood as the dialogic bi-directional, mutually shaping interaction
between the research and the whole-person-researcher (Attia & Edge,
2017, p. 35)—in a linguistic ethnographic study of lawyer–client com-
munication in asylum and refugee legal advice meetings in the United
Kingdom. This doctoral project was strongly shaped by my former pro-
fessional identity as a practising lawyer. Although other dimensions of
my life capital (Consoli, 2020; 2022) also impacted the research process,
my lawyer identity offered a range of affordances and challenges within
the study. Drawing on empirical data, I discuss the impact of my pro-
fessional identities of lawyer and researcher on my research processes
and products, and my own understandings of self, at different stages.
Theoretically, I argue for recognition of the fluidity of identities in ‘doing’
reflexivity, grounding this in a conceptualisation of identities as multiple,
negotiated and shifting and developing over time.
Theoretical background
Positional reflexivity
Reflexivity in research is generally understood as “the process of reflect-
ing critically on the self as researcher, the ‘human as instrument’ (Guba &
Lincoln, 1981)” (Lincoln et al., 2011, p. 243). Although discussions of
reflexivity take many forms, this chapter focuses on “positional reflex -
ivity” (Macbeth, 2001, p. 35) in qualitative linguistic ethnographic
research. Positional reflexivity is “a self-referential analytic exercise”
(p. 38) involving an examination of “place, biography, self and other”
(p. 35) in an effort to understand how they shape the research and vice
versa. The notion of the self influencing the research is linked to a notion
of quality or trustworthiness of the research, in that a researcher’s dis -
cussion of their own role in producing the research indicates an honest

Random documents with unrelated
content Scribd suggests to you:

“Jackson not only told you what to do, but why you should do it; in
this essential point many capital instructors are and have been
deficient. The want of this power of explaining the purpose of an
action made Young Dutch Sam and Richard Curtis bad instructors,
though they were finished pugilists, and, which does not always
follow, capital sparrers.
“Jackson was not unmindful of the fact that art never ends. If there
was anything new in the gymnastic, equestrian, or pedestrian way,
there be assured was Jackson; not merely witnessing the exhibition,
but examining the means by which the effects were produced. He
was consequently often at Astley’s and at the Surrey, when Ireland,
the jumper, was there, and knew all the famous fencers,
funambulists, dancers, and riders of his day, and his day was a long
one.
“Of his private character, what can be said more than that all his
pupils became his friends. Save with Dan Mendoza, it is not known
that he ever had a quarrel. He was a careful man, not a mean man—
saving, but not penurious. It is to be remembered, too, from his
peculiar situation, continued calls were made upon his purse by the
ruffianly and profligate, who claimed a brotherhood that he utterly
and properly repudiated.”
In 1811, he procured a benefit at the Fives Court, in aid of the
subscription for the suffering Portuguese; it realised £114. Next year
he did the same for the British prisoners in France; this benefit
amounted to £132 6s. He also aided the benefit for the Lancashire
weavers (1826).
One old boxer (but who was not of Jackson’s day) pestered him
incessantly for money. “No,” said Jackson, “I’ll give you no money;
but you may go to the Horse and Groom, and you will find a clean
bed, three meals, and a pot of beer a day; stay there until matters
mend.” The man was thankful in the extreme; but a week had not
elapsed ere he was found in the taproom bartering his dinner for gin!
Of course a “lion” like Jackson could not avoid being made a
“show” of on particular occasions; accordingly, when the allied
sovereigns were in England, his aid was required. On the 15th of
June, 1814, at the house of Lord Lowther, in Pall Mall, a pugilistic
fete came off in the presence of the Emperor of Russia, Platoff,
Blucher, etc. The display so delighted those illustrious fighting men

that it was resolved to carry the thing out on a grander scale;
accordingly, the King of Prussia, the Prince Royal, Prince of
Mecklenburg, and others assembled. Jackson, Cribb, Belcher, Oliver,
Painter, and Richmond, were the principal performers. The foreign
nobility now wanted a peep, and at Angelo’s rooms some splendid
displays took place. It was said that Jackson had inoculated them
with a pugilistic fever, but it is believed he never obtained a single
pupil from among them. If this be a fact, it is an extraordinary one.
At the coronation of George the Fourth, 1821, Mr. Jackson was
applied to to furnish an unarmed force “to preserve order.” Cribb,
Spring, Belcher, Carter, Richmond, Ben Burn, Harmer, Harry Lee,
Tom Owen, Joshua Hudson, Tom Oliver, Harry Holt, Crawley,
Curtis, Medley, Purcell, Sampson, and Eales, with Jackson at their
head, formed the corps, dressed as Royal Pages.
One gold coronation medal was given to the boxers—they raffled
for it at a dinner. Tom Belcher won and wore it.
In 1822, a number of noblemen and gentlemen, admirers of the
gymnastic sports of their country, with a Royal Duke (Clarence) at
their head, presented John Jackson with a service of plate. The
salver, which bears the subjoined inscription, is of magnificent
workmanship, weighing one hundred and eighty-seven ounces.
THIS SALVER
(With other Plate),
Was purchased by Subscriptions from
A ROYAL DUKE
AND SEVERAL OF THE NOBILITY AND GENTRY,
And presented to
JOHN JACKSON, ESQ.,
Under the Superintendence of the following Committee:
The Most Noble the Marquis of Worcester,
Henry Smith, Bart, M.P.,
Admiral Tollemache,
Major General Barton, and
John Harrison, Esq.
Mr. Jackson had for many years been stakeholder, frequently
referee, and was always ready to go round personally to solicit a

subscription for the beaten man—and who could refuse John
Jackson? A match was made in 1822, between Randall and Martin
for 500 guineas a side, but Mr. Elliot, Martin’s backer, “cried for his
toy again,” in fact, demanded his money back. Mr. Jackson declared
he would never again be a stakeholder, and he kept his word. Thus
virtually he retired from the ring, and from that moment the ring
declined. Its progress downwards has been checked, now and then,
by men of good conduct, and battles of great interest. Spring and
Langan (1824) revived the hopes of many. Dutch Sam from 1827 to
1839, rallied a few of the right sort around him, so did Burn and
Owen Swift. A sort of reaction took place when Broome fought
Bungaree; another, when Caunt fought Bendigo; again on the
occasion of the great resultless battle of Farnborough between Sayers
and Heenan in 1861; and lastly, the Benicia Boy’s pulley-hauley
match with Tom King, awakened attention; but down, down, down,
the ring was doomed to go, and in 1879 we may safely say that in
writing its later history we have penned its epitaph. The management
of fights fell into the hands of Jew speculators in special railway
trains, whose interest it became not to allow the announced battle to
come off, and to repeat the process of plunder in the shape of
extortionately charged “excursion tickets,” at one to three pounds
each, until the fraud would no longer be submitted to.
[63]
John Jackson lived for many years at the house in which he died,
No. 4, Lower Grosvenor Street West. The Old “Tattersall’s” may be
said to have divided his residence from that of another great artist,
the late John Liston. “It is with pleasing melancholy we remember,”
says his old friend Vincent Dowling, “the Yarmouths, the Coombes,
the Lades, the Ashtons, wending their way to the house of the one,
while the Kembles, with perhaps Charles Mathews and Charles
Taylor, Theodore Hook and Young, were standing in converse near,
or visiting the low-roofed house of the latter.”
[64]
There is little more to say. Loved by many, respected by all,
enjoying a large circle of excellent society, John Jackson passed his
later days. Affluent, but not rich in the vulgar sense, he wanted less
than he had, and his income exceeded his expenditure. He was a
cheerful companion, sang a good song, told his anecdotes with great
tact, and never obtruded them. For the last year or two before his
death his health declined, but until then he rarely had a day’s illness.

