To Örebro University

Physical contact between teachers and students in physical education (PE) has been a troubling, complex and unsolved issue. Research has shown that PE teachers struggle with high levels of fear, insecurity and anxiety when it comes to physical contact with students. However, most of the research conducted so far has focused on a few countries and in regard to the dominant no-touch societal discourse related to sexual connotations. Research from other countries on PE-related touch and other non-sexual physical contact topics is still missing from the literature. This paper aims to explore touch within the PE arena in Argentina and France. Data were generated with a group of eight PE teachers, four from France and four from Argentina. Results suggest that even though teachers were well aware of the widely spread discourse regarding sexual harassment, they discussed the concerns of touch in PE in different ways. Touch was considered necessary for both emotional support and the avoidance and treatment of injuries. In some cases, teachers were concerned about the admissibility of touch involving students with religious beliefs, and some acts of violence. The conclusions of this study reveal a shift in the ‘risks’ surrounding teacher-student physical contact, and the less-discussed presence of risks other than those related to sexual implications when considering other countries. The conclusions also revolved around the changes of PE teachers’ professional subjectivities over the last few decades.

Physical contact between adults and children in educational setting has been a well debated subject in research over the past 20 years. Although physical contact is often regarded as an important pedagogical tool, it has given rise to an increased awareness amongst sports coaches, physical education and preschool teachers about the possible negative consequences of its use in these settings. The aim of this article is to map the current literature on physical contact inphysical education, sports coaching and the preschool and identify research gaps by means of a scoping review, i.e. after 20 years ofresearch in the field of intergenerational touch what can be said to be known in the field and what possible gaps are there in the research? The research questions are: (i) Which journals, countries, settings, theories and methods are represented in the research field? (ii) Which central themes and knowledge gaps can be identified? The results show that the research field has expanded significantly in the last 20 years, both in terms of the number of published articles, the number of countries represented in the research and the number of journals in which articles on the topic have been published. The central themes identified in the articles included in the review cover the following topics: fears related to physical contact, resistance, cultural differences, the functions and needs of physical contact and the professional identity of sports coaches, physical education and preschool teachers. It is concluded that studies that could lead the research field forward would ideally focus on intersectionality, or how practitioners’ fears of physical contact impact their pedagogical work with students.

Research within the field of intergenerational touch has shown that there is a tension between the need to use physical contact as an obvious pedagogical tool, and the no-touch discourse. Within this tension physical contact between physical education teachers and students has also been shown to be a gender/ed issue with heteronormative points of departure. The aim of this study is to investigate how young adult female students’ talk about physical contact between teachers and students in physical education is related to heteronormativity. The study takes its starting point in Foucault’s work on discourses and Butler’s performative perspective. Thirteen female students in upper secondary school were interviewed in four focus groups using photo elicitation. In the findings, three performatives are identified that show how the students’ talk about physical contact between teacher and student in physical education is related to heteronormativity. The three performatives are: (a) gendering with age; (b) being wary of men; and (c) feeling sympathy for men. The paper discusses the effects the heteronormative discourse has on young adult female students and male teachers in relation to physical contact in physical education.

Physical touch is a basic need of all people, regardless of age or life situation. It can provide security, well-being and belonging. But negative perceived physical touch can generate emotions such as fear, vulnerability and perceived as violations. As a consequent of the #metoo movement in the fall of 2017, it’s a risk that physical contact and especially physical touch are avoided by professions where it’s central. For example, in the context of education, studies show that sports teachers in many countries have become more cautious and avoid having physical contact with students due not to being misinterpreted as negative touch (Fletcher, 2013; Öhman, 2016; Piper, Garratt & Taylor, 2013). 

In healthcare, caregivers who use physical touch in their work with disabled and elderly people have also become insecure and worried that they may be misunderstood (Bergstrand, 2018). A review shows that healthcare professionals see physical touch as part of the work but want to be the initiator of the contact, not that it should be initiated by the patients (Kelly et al. 2018).

The use of physical touch in healthcare is also affected by the need to avoid contamination and widespread of infections agents, a question with extra relevance in the light of the Covid-19 pandemic.

There is currently a lack of knowledge about how physical touch is experienced and used. As a first step is to increase the knowledge and understanding of how physical touch is experienced and used in healthcare by mapping studies explored physical touch both in daily care but also from the perspective of nursing students. With increased knowledge, a basis for developing interventions/teaching modules can be generated.

This chapter focuses on how the subject content that is highlighted in school can be understood in terms of power. In Foucault’s notion of power, power is not a question of who has, hold or exercises power. Power is seen as embodied in people’s everyday actions, for example the content (knowledge, norms and values) that is offered to students in a teaching situation. The chapter explains how the subject content guides students in certain directions and thereby favours certain ways of thinking and acting, which in turn create opportunities and restraints for students to understand and look at themselves and their environment in specific ways. The teaching practice in a school subject is often rooted in habits and traditions, and we often regard the content as natural and obvious. By highlighting the power dimension, the authors want to offer teachers a way of reflecting on the consequences of the choice of content. The chapter is illustrated with examples of classroom practices in environmental and sustainability education.

This chapter focuses on how the subject content that is highlighted in school can be understood in terms of power. In Foucault’s notion of power, power is not a question of who has, hold or exercises power. Power is seen as embodied in people’s everyday actions, for example the content (knowledge, norms and values) that is offered to students in a teaching situation. The chapter explains how the subject content guides students in certain directions and thereby favours certain ways of thinking and acting, which in turn create opportunities and restraints for students to understand and look at themselves and their environment in specific ways. The teaching practice in a school subject is often rooted in habits and traditions, and we often regard the content as natural and obvious. By highlighting the power dimension, the authors want to offer teachers a way of reflecting on the consequences of the choice of content. The chapter is illustrated with examples of classroom practices in environmental and sustainability education.

