Touching in Physical Education – A Climate of Moral Panic?

Author(s):

Marie Öhman(presenting / submitting)

Conference:

ECER 2014

Network:

18. Research in Sports Pedagogy

Format:

Paper

Session Information

18 SES 10 A, 'Physical' Education: Dilemmas and Considerations

Paper Session

Time:

2014-09-04

15:30-17:00

Room:

B103 Sala de Aulas

Chair:

Maud Hietzge

Contribution

In recent years an increasing public anxiety associated with physical contact between children and adults in sport- and school settings has emerged. Discussions about sexual harassment, abuse and physical contact have blossomed and led to a series of policy documents and “Child Protection Tool Kits” in which sanctions for ‘good and bad’ interactions are defined.

The paper takes its starting point in the ‘politics of touch’ and the child protection policies that are now prominent in society. Through a Foucauldian lens, the paper investigates how general discourses and wider worries around sexual abuse and child protection in society influence teachers’ professional work in PE and the new types of vulnerability that these discourses may generate. It is a matter of problematising[SGF1] the tensions between the protection of children and the problems of sexual abuse on the one hand, and the consequences of enforcing strict codes of conduct on teachers’ pedagogical interactions in the practice of PE on the other. If PE practice becomes a ‘no touch zone’, how will this impact teachers' pedagogical work and students’ learning?

A body of academic writing highlights sexual abuse in sports settings by focusing on athletes’ experiences of sexual harassment, highlighting the risk factors and emphasising [SGF2] the importance of prevention (Brackenridge, 1997; Fasting, 2005). However, through a more critical approach, a growing body of research explores how sports coaching/teaching has responded to wider concerns in relation to touch, especially as coaches and teachers are now fearful of and confused about being around the children and young people they train and teach (Piper, Garratt & Taylor, 2013). Despite this, there is still a lack of research regarding the relation between teachers’ and pupils’ in PE (Taylor & Garratt 2010).

The theoretical framework draws on Michel Foucault’s work (1980/1991, 1982, 1994), and in particular his work on biopower, discourses and discursive practices as ways of analysing how discourses of child protection constitute new or different teaching situations for PE teachers. Discourses can be said to construct possibilities and restraints for action, and in this sense Foucault’s concept of biopower [SGF3] is fruitful for understanding governance and control over the human body. Using a Foucauldian inspired approach also makes it possible to reflect on and critically examine the consequences of dominating discourses that produce ‘realities’ and lead to specific ways of thinking and acting. It is a matter of looking critically at those things that are taken for granted and appear to be beyond question. Hence, the proper focus of interest and analysis is “identifying the ways in which human beings are individuated and addressed within the various practices that would govern them” (Rose, 1999:43).

[SGF1]Be consistent in your use of the GB ’s’ – see my next comment.

[SGF2]Here the GB ’s’ is used.

[SGF3]It is written as one word at the beginning of the paragraph.

Method

The empirical material used in the study is three folded: (i) The texts published by national and international organisations are analysed in order to determine how codes of conduct and ´no touching policies´ are expressed. In this context, the policy documents that specifically deal with children and young people are examined. (ii) Video recorded PE lessons are analysed from a pedagogical point of view in order to identify different types of situations in which physical contact seems to be pedagogically relevant and reasonable in a PE context. The question in focus here is in which situations/activities do students and teachers have physical contact? (iii) Interviews are conducted with experienced PE teachers to investigate whether touching is seen as an integral component in their pedagogical work. The questions in focus here are: Are there situations in which teachers mean that physical contact are necessary and even desirable? What do they think might get lost if PE becomes a “no touch zon”?

Expected Outcomes

The codes of conduct that appear in many of the policy documents advocate a restrictive use of physical contact between adults and young people. The videoed PE lessons show that physical contact between teachers and students takes place in a variety of pedagogical settings, and that these interactions involve both a human/charitable and a professional encounter. In some situations physical contact appears to be a relevant, reasonable and an integral component of pupils’ learning, development and growth. PE teachers find it difficult to deal with ‘risky’ situations, such as when students carry out complex physical activities, and to cope with social situations involving behaviour and manners, where many students need physical contact in order to understand what is going on. The results of this study aim to make a contribution to the issues surrounding the risk and fear of touching in a PE context. It is important to highlight the necessity of child protection, but also the risk that the striving for children’s rights and security could eventually create an inhuman social practice, where sound pedagogical and caring physical interactions are absent. I argue that if in the commendable struggle for children’s rights and security the body becomes forbidden, and as a result is generally sexualised, an inhuman social practice will be created that both contradicts the established educational goals of PE teaching and renders sound pedagogical and caring physical interactions taboo. The professionalism of PE teachers is based on notions of caring, mutual respect and educating young people to engage in positive social and sporting interactions, and embraces the social and moral shaping of future citizens. All this important work involves interpersonal touch, contact and trust.

References

Brackenridge, C. (1997) ‘He owned me basically…’. Woman’s Experience of Sexual Abuse in Sport. International Review for the Sociology of Sport 32, 2: 115-130. Fasting, K. (2005) Research on Sexual Harassment and Abuse in Sport. Idrottsforum.org. [Nordic Sport Science Forum] (www.idrottsforum.org 2005-04-05). Foucault, M. (1980/1991) Questions of Method. In, G. Burchell, C. Gordon & P. Miller, (Eds.) The Foucault Effect. Studies in Governmentality, p. 109 – 133. New York: Pantheon. Foucault, M. (1982) The subject and power, Critical Inquiry, 8(4), 777- 795. Foucault, M. (1990) The use of pleasure: the history of sexuality (Vol. 2). Random House Digital Inc.. Piper, H., Garratt, D. & Taylor, B. (2013a) Hands off! The practice, policy, and politics of touch in sport and educational settings. Sport, Education and Society, 18,5: 575-582. Taylor, B. And Garratt, D. (2010) The professionalisation of sport coaching: relations of power, resistance and compliance. Sport, Education and Society, 15,1: 121-139. Rose, N. (1999) Powers of freedom: reframing political thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Author Information

Marie Öhman (presenting / submitting)

Örebro University, Sweden

Search the ECER Programme

Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
Search for authors and in the respective field.
For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.