Peacefully and trustfully, with his hand in that of his niece (whom he
loved, and had assisted as a daughter), John Jackson expired on the
7th of October, 1845, in the seventy-seventh year of his age. His
death was as calm and resigned as his life had been exemplary.
The remains of John Jackson rest in Brompton Cemetery, beneath
a handsome monument, by Mr. Thomas Butler, of which we give a
faithful representation. On the side of the mausoleum nearest to the
entrance is inscribed on each side of a medallion portrait of the
deceased:—
HERE LIE
THE
Born,
Sept. 28,
REMAINS
OF
1769,
JOHN
JACKSON,
Died, Oct.
7, 1845.

HIC VICTOR
CÆSTUS

ARTEMQUE
REPONO.

On the opposite side to the footpath is a nude gladiator, holding a
laurel wreath, and plunged in grief. On the top is a lion couchant,
and on the farther end we read the following:—
“Stay, traveller,” the Roman records said,
To mark the classic dust beneath it laid;—
“Stay, traveller,” this brief memorial cries,
And read the record with attentive eyes.
Hast thou a lion’s heart, a giant’s strength?
Exult not, for these gifts must yield at length.
Do health and symmetry adorn thy frame?
The mouldering bones below possessed the same.
Does love, does friendship every step attend?
This man ne’er made a foe, ne’er lost a friend.
But death too soon dissolves all human ties,
And, his last combat o’er, here Jackson lies.
This Monument was erected by the subscriptions
of several noblemen and gentlemen,
to record their admiration of one
whose excellence of heart and incorruptible worth

endeared him to all who knew him.
MONUMENT TO JOHN
JACKSON IN
BROMPTON
CEMETERY.
Thomas Butler,
Sculpsit, 1847.

CHAPTER IV.
BILL HOOPER (THE TINMAN)—1789 ‒1797.
As a foil to the bright memoir of a high-minded, self-respecting,
and honoured athlete, we cannot better “point a moral” than by
devoting a brief chapter to the sudden rise and inglorious fall of the
“lion-hearted” boxer, known in the latter part of his career as “Bully
Hooper;” his story is a beacon of warning to the successful pugilist in
the day of his patronage, prosperity, and success.
William Hooper was born at Bristol in 1766, and previously to his
unfortunate connexion with the notorious Lord Barrymore, followed
his trade as a tinman in Tottenham Court Road, where he had the
character of a smart, industrious, well-behaved young man. His
qualifications as a pugilist were undoubted. Fear formed no part of
his composition. His confidence was innate; and neither the size nor
strength of his antagonist deterred him any more than a thorough-
bred bull-dog would calculate the bulk of his unwieldy bovine foe.
Transplanted from making saucepans to the festivities of Wargrave,
and made the personal companion of a roué nobleman, he lost his
head, as many better nurtured men than poor Hooper have done.
The transition from narrow means and humble station made him
insolent, overbearing, and ostentatious, and finally the petted
pugilist sunk into the ferocious “bully,” thence from dissipation and
violent excess into a shattered human wreck, his melancholy end
marked by poverty, desertion, and disease.
[65]
In person Hooper was compact and symmetrical. His shoulders
and arms were fine, his chest deep and broad; his height under five
feet eight inches, giving him the weight of 11 stone, showing him to
have been nowhere overloaded.
He is said to have fought “a number of good battles,” of which we
have no evidence, save Pierce Egan’s assertion, to set against the per

contra of a contemporary, that he had “fought but twice before he
met Lord Barrymore’s man.” We suspect, however, an incidental
trace of our hero to lurk in the following paragraph at the end of the
account of the great battle between Tom Johnson and Ryan, at
Cashiobury Park (see ante, page 59).
“Two other battles were likewise fought on the 11th of February,
1789, on the same stage. The first between Solly Sodicky, the Jew,
and Wilson, in which the Jew beat. The second was between the
Welchman and a Tinman, in which the former was cleverly
defeated.” Be this as it may, on the 19th of August, 1789, Hooper was
matched with a local celebrity, Bill Clarke, the plasterer, and the
affair came off in Bloomsbury Fields, a plot now covered with streets
and squares, adjacent to Tottenham Court Road, where Hooper
exercised his vocation of a tinman. The battle was obstinately
contested, Clarke being a powerful man, but the intuitive skill,
activity, and courage of Hooper carried him through, and his fame as
a boxer spread.
Cotterel, the shoemaker, challenged Hooper for 10 guineas a side,
and they met on Barnet Common, September 5th, 1789. There was a
numerous assemblage, for Hooper was looked upon as something
surprising, and was seconded by Tom Johnson, the Champion, while
Bill Warr picked up Cotterel. Thirty-five minutes’ desperate fighting
on the part of Cotterel led to his utter defeat, and Hooper, little the
worse for the conflict, was proclaimed the conqueror.
A carpenter at Binfield Heath, of the name of Wright, having
acquired much fame in Berkshire for his fistic skill, was proposed by
Lord Falkland as a competitor for the Tinman, and Lord Barrymore,
who had witnessed Hooper’s prowess, at once accepted the cartel on
Hooper’s behalf, naming his own seat of Wargrave as the place of
battle. Whatever might have been Wright’s pretensions among the
yokels, he made a poor figure before Hooper, who fought with such
skill and rapidity at his opponent’s head, that in twenty minutes
Wright
[66]
was all wrong, and so punished as to be compelled to give
in. This battle took place December 3, 1789.
Bob Watson, of Bristol, whom we shall have occasion to mention
elsewhere (see Watson, Appendix to Period II.), was next introduced
as an antagonist for Hooper. This proved a most remarkable battle.
The place was Langley Close, near Salt Hill, in the neighbourhood of

Windsor, and the day February 17th, 1790. Bill Warr seconded, and
Joe Ward was bottleholder to Watson; Hooper was waited on by
Tom Johnson and Butcher. Major Churchill and Colonel Harvey
Aston acted as umpires, but called in a referee, owing to several
differences of opinion during the prolonged contest. In the third
round the Tinman cleverly floored his opponent, being the first
knock-down blow; and this success he repeated in the three following
rounds: the odds were now high in favour of Hooper, and continued
to increase as the battle went on. Watson, though he could not ward
off Hooper’s attacks, proved thorough game, and rallied strongly at
the close of each bout. Two hours and a half, and one hundred
rounds were fought, not without several appeals as to Watson’s style
of delivering a blow and falling, and other unfair practices. Finally,
after Watson had been “seven times accused of striking unfairly,”
Hooper was acknowledged the victor.
Lord Barrymore’s increasing folly now led to Hooper being
matched with Brain (Big Ben). This mockery of boxing took place at
Chapel Row Revel, near Newbury, Berks, August 30th, 1790; night
coming on, after three hours and a half harlequinade by Hooper, it
was declared “a drawn battle!”
[67]
(See ante, p. 67).
This exhibition much tarnished the fame of Hooper, who was now
the boon companion of the depraved Lord Barrymore’s excesses, and
for more than two years he did not appear within the ropes, save in
the capacity of a second. As on one of these occasions we find him
officiating for Bill Treadway in a combat which brings under our
notice the earliest record of a black pugilist, we preserve the
paragraph as we find it, under the date of—
“June 13th, 1791. A pitched match was contested in Marylebone
Fields, between an excellent African pugilist and the well-known
Treadway. Peter Bath seconded the Black, and Hooper, the Tinman,
his antagonist. The battle lasted thirty-five minutes, when Treadway
was carried senseless from the field. During the combat the African
showed great agility, excellent bottom, and a thorough knowledge of
the art, not to be exceeded by the most skilful among the boxers.”
This black diamond’s name is not preserved.
In September, 1792 an announcement appeared in the Chelmsford
Advertiser that two pugilistic contests would take place at Colchester
on the 4th of that month. “The grand jury who were at that time