Social studies have often been explored as dis-embodied which results in a limited view of what happens in the classroom. Based in Dewey’s transactional view of embodied relationality, Todd’s discussion on the liminality of pedagogical relationships and recent theoretical contributions into embodied learning and body pedagogics, the purpose is to explore students’ embodied engagement as an important but often overlooked aspect of social studies in school. The focus is on pedagogical encounters in terms of how students’ actions acquire a certain function in the classroom. Three embodied engagements— (i) disengaged encounters, (ii) screened encounters, and (iii) educative encounters—are identified and discussed in terms of the liminality of pedagogical encounters.

A growing anxiety around intergenerational touch in educational settings has both emerged and increased in recent years. Previous research reveals that Physical Education (PE) teachers have become more cautious in their approaches to students and they avoid physical contact or other behaviour that could be regarded as suspicious (Fletcher, 2013; Öhman, 2016; Piper, Garratt, & Taylor, 2013). Some also feel anxious about how physical contact might be perceived by the students. The purpose of this article is to investigate physical contact between teachers and students in PE from a student perspective. This is understood through the didactic contract. For this purpose, focus group interviews using photo elicitation have been conducted with upper secondary school students in Sweden. One of the major findings is that intergenerational touch is purpose bound, that is, physical contact is considered relevant if the teacher has a good intention with using physical contact. The main agreements regarding physical contact as purpose bound are the practical learning and emotional aspects, such as learning new techniques, preventing injury, closeness and encouragement. The didactic contract is in these aspects stable and obvious. The main disagreements are when teachers interfere when the students want to feel capable or when teachers interfere when physical contact is not required in the activity. In these aspects the didactic contract is easily breached. It is also evident that personal preference has an impact on how physical contact is perceived. In conclusion, we can say that physical contact in PE is not a question of appropriate or inappropriate touch in general, but rather an agreement between the people involved about what is expected. Consequently, we should not ban intergenerational touch, but rather focus on teachers’ abilities to deal professionally with the didactic contract regarding physical contact.

Introduction: The overall interest in this paper is student perspectives of intergenerational touch in physical education (PE), more specifically (1) if and how the students talk about physical contact in relation to heteronormativity in PE, and (2) the consequences of the students talk, for teachers, students and subject content. The study’s motive is based on previous research, revealing that PE teachers have become more anxious and cautious in their approaches to students in terms of touching. Many teachers avoid physical contact with students since it can be regarded as suspicious (Fletcher, 2013; Öhman, 2016; Piper, Garratt, & Taylor, 2013). In addition, previous research has shown that people are, in general, heavily invested in heterosexually inflected gendered identities, in society as a whole (Butler, 1990; Cockburn & Clarke, 2002; Paechter, 2017). As yet, very little is known about students’ perspective on intergenerational touch in PE in relation to heteronormativity, making research in this area important.   

Method: The study draws on interview data collected from 6 focus group interviews with 18 students and takes its starting point in a discourse-analytical tradition using a Foucauldian framework (Foucault, 1978/1991). Further on, a didactical framework, specifically the didactic triangle (Gundem, 2011), is used to discuss the consequences of the students’ talk.

Results: The results show that the students for the most part support physical contact as a pedagogical tool. However, their talk is often heteronormative, which is shown in three themes. Firstly, the students agree that there is a growing tension between male teachers and female students, when girls go from being children to becoming women. Secondly, the students express the need to be wary of men, in general, and thirdly, foremost female students feel sympathy for male teachers, for their exposed situation of being potentially suspected of improper behavior. The consequences of the students’ talk is mainly that male teachers and female students are under more pressure than others in terms of physical contact in PE.

Conclusions: In the prevailing moral discourse, physical contact is often seen in (hetero) sexual terms. Educational environments that have become sexualized in this way hamper teachers’ pedagogical work and are not conducive to students’ learning or development. When physical touch is sexualized, teachers risk being accused of molestation, at the same time students may also become fearful of being molested. A heterosexual perspective prevails in the students’ talk of intergenerational touch, putting pressure on foremost male PE teachers and female students.

References

Butler, J. (1990). Gender Trouble. Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. Routledge

Cockburn, C. & Clarke, G. (2002). “Everybody’s looking at you!”: Girls negotiating the “Femininity deficit” they incur in physical education. Women’s Studies International Forum, 25:6, 651-665.

Fletcher, S. (2013). Touching practice and physical education: deconstruction of a contemporary moral panic. Sport Education and Society, 18:5, 694-709.

Foucault, M. (1978/1991). Governmentality. In G. Burchell, C. Gordon. & P. Miller (Eds.), Governmentality, The Foucault effect. Studies in Governmentality (pp. 87-104). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Gundem, B.B. (2011). Europeisk didaktikk, tenkning og viten. Oslo: Universitetsforlage

Öhman, M. (2016). Losing touch – Teachers’ self-regulation in physical education. European Physical Education Review, 1-14

Paechter, C. (2017). Young children, gender and the heterosexual matrix. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 38:2, 277-291.

Piper, H. Garrat, D. & Taylor, B. (2013) Child abuse, child protection and defensive ’touch’ in PE teaching and sports coaching. Sport, Education and Society, 5, 583-598.