sitting, addressed the mayor, recorder, and magistrates, expressing
their wish that they might not be permitted within the corporate
jurisdiction. The mayor accordingly, by the public wish, forbad the
erection of any public stage or any prize fight within the limits of his
jurisdiction.”
In consequence of this notice, “orders were given for the erection
of a stage eighteen feet square at Bentley, about nine miles from
Colchester.”
On Thursday, September 4, 1792, the men met, according to
arrangement, and at four o’clock the first two combatants, Hooper,
the Tinman, and Bunner of Colchester, mounted the stage. Tom
Johnson seconded Hooper, with Sharp as bottle-holder. Bunner’s
second was Williams, and his bottle-holder Johnson’s old opponent
Ryan. The stakes were 50 guineas a side. Bunner, who was a young
fellow of great strength and resolution, began so vigorously that he
bored down Hooper, and in the second round closing upon him,
brought him down heavily. The odds went up on Bunner, and the
Essex men were triumphant. Hooper found it would not do to trifle
with his opponent: he kept out, and displayed his superiority in the
art in great style, punishing his man sharply. In the sixth round,
however, Bunner fell by an overreach, and broke his right arm, thus
giving Hooper an easy conquest.
[68]
George Maddox,
[69]
whose battle with the young Tom Cribb, has
preserved his name and memory, next challenged Hooper. They met
for a stake of 50 guineas, at Sydenham Common, Kent, Monday,
February 10, 1794. Tom Johnson once more seconded Hooper;
Maddox was attended by Joe Ward and Bill Gibbons, the renowned
of Westminster, as his bottle-holder. George had proved himself a
good man, and great expectations were entertained of his ability to
dispose of Hooper, who was much the lighter man. Betting was five
to four on Maddox. The Duke of Hamilton and a number of the
aristocratic patrons of pugilism were present. For the first three or
four rounds Maddox appeared to have the lead, and his friends were
confident. Hooper, however, met him with undaunted courage,
hitting straight, and putting in his blows with cutting severity. After
three quarters of an hour’s sharp fighting, Maddox fell off, while
Hooper increased in activity, and at the end of fifty-five minutes,

Maddox gave in with much reluctance, and the Tinman was hailed
the victor.
So high had Hooper’s fame now risen that a match was made by
his backer in March, 1794, for him to fight the renowned Dan
Mendoza on a twenty-four foot stage, for 50 guineas within a month.
Dan, however, was not to be had at such a bargain. The Israelite
preferred forfeiting his friends’ £20 deposit to risking his reputation
on such terms.
That determined boxer, Bill Wood
[70]
was anxious to try his
abilities with our hero. His friends assisted him with £50, and on
Monday, June 22nd, 1795, they met and fought upon a stage erected
on Hounslow Heath, in the dangerous vicinity of the powder mills. At
two o’clock the combatants set-to. The contemporary accounts
describe it as “a truly desperate battle.” After the first few minutes,
the odds rose five to one, ten to one, and twenty to one on Wood.
After fighting twenty-five minutes, during which the punishment was
heavy, Hooper levelled Wood with a stupefying blow under the left
ear. From this time Wood, though he struggled gallantly, never
entirely recovered, and the blow being repeated, at the end of forty-
eight minutes
[71]
Hooper was victorious. Towards the close of the
fight the odds had changed to twenty to one on the Tinman. “The
Duke of Hamilton, Colonel Hamilton, and a distinguished party of
amateurs were present,” says the chronicler of the day.
Hooper had now arrived at the summit of his success by the
conquest of so game and experienced a pugilist as Wood. His time
had come to tread the downward path that leads to the cold shade of
poverty, disgrace, and neglect. Within one year of his conquest of
Wood his excesses and riot began to tell on a constitution shaken by
hard living, night-riot, and debauchery, and Tom Owen,
[72]
a
powerful young fellow, then known as “the Fighting Oilman,” having
been quarrelled with by Hooper, professed his desire for a fight with
“the Bully,” as he was now generally called. Charley Coant, then a
boxer of some note, forming a high opinion of Tom, introduced him
to Mr. John Jackson, and that good judge, approving the new
candidate for the honours of the P. R., obtained friends for “the
Young Oilman,” and a match was made for 100 guineas, which came
off at Harrow on the 14th of November, 1796. Owen proved himself a
resolute and steady fighter, and in the words of the reporter,

“constantly kept a straight guard of such prodigious strength that
Hooper could never beat it down, and very seldom put in a hit.
Hooper, in striking a blow, dislocated his shoulder, and being
dreadfully bruised, gave in” after fifty rounds of hard fighting. (See
Life of Tom Owen, post, p. 110). As we have already said, Hooper was
but a shadow of his former self; luxury and debauchery had spoiled
him.
[73]
Few men are more obnoxious to the smiles and frowns of fickle
fortune than the pugilist: victory brings him fame, riches, and
patrons; his bruises are unheeded in the smiles of success; and,
basking in the sunshine of prosperity, his life passes pleasantly, till
defeat comes, and reverses the scene. Covered with aches and pains,
distressed in mind and body, assailed by poverty, wretchedness, and
misery, friends forsake him—his fame waxes dim—his character is
suspected by the losers; no longer the “plaything of fashion,” he flies
to inebriation for relief, and a premature death puts a period to his
misfortunes. Thus it was with Hooper: sheltered under the wings of
nobility, he became pampered, insolent, and mischievous. His
courage was undoubted, and though his frame was but small, it
contained the heart of a lion; big men struck no terror to his feelings,
and he opposed them with all the hardihood of an equal competitor,
determined to conquer. Lord Barrymore, as already noted, was fond
of larking and practical jokes, and whenever he could not come
through the piece in style, Hooper appeared as his bully—his name
overawed, and many a time saved his patron a deserved thrashing.
One evening his Lordship took Hooper to Vauxhall, “disguised in
liquor,” yet farther disguised in band and cassock, as a clergyman.
The visitors discovered “the bully and his patron,” and after some
rough handling, they were summarily expelled from what Old
Simpson, the M. C., grandiloquently termed “the Royal Property.” At
length his lordship cast him off, which, as he had cast himself away
before, is not surprising. Hooper soon afterwards became wretched,
disease overtook him, repeated intoxication brought him to the brink
of the grave. One evening he was found insensible on the step of a
door in St. Giles’s, and conveyed to the watch-house; on enquiring
who he was, he could but faintly articulate, “Hoop—Hoop—.” Being
recognised as the miserable remnant of that once powerful pugilistic
hero, he was humanely taken to the workhouse, where he
immediately expired!—Sic transit gloria athletæ!

CHAPTER V.
TOM OWEN—1796 ‒1799 (1820).
[74]
Tom Owen, though living only in the memory of the present
generation as a landlord combining liquor and literature, some
fancy, more fun, a certain amount of old-school pugilism and much
pretence, deserves a niche in this period of the History of British
Boxing.
True it is the clumsy bespattering of praise with which, in bad
English and worst taste, his name is loaded in “Boxiana,” may induce
many of better judgment to turn from his biography; yet is there
enough to furnish matter worthy the pen of the chronicler of deeds of
courage and of skill.
Tom Owen was a native of Hampshire, being born at Portsea, on
the 21st December, 1768.
Of the apocryphal rigmaroles which disfigure “Boxiana,” we shall
not condescend to take any account; suffice it to say, that after
several provincial encounters with the Smiths, Joneses, Greens, and
Browns of his vicinity, Tom Owen came to London, where he
followed the occupation of an oilman; a calling which the reader will
perhaps condescend to remember was much more followed than
now; for, as Byron says, “in those days we had not got to gas.”
A casual turn up caused an introduction to Mr. Jackson, who,
perceiving the germ of future greatness in Tom, took him in hand,
and, fancying his style, he was matched against the then celebrated
Bully Hooper, for 100 guineas.
On the 14th, Nov., 1796, Owen met his formidable antagonist, who,
it must be remembered (with the exception of his draw with Big Ben)
was as yet unconquered. The battle-field was near Harrow. Owen
was seconded by Joe Ward and Jack Bartholomew, Hooper by

Symonds and Paddington Jones. “The contest,” says the reporter,
“lasted rather more than an hour, during which the men fought fifty
rounds of hard fighting, but for the most part of which Owen
constantly kept a straight guard of such prodigious strength, that
Hooper could never beat it down, and very seldom put in a hit.
Hooper, in striking a blow, dislocated his shoulder, and being also
dreadfully bruised, gave in. Owen was so little hurt, that he leisurely
put on his clothes and walked away.”
TOM OWEN, 1820.
From a Portrait by
George Sharples.
Pierce Egan tells us of a second fight (Hooper not being satisfied)
for 100 guineas, at the same place (Harrow), a few weeks afterwards,
which “Owen won in equally good style.” We fail to find it in
contemporary records, though Pierce adds, “the stakeholder had his
pocket picked of the 100 guineas, and Owen never got a single
farthing afterwards,” vol. ii., p. 194.
The fame of Owen now spread, and a match for 25 guineas a-side
was made between Jack Bartholomew and Tom, which took place at
Moulsey Hurst, August 22, 1797. George Maddox and Goff seconded
Owen upon this occasion. It was a desperate battle, and highly
spoken of at the time, for the courage displayed on both sides; but
here Tom was forced to succumb; Bartholomew overfought him,

both at close quarters and out-fighting, and the contest was finished
by Owen being hit out of time.
On September 2, 1799, Tom entered the lists with one Houssa, a
Jew, for 10 guineas a-side, on the race-ground at Enfield. Joe Ward
was second to Owen. But here again Owen was so desperately
beaten, that, after a struggle of forty minutes, he was incapable of
coming to the scratch, and the Jew was the conqueror.
Davis, of Deptford, an excavator, weighing fourteen stone, was
beaten by Owen in one hour, at Deptford, in December, 1799.
At a benefit which took place at the Horse-shoe and Hoop, Tower
Hill, Owen and Jack Bartholomew had some words about their fight
at Moulsey. The result was an exchange of blows. Pierce Egan tells
us, “the smiles of victory crowned the exertions of Owen in a quarter
of an hour.” Perhaps so—but old Tom was his own reporter.
At the Surrey Sessions, in January, 1805, Owen was indicted for a
riot and conspiracy, on Putney Common, in aiding and abetting Joe
Berks and Pearce to fight a pitched battle. The jury found Owen
guilty, and he was sentenced to three months’ imprisonment in
Horsemonger Lane.
From this period Tom figured as a trainer and second, and his
judgment was generally considered good in all matters pugilistic; he
also flourishes immensely in the benefit-taking line, and was, as the
“Historian” terms him, “fly to every movement on the board.”
We shall decline transferring the trash of the Apocrypha of Boxing
respecting the exploits of Owen, as no traces of them are to be found
in the “canonical books,”—which, we take to be the journals of the
time. Leaving him, therefore, as a blind guide, we proceed to the
contest with Mendoza. This, although a very foolish affair on the part
of the Jew, as the follies of great men, even in pugilism, outweigh in
interest the wiser doings of lesser ones, is our chief reason for giving
Owen a separate chapter in the history of pugilism—despite the
immense, intense, and absurd gaggery of his injudicious friend and
biographer.
In 1820, Tom (being no bad judge at match-making) proposed to
Daniel Mendoza a “passage at arms” to settle an old grudge. Dan, like
an old war-horse at the sound of the trumpet, though physically but a
shadow of his former self, met the twelve stone Tom Owen. Thirty-

three years had elapsed since the “Star of the East” had first peeled in
the lists, and fourteen since his last appearance. Although, however,
his deeds were, even to the existing generation of ring-goers, rather
matter of tradition than evidence, the fame of Mendoza made him
the favourite at six and five to four. Owen was known to be a good
man, but it was thought he had not science enough to oppose the
accomplished Israelite. Hence a great number of the oldest amateurs
were induced to be present. It is worthy of note, that Sir Thomas
Apreece, Bart., who was Mendoza’s umpire at Odiham, acted in that
capacity on this occasion.
Owen, attended by Cribb and Josh. Hudson, threw up his hat first;
and Mendoza, followed by Randall and Harry Lee, repeated the
token of defiance. Mendoza was loudly cheered, and backed at five to
four. Mendoza was quickly ready, and walked about the ring with a
coat thrown over him. Owen was a considerable time preparing
himself, and in making his shoes right; instead of drawers he fought
in a pair of nankeen breeches. Mendoza’s colours were a blue silk
bird’s eye, and tied over Owen’s.
THE FIGHT.
Round 1.—Mendoza, on stripping, exhibited a fine
manly bust; his eyes sparkled with confidence, and
there was altogether an appearance about him that
seldom characterises an individual of fifty-five years of
age. Owen, on the contrary, looked thin; and his
general appearance was rather meagre than otherwise.
On setting-to, both the ould ones were extremely
cautious, and a minute elapsed before a hit was made.
Owen at length let fly, but without any effect. Some
exchanges took place, when they closed at the ropes,
and, after an attempt to fib on the part of Mendoza,
which was frustrated by Owen, a struggle for throw
ensued: in going down, Dan was the undermost.
2.—Mendoza ran in with great alacrity, made a sort
of push forward, and got Owen on the ropes; the latter
went down, and his neck got scored from them. (Great
applause for Mendoza. While Tom was on the knee of
Josh, the latter said, “Master!”—Owen, smiling, “What
says my boy?”—“Have you brought the pepper castor

with you?—“Yes, my lad, and the mustard and vinegar
cruet too!”)
3.—The Jew behaved very handsomely, and showed
some good fighting; but Owen planted a tremendous
hit on his left cheek, just under the eye, whence the
claret flowed copiously: Mendoza went down, yet
jumped up gaily. (Randall told Mendoza he should not
have done so. “Let these ould ones alone,” said Josh;
“they know more about fighting than you or I do.” Even
betting, but Owen for choice. “I say, master,” says Josh,
“you furnished Danny with some sour crout then!”)
4.—Owen now showed the spectators that he was the
younger man. Mendoza was again nobbed, and the
claret profusely running down his cheek. In going
down Owen was undermost. (“When am I to have the
tobacco-stopper, master?” cries Josh.—“Leave it all to
the cook yet!” Owen smilingly observed.)
5.—Mendoza now showed he was completely gone by
as to any superiority of fighting. Owen, having nothing
to oppose him, “displayed talents that astonished the
ring.” Mendoza received a dreadful fall.
6.—Owen, in retreating from his antagonist, ran
against the stakes, but the latter again planted a heavy
facer. In struggling, both went down.
7.—Here Tom was the hero of the tale. He nobbed
Mendoza, and got away with all the dexterity of a
youth: it was now only Mendoza by name; his
excellence as a fighter had evaporated, and his hits
were generally short. Owen, in a close at the ropes,
held Mendoza as firm as if the latter had been screwed
in a vice, and pummelled him at the back of the neck so
dreadfully, that Dan at length fell exhausted.
8.—Mendoza came to the scratch bleeding, and
almost in a state of stupor, from the severity of the last
round. Owen planted such a tremendous hit on Dan’s
face, that he went back, and slipped down at the corner
of the ring. The Jews were still backing Mendoza with
confidence.
9.—Long sparring: Owen convinced the spectators
that he was a perfect master of the art. He hit Mendoza
in the eye, jobbed him also in the face, and at the end
of the ropes held Mendoza by the arm, and punished
him till he went down. (Two to one on Owen.)

10.—The appearance of Mendoza’s face was much
changed; his left eye was encircled in claret. Owen got
away from his antagonist in good style. Mendoza was
punished all over the ring; Owen threw his opponent,
and fell heavily upon him. (Three to one. Indeed, it was
any odds.)
11.—Owen was determined not to give a chance
away; and he also appeared determined not to have
any more body blows. He accordingly kept at out-
fighting. A short but sharp rally occurred, when Owen
fell; and Mendoza likewise, at about two yards
distance, came heavily down upon his face on the turf.
12th and last.—Mendoza was quite abroad, and hit
short, and at the ropes was again held by Owen, and
fibbed down. Mendoza said he would not fight any
more, as he could not win it. He was terribly punished,
and defeated in fourteen minutes and twenty-seven
seconds and a quarter; while, on the contrary, Owen
had not a scratch on his face. The latter was carried out
of the ring by Cribb and Hudson, amidst the cheers of
the spectators.
Mendoza, while being dressed, seemed sensibly affected at his
defeat. He had not the least idea of losing the battle.
Mr. Jackson collected £20 on the ground for Mendoza, who was
put into a coach. Owen soon returned to the ring, decorated in the
spoils attendant upon conquest. Mendoza’s blue trophy was hung
round Owen’s neck, surmounted by the yellow-man of Hooper; now
doubly won.
This battle hardly deserves comment, after the observations we
have already made under the memoir of Mendoza; yet it is valuable
as a warning. The merits of the combatants remain, except in the
balderdash of “the historian” of the P. R., just where they stood
previous to the fight.
Tom’s judgment as a second was unquestionable. His coolness and
readiness as second to Turner in his victory over Scroggins, and in
the remarkable fight with Sutton and Painter, may be cited.
Tom was known for many years as a pleasant companion, a good
convivial singer, and the landlord of a house on the ground now
occupied by the basin of St. Katherine’s Docks, whence the hand of

improvement compelled him to migrate. For several years he was
well known as the landlord of the Shipwrights’ Arms at Northfleet,
where the fancy of all grades found him a civil, pleasant, and obliging
host. Owen died at Plumstead in 1843 aged 76 years.

CHAPTER VI.
TOM JONES (KNOWN AS “PADDINGTON JONES”).—
1786‒1805.
This well-remembered pugilist, whose career forms a link between
the Second and Third Periods of the History of the Ring, well
deserves a chapter, from his numerous and game contests, his
attentive civility during his protracted connexion with fistic affairs,
and yet more from his identification with the renowned Jem Belcher,
for whose first metropolitan competitor he had the honour to be
selected. Tom, including his numerous “outside” or “bye-battles,” is
supposed to have fought more battles than any other pugilist. The
Ring in Hyde Park was the frequent arena of his contests, which in
his noviciate were chiefly with roughs and commoners.
About the year 1766, Paddington gave birth to this hero, from
which place he derived his pugilistic title. Tom commenced boxer
when quite a youth, and, from the intuitive science which he
displayed at that early period, attracted the notice of the veteran Tom
Johnson, who pronounced him to be a promising pugilist. Jones’s
weight was ten stone and a half, his height five feet eight inches, and
his frame of much symmetry and activity.
Tom’s first regular contest was about the year 1786, with one Jack
Holmes, in Harley Fields, near where Cavendish Square stands, for
the important sum of half-a-crown, and it appears it was as well-
contested as if £100 had been the stakes; but Jones being a mere
novice, and quite a stripling, and Holmes a full grown man, the latter
proved the conqueror.
A match was made between a one-eyed sailor, a most determined
boxer, and Tom Jones, for 10 guineas a-side, in February, 1786,
which was decided in the Ring, in Hyde Park. The contest proved a
desperate one. The Sailor was considered as ugly a customer as ever

stood up for a mill; but, in the event, Jones was declared victor. This
hardy son of Neptune was not satisfied with the first broadside, and
soon afterwards entered the lists for another 10 guineas, when he
was again vanquished; yet, like a perfect true blue, he was valiant
enough to endure a third engagement, in which he was also beaten.
The Sailor displayed great bottom, and was punished severely before
he gave in.
In the course of the twelvemonth, however, smarting under the
recollection of defeat, Tom challenged Jack Holmes to a second trial
(half-minute time), for a guinea and a half, when Jones obtained an
easy conquest. This was on the 19th of December, 1786.
Aldridge, the Life-guardsman, who had been vaunting of his great
deeds of pugilism at Tom Johnson’s house, near Lincoln’s Inn Fields,
was told by Joe Ward that he would produce a boy who should soon
take the conceit out of him: accordingly, a match was made for two
guineas against a watch, and Paddington Jones was brought forward
as the man to accept the challenge. It was to have been decided in the
street, in the first instance, but was removed to Harley Fields. On
stripping, the guardsman smiled with contempt at his boy-like
antagonist, and, from his long arms, had the advantage at the first
part of the battle, dealing out some sharp punishment; but the
science and bottom of Tom soon stopped his career. After a most
desperate conflict, which was witnessed by most of the celebrated
pugilists of that day, who were astonished at the intrepidity
displayed by Jones, the “boy” succeeded in milling his opponent in
sixty rounds. Joe Ward seconded Jones.
Shortly after the above circumstance, in the same fields, Jones
fought one Jack Blackwell, a lime-burner, for 10 shillings; and,
although the latter showed complete ruffianism in the battle, he was
easily disposed of by Tom. Tom Burley, a companion of Blackwell,
thought he could now vanquish Jones, and had the temerity to enter
the ring, immediately on the fight being over, and challenged him for
the like sum. Tom instantly accepted the cartel. Burley was also a
complete ruffian, and tried what downright force could effect; but
Jones so completely foiled his attacks, and returned blows with so
much science and effect, that Burley was perfectly satisfied. These
contests were rendered somewhat conspicuous from the celebrated

Major Hanger (afterwards Lord Coleraine) and his black servant
performing the office of second and bottle-holder to Jones.
[75]
On May 14, 1792, immediately after the fight of Mendoza and Bill
Warr, at Smitham Bottom, near Croydon, upon the same stage,
Jones fought Caleb Baldwin. The battle was for a purse of £20, but a
dispute arising between the parties, although Caleb claimed the
victory, it was declared a drawn battle.
Soon after the above contest, Jones entered the ring in Hyde Park,
with Dick Horton, a baker, for 20 guineas. The latter was considered
to have some pretensions to pugilism; but Jones dealt out his hits so
hard and fast, that the baker was glad to cry enough.
Jones, in company with Pardo Wilson, anxious to witness the fight
between Hooper and Bunner, at Bentley Green (September 4, 1792)
walked down to Colchester, and was extremely stiff from the effects
of his journey. The following day, a man of the name of Abraham
Challice, standing six feet high, and weighing fourteen stone (a
perfect terror to the inhabitants of that part of the country from his
great strength), observing Tom Jones upon the race-ground, and to
show his dexterity, out of mere wantonness, endeavoured to trip up
Jones’s heels, and otherwise insulted him, also threatening to give
him a good hiding. Tom, notwithstanding the great disparity
between them, was not to be insulted with impunity, and, perhaps
with more pluck than prudence, instantly showed fight. Challice
laughed at him with the most sovereign contempt, bidding him get
along for “a boy,” or he would kick his breech for his impudence. The
spectators were alarmed at the youthful appearance of Jones, who
weighed but ten stone five pounds, and begged of him to desist, as
the consequences might prove of the most serious nature; but Tom
was not to be deterred, and soon pulled off his clothes. Upon setting-
to, Challice had the advantage from his superior strength, and kept it
for three rounds; but in the fourth, Jones put in a hit under Challice’s
ear, that knocked him down, when Tom Johnson offered to back
Jones for £100. Challice, on standing up, appeared much confused,
and Tom served him out in the same style, and continued punishing
him every round till he could scarcely move, and he soon
acknowledged he had never received such a complete milling before.
The farmers and others who witnessed the contest were so pleased
that this insolent fellow, who had rendered himself so disgusting

about that neighbourhood, had received a good thrashing,
immediately made a subscription purse, which soon amounted to 30
guineas, and presented it to Jones for his bravery.
The next day a countryman, well known in the neighbourhood of
Bentley Green under the name of “Leather Jacket,” mounted the
stage, and, with considerable vaunting, publicly challenged any
Londoner to enter the lists with him. The words had scarcely escaped
from his lips, when up jumped Tom, without any consideration for
his hands, which were bruised from the effects of the severe
punishment he had bestowed upon the nob of Abraham Challice the
preceding day, and instantly began to prepare for action. The
countryman seemed thunderstruck with astonishment, and with
faltering speech exclaimed, “Na! na! you be the man that beat Ab.
Challice yesterday—I mean ony one but thee!” and made a hasty
retreat from the stage, amid the laughter and sneers of the spectators
at Leather Jacket’s vain boasting.
Jones beat Keely Lyons, the Jew, at Blackheath, on the 10th of
May, 1794, for a purse of 20 guineas. Tom Johnson was second to
Jones. It was a well-contested battle, in which much science and
bottom were displayed on both sides.
In a second attempt on a stage at Hounslow, June 22, 1795, Jones
disposed of the same boxer in nine rounds, occupying sixteen
minutes. Lyons was a courageous pugilist, and a boxer above
mediocrity.
In the August of 1795 Jones was at Bristol, the pugilistic nursery,
with Tom Johnson and other celebrities: a match for a purse with
Spaniard Harris took place. After twenty minutes’ fighting, Harris,
during a wrangle, got hold of the purse, and bolted with it, leaving
Jones and Co. “lamenting.”
On the renowned Jem Belcher’s appearance in the metropolis as a
pugilist, Tom Jones was the man selected to have the trial set-to with
him. This came off at Old Oak Common, Wormwood Scrubs, on April
12, 1799.
Belcher was seconded by Bill Warr, and Bill Gibbons acted as his
bottle-holder. Jones had for his attendants, Joe Ward and Dick Hall.
Belcher was, at this period, only nineteen years of age. The odds were
six to four upon Jem. The spectators were much interested upon the

commencement of the battle, from the very high character which had
been promulgated by Bill Warr, as to the astonishing abilities that his
pupil possessed, and the feats which he had achieved at Bristol. The
first round, considerable science was displayed upon both sides—the
experience and skill of Jones were well displayed; and the dexterity
and new mode of fighting, so exclusively Belcher’s own, were soon
exhibited. On the termination of the first round Belcher was knocked
down. The advantages in the second and third rounds were evenly
balanced; but in the fourth and fifth Jones was levelled. In the sixth
and seventh rounds Jones showed off in most excellent style: skill,
manliness, and fortitude, no shifting, nothing shy, hugging out of the
question, and hauling not resorted to: it was a clean fight
throughout, stopping and hitting were the order of the day, and it
might be deemed a model for pugilists in general to follow. Belcher,
with all the gaiety and confidence of youth, now exhibited a new
feature as a boxer. The odds had changed five to four on Jones. The
eighth and ninth were spiritedly contested; but, in the tenth round,
Belcher put in some tremendous hits, with the rapidity of lightning.
This immediately altered the appearance of things, Jem was looked
upon as the favourite, and the odds were laid accordingly. Yet Jones
nobly contested for victory for the space of thirty-three minutes,
before he gave in. Jem weighed twelve stone six pounds, and Tom
Jones but ten stone five pounds. It should not escape the memory,
that Jones stood up to Belcher (before that distinguished pugilist lost
his eye) considerably longer than any other man ever did.
In 1798 Jones was matched in London to fight George Nicholls
(the conqueror of Cribb). Mendoza and Johnson took Tom down to
Lansdown, near Bath, for that purpose; but upon the combatants
stripping, and just as they were about commencing the set-to, the
following singular circumstance occurred:—Nicholls cried out
“Stop!” and observing that Jones was above his height, declared he
would not fight him, and, sans ceremonie, immediately left the ring,
to the great astonishment and disappointment of the spectators.
After some years had elapsed, upon Nicholls arriving in London, a
match was made for 20 guineas, and they tried their skill at
Norwood, in March, 1802. Three rounds were well contested, and
considerable science was displayed; but in the fourth, Nicholls ran
furiously in, and getting his head between Jones’s legs, and catching
fast hold of both his ankles, threw Tom with considerable violence.

This was deemed an infringement upon the rules of pugilism by the
friends of Jones: a considerable interruption was the consequence,
and the fight was at an end. The stakes were demanded on the part of
Jones; but Bill Warr, who seconded Nicholls, would not suffer them
to be given up. Respecting which was the best man, it was impossible
to form anything like a decision. Jones, on his road home, had a turn
up with a man of the name of Carter, who had insulted him about a
challenge from Simpson. Tom, who was not much hurt from the
above contest, set-to with good pluck, and so soon convinced Carter
he was in the wrong, that he sheered off.
Isaac Bittoon, the Jew, had offered himself to Jones’s notice, when
Jem Belcher, who had beaten Jones, generously undertook to find
him backers. Forty guineas were put down, and they met on
Wimbledon Common, July 13, 1801. Jem Belcher seconded Jones. It
was a severely-contested fight, but Bittoon was the heavier and
stronger man, and although Tom displayed great science and
courage, he was unable to come to time (half-minute) at the end of
twenty-two minutes, being hit senseless.
Simpson, a pupil of Tom Johnson’s, upon whom considerable
expectations had been raised, was matched against Jones for 10
guineas a-side, which battle was decided on the Green, near Putney,
in June 1804. It was termed a good fight, and Tom proved the
conqueror.
On August 6th, 1805, Tom Jones fought another Lyons, known as
“the Yokel Jew,” at Hounslow, for 10 guineas a-side. This was one of
the most terrible conflicts in which Tom had been engaged. Yokel
was a desperate punisher, and Jones suffered severely in the fight;
nevertheless Yokel gave in.
Notwithstanding the numerous lists of battles which have been
mentioned, it does not appear that Paddington Jones ever made
pugilism his peculiar profession, but industriously followed through
life his occupation, much respected by his friends for his civility and
good nature. Jones was a man of mild and civil behaviour, and for a
long series of years was well known as master of the ceremonies at
the Fives and Tennis Courts, as a second and an attendant upon
sparring exhibitions.
As a pugilist, Jones is entitled to honourable mention; to a
respectable amount of skill he united game of the first quality. He

turned out several good pupils. His guard was good and his position
ready, with his left arm firm and extended to protect his body from
assault, while his right was on the alert to give the return. Tom was a
hard hitter, used both his hands with equal facility, stood well upon
his legs, and met his man with fortitude.
Notwithstanding the evident disadvantages that Jones had to
contend against in his battle with Jem Belcher—the disparagement
of having been severely punished in numerous battles, and other
hurts from skirmishes, contrasted with Belcher who had scarcely
been pinked, and was blooming from the country—Tom’s conduct
was far above mediocrity.
No man appeared oftener in the character of a second than Tom
Jones, and few understood that duty better than himself. In most of
Randall’s battles Tom performed that office.
It is impossible that we can take our leave of Paddington Jones
without characterising him as a brave pugilist, and well deserving to
occupy a niche in the temple of fame as a straightforward,
courageous, and deserving man. Jones died at his birthplace,
Paddington, August 22, 1833, at the age of 67.

APPENDIX TO PERIOD II.
BILL WARR, OF BRISTOL—1787 ‒1792.
William Warr (incorrectly spelt Ward in many chronologies, etc.)
was one of the many boxers of the Bristol nursery. He was expressly
brought to London to lower the pretensions of Tom Johnson, with
what success we have already seen. He was five feet nine inches in
height, strongly made, with symmetrical breast and arms, robust in
appearance, extremely active, and altogether well framed for a
pugilist. As a second, Will Warr figures in numerous fights of his
period, and was of acknowledged judgment.
After his defeat by Johnson, Warr’s next battle was with Wood, the
coachman, December 31, 1788, at Navestock, Essex. It snowed
incessantly during the combat, “yet,” says the report, “the ardour of
the combatants was not chilled, nor even the curiosity of the
spectators damped. The snow, however, did not fail to have its effects
upon the battle; for the boards of the stage being rendered extremely
slippery, the pugilists were unable to keep their feet, and each in his
turn, as well in giving as receiving blows, was brought to the ground.
Warr fought in his usual style, with much clever shifting, and
displayed great agility and science. Considering this Wood’s first
essay, and against one of such experience in the pugilistic art, he
showed great courage and determination. He fought, however, with
too much impetuosity, and by this means exposed himself to the
more deliberate defence of his opponent. For the first twenty
minutes the battle was most admirably contested on both sides. In
five minutes after setting-to Warr succeeded in closing Wood’s right
eye, yet he continued the fight for half an hour with astonishing
firmness, until Warr got some heavy hits in succession on the other
eye, when he was forced to yield the victory.”

His two defeats by Mendoza are reported in the memoir of that
pugilist (pp. 76, 77).
On the 5th of May, 1789, as Bill Warr and Watson were going
down to Stilton to be present at the battle between Mendoza and
Humphries, he met with an unfortunate occurrence. A man of the
name of Swaine, a smith, who was an outside passenger of the same
coach, having had some words with Warr about the merits of
Mendoza, challenged Warr to fight. Accordingly, at the Bell Inn,
Enfield, they turned out, when Warr struck him an unlucky blow in
the chest: Swaine fell and instantly expired. Warr was taken into
custody, and the following Sessions, at the Old Bailey, was convicted
of manslaughter. The whole tenour of the evidence went to show that
Warr tried everything short of cowardice to avoid the encounter.
Stanyard, of Birmingham, who had fought a draw with Andrew
Gamble, an Irishman (one of Pierce Egan’s Irish heroes, renowned
for being beaten, despite the most wondrous qualifications
[76]
), was
liberally backed against Warr for 100 guineas, and they fought at
Colnbrook, October 27, 1792. We may observe that “the fight was
fixed to take place at Langley Broom, but was interrupted by the
interference of the magistrates, and a move took place to Colnbrook.”
We give, as shall be our custom, a report instead of an embellished
paraphrase:—“A stage having been erected, at half-past two Stanyard
ascended, accompanied by Tom Johnson as his second, and Butcher
as his bottle-holder. Shortly afterwards Warr made his appearance,
with Watson for his second, and Joe Ward as his bottle-holder.
Captain Halliday and Mr. Sharp were chosen umpires. Mr. Harvey
Aston, Lord Say and Sele, Mr. Dashwood, Sir Thomas Apreece,
Colonel Hamilton, Mr. Bedingfield, and other distinguished persons
were present.”
At forty-six minutes to two, the combatants being prepared, set-to.

THE FIGHT.
Round 1.—Warr acted on the defensive; some
minutes were lost in sparring, when Stanyard put in a
body blow, but without much effect; they then
exchanged several blows, and Warr was knocked down.
2.—Stanyard displayed superiority, and Warr fell.
3.—Warr gave his adversary a severe blow on the
right cheek, which broke his jaw at the angle. It was
generally allowed to be the severest blow thrown in.
4.—Notwithstanding this misfortune, Stanyard
stood, and never even complained to his second. In this
round Warr was knocked down.
5.—Warr was again knocked down, and at the
conclusion held up his open hand to protect his face.
6.—In this round Stanyard displayed most
astonishing strength, for he fairly held Warr up, struck
him most severely, and threw him down on the stage
with astonishing violence.
7 and 8.—Both these rounds Stanyard terminated by
giving his antagonist a knock-down blow.
9.—Stanyard gave Warr a severe blow under the
right eye, and he again fell.
10.—This was the last and best round, being the only
one of any continuance, and during which much hard
fighting was displayed; Warr gave his opponent four
severe blows on his broken jaw, and it finished by both
coming down.
At the conclusion of this round, although they had
only fought thirteen minutes, Stanyard gave in. His
appearance was in his favour, but no one had any idea
of the injury he had sustained. He was immediately
conveyed to Colnbrook, and medical assistance
procured, when it was found his jawbone was fractured
near the articulation. Warr was in prime condition, and
never displayed greater skill and courage. He
challenged Tom Johnson to fight for a guinea; an
empty boast, as we have elsewhere observed.

Will Warr, miscalculating his skill, sought another trial with the
accomplished Mendoza, who disposed of him in fifteen minutes (see
Mendoza ). Warr became a publican at the One Tun, Jermyn Street,
in after life, and seconded Jem Belcher, Tom Belcher, Henry Pearce
(the Game Chicken), Mendoza, Tom Cribb, and others in important
battles. In December, 1808, we find a benefit advertised at the Fives
Court, for Warr, at which John Gully, Tom Cribb, Dutch Sam,
Dogherty, Tom Belcher, and Richmond, set-to for the veteran. Warr
died in March, 1809, and was buried in St. James’s burial ground, St.
Pancras.
WILL WOOD, THE COACHMAN—1788 ‒1804.
Bill Wood, although his defeats were preponderant, deserves
honourable mention at the hands of the historian of pugilism as one
of the bravest and hardiest of boxers. His opponents were the very
best men of their day. Bill Warr, George the brewer, whom he beat,
Hooper the tinman, Jack Bartholomew (beat), and Isaac Bittoon,
were his antagonists. Wood was a fine straight-limbed man of five
feet eleven inches in height, and twelve stone in weight. He fought
well with both hands, and possessed unquestionable courage. His
style was impetuous, and his attack formidable to all but the most
skilful of defensive boxers.
Wood’s coup d’essai was at Navestock, Essex, as “Captain
Robinson’s coachman,” on the last day of the year 1788. Although
looked upon as a novice in the art pugilistic, he tried all the skill of
Bill Warr before he surrendered. (See Life of Warr, Appendix , p.
120).
So well had our hero acquitted himself that George the brewer
(Ingleston), “renowned as a stand-up fighter,” who had, as we have
seen, beaten John Jackson, and Pickard (twice), having issued a
challenge as Champion, it was accepted by Wood. The stake was 100
guineas, and on the 13th of February, 1793, at Hornchurch, in Essex,
the men met on a stage twenty-four feet square. Wood was seconded
by Joe Ward, while Dan Mendoza attended upon Ingleston. At one
o’clock, the combatants, fully prepared, mounted the stage, and
having shaken hands, set-to immediately. “In the first round Wood

knocked down his antagonist with great violence. George rose
immediately, and with inconsiderate impetuosity attacked his
opponent. Wood, taking advantage of his fury and want of caution,
retreated, and put in a tremendous blow on the point of the jaw,
which broke it: every spectator,” says the report in “Pancratia,”
“heard the crush, and immediately perceived the swelling
consequent on the fracture. The battle was supposed to be at an end,
but George, with unsubdued courage, renewed the attack, and in the
rally dealt Wood a blow upon the head which almost stunned him.
The odds now rose to two to one in favour of George. However, after
twenty-five minutes of severe fighting, in which George received
many heavy blows about the head, he, being almost senseless, gave
in.” The reporter adds: “Wood was much beaten, but every one
feared George would pay the forfeit of his life.”
Wood’s fame now stood so high, that in January, 1794, he was
matched with the renowned Ben Brain (Big Ben) the Champion. Ben
was now approaching his last illness, and a forfeit took place.
Our hero was not allowed to stand without a customer. Hooper
was in the height of his fame, having beaten Wright and Watson,
made a draw with Big Ben, and defeated Bunner and George
Maddox. Yet Wood was thought by many good enough to lower his
pride. They met at Hounslow, June 22, 1794, as related in the
memoir of Hooper (p. 107); and Wood was beaten, but not
ingloriously.
In the first month of 1797, we find Wood matched with the famous
Jack Bartholomew, who had just beaten Firby (the young Ruffian).
See Bartholomew , Appendix to Period III. The battle came off
between Ealing and Harrow, on a stage, January 30th, 1797.
[77]
“At
two o’clock the men set-to; but the amateurs were sadly
disappointed. Bartholomew was sadly out of condition, and not only
made no good defence against Wood’s attacks, but shifted, and
struck foul; repeating the offence at the end of fifteen minutes, the
battle was given in favour of Wood. The Duke of Hamilton and other
distinguished ring-patrons were present, and Wood told his Grace he
would fight Bartholomew again in a fortnight for £500, or when he
pleased, if the Duke would back him.”
Wood, who was always a steady and industrious man, now retired
for a while, pursuing the then flourishing avocation of a hackney

coachman, and driving his own horses and lumbering leathern
convenience. He often, however, figures in the interval as second or
bottle-holder in the battles of the day. Isaac Bittoon, the Jew, having
beaten Paddington Jones, and fought a drawn battle with George
Maddox, was anxious for a shy at Wood, now a veteran in the field;
the match was long talked about, but at length arranged for the 16th
of July, 1804, for a purse of 50 guineas and some bye bets to be
received by the winner. The magistrates were upon the alert, but the
secret of the chosen spot was well kept, Willesden Green being
named as the Campus Martius so late as the evening before the
battle, which took place as early as ten o’clock on the Monday
morning. It would have been well had the same secrecy and
promptitude been practised in many more recent fights, which have
come to grief from the publicity given to their probable whereabouts,
and above all, from the abominable delays at the ring side.
The field at Willesden was early filled, and at three quarters past
ten the combatants entered “a roped-ring.” Wood immediately began
to strip, and appeared to be in robust condition. Bittoon followed in
high spirits, and after the usual ceremony, the men set-to. Wood was
defeated in thirty-six rounds, occupying fifty-six minutes; Wood, in
the words of the contemporary report, “being quite worn out.” (See
Bittoon , for the battle).
This was Wood’s last appearance within the ropes. He was for
many years a well-known character among the Jehus at the West
End. In May of the year 1821, we find under the head of “Some Slight
Sketches of Boxers, who have retired from Public Contests, on
account of Age or other Infirmities,” the following: “Bill Wood, the
coachman, once the formidable opponent of Bill Warr, Bartholomew,
George the Brewer, and Bittoon, enjoys a fine green old age, and
frequently takes a peep into the Fives Court to see the young ’uns
exhibit.” Wood died in St. Pancras, in January, 1839, aged 64.
GEORGE INGLESTON, THE BREWER—1789 ‒1793.
George Ingleston, known as George the Brewer, was a powerful
six-foot man, of somewhat heavy build, undoubted courage, but, like
many big ones, fought slowly in comparison with lighter and more

agile men. He was, however, “acknowledged to be a tremendous hard
hitter,” says “Pancratia.” “He was first introduced to the notice of the
amateurs by the celebrated Tom Johnson,” says the same authority,
“who tried to cultivate his powers, but did not form any high opinion
of his skill. His guard was low, like his renowned master’s; he never
shifted, but unflinchingly met the coming blow, and trusted rather to
a return than the quick and effective method of a counter hit.”
We shall pass the earlier and unimportant battles of George the
Brewer to come to his most important contest, that with John
Jackson, which came off in presence of a distinguished company, in
the yard of the Swan Inn, at Ingatestone, in Essex, on the 12th of
May, 1789. Brain (Big Ben) seconded Jackson, Tom Tring (the
Carlton House porter) attended upon Ingleston.
On setting-to the betting was even, but the superior skill of
Jackson was evident in the first round, when after some skilful stops
and parries, Jackson at the close of the round brought down the
brewer. In the second and third rounds the skill and activity of
Jackson brought the odds to seven to four in his favour. In this
round, owing to a heavy rain which had fallen in the forenoon, the
boards of the stage were extremely slippery, and in breaking ground
Jackson slipped, and fell with such violence that his ankle was
dislocated and the small-bone of his leg broken. There was no
alternative but surrender; although the report of the day states that
Jackson “offered to be fastened down to a chair (after the fashion of
sailors on a chest in their boxing matches), provided the Brewer
would do the like, and thus fight it out.” There was pluck at any rate
in the proposition; but George, who saw the stakes within grasp, was
not so green as to let go “the bird in hand.”
On the 23rd of October, 1789, Ingleston met and defeated Pickard,
called “the Birmingham Champion.” The battle took place on a
twenty-four foot stage, at Banbury, in Oxfordshire. It is described in
the report as a desperate stand-up fight, in which, after thirty-four
minutes of “fierce” rallying, Pickard cried “enough!” and Ingleston
was hailed the victor. This was fought the day after the great battle of
Johnson and Perrins. See ante, Life of Tom Johnson .
Pickard was not, however, satisfied of his inferiority to George, and
again found friends to back him for 50 guineas against his old
opponent. They met at Shipston-upon-Stour, Staffordshire,

Welcome to our website – the perfect destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. We believe that every book holds a new world,
offering opportunities for learning, discovery, and personal growth.
That’s why we are dedicated to bringing you a diverse collection of
books, ranging from classic literature and specialized publications to
self-development guides and children's books.
More than just a book-buying platform, we strive to be a bridge
connecting you with timeless cultural and intellectual values. With an
elegant, user-friendly interface and a smart search system, you can
quickly find the books that best suit your interests. Additionally,
our special promotions and home delivery services help you save time
and fully enjoy the joy of reading.
Join us on a journey of knowledge exploration, passion nurturing, and
personal growth every day!
ebookbell.com

Reflexivity In Applied Linguistics Opportunities Challenges And Suggestions Sal Consoli

About This Presentation

Slide Content

Tags

Categories

Download

Quick Actions

Statistics

Related Slideshows

Reflexivity In Applied Linguistics Opportunities Challenges And Suggestions Sal Consoli

About This Presentation

Slide Content

Slide 1

Slide 2

Slide 3

Slide 6

Slide 7

Slide 8

Slide 9

Slide 10

Slide 11

Slide 12

Slide 13

Slide 14

Slide 15

Slide 16

Slide 17

Slide 18

Slide 20

Slide 21

Slide 22

Slide 23

Slide 24

Slide 25

Slide 26

Slide 27

Slide 28

Slide 29

Slide 30

Slide 31

Slide 32

Slide 33

Slide 34

Slide 35

Slide 36

Slide 37

Slide 38

Slide 39

Slide 40

Slide 41

Slide 42

Slide 43

Slide 44

Slide 45

Slide 46

Slide 47

Slide 48

Slide 49

Slide 50

Slide 51

Slide 52

Slide 53

Slide 54

Slide 55

Slide 56

Slide 57

Slide 58

Slide 59

Slide 60

Slide 61

Slide 62

Slide 63

Slide 64

Slide 65

Slide 66

Slide 68

Slide 69

Slide 70

Slide 71

Slide 72

Slide 73

Slide 74

Slide 75

Slide 76

Slide 77

Slide 78

Slide 79

Slide 80

Slide 81