In this paper we discuss the physical interaction between teachers and students in Early Childhood Education from a sociological perspective.

Physical interaction between teachers and students is an integral component of teachers’ work in preschools, and numerous psychological and neuro-psychological studies have shown that touch benefits children’s well-being (see e.g. Montagu 1986; Field 2003). Research has however also shown that while most teachers are confident that touch is beneficial for children, fewer of them actually use touch in their professional work. According to the teachers this is in part due to fears of being accused of ‘inappropriate’ touching (Owen and Gillentine 2011; cf. Stamatis 2011).

Jones (2001) and King (2004) have shown that male preschool teachers are more likely than female teachers to be suspected of inappropriate touching of children (cf. Berill & Martino 2002; Foster & Newman 2005; Sargent 2005; Gilbert & Williams 2008). But this phenomenon also affects women (Andrzejewski & Davis 2007; Åberg & Hedlin 2012a).

In an on-going project we are investigating how norms for gender are established, maintained and challenged through physical interaction between teachers and students in preschools. In this paper we will report preliminary results from the project.

The study is inspired by Piper and Stronach’s (2007) concept ‘relational touch’. This concept does not presuppose the meaning of touch in teacher-student interactions. Rather, it opens for a dynamic analysis which search for social, cultural, organizational and material factors impacting on how touch is used and interpreted by teachers in relation to the pedagogical practice. The concept of ‘relational touch’ is in alignment with how we use the concept of gender in the study. The concept of gender deals with how verbal, bodily and material aspects of social relations create a dynamic pattern in gender relations, what Connell has called a gender order (cf. Connell 2009). Thus, we understand touch and gender as norms which are created by and create social, cultural and material practices (Butler 2004). 

Many European and Western societies have seen an expansion of the means to protect children. This has put focus on teachers’ subjectivities. A safe environment for the child demands a ‘safe’ teacher (cf. Johnson 2001; Jones 2004; McWilliam & Jones 2005). Although it has been claimed that the Scandinavian countries has escaped the negative discourse of the ‘safe teacher’ (cf. Cameron 2001) we have indications that this discourse is impacting also on the supposedly gender equal Utopia of Scandinavia. For example, some preschools have regulated physical interaction by prohibiting children’s nudity, and new legislation has been enacted to prevent sexual offenders to work with children (Åberg & Hedlin 2012). To understand touch in preschools it is important to grasp the globalization of this discourse, and in the paper we will relate the developments in Sweden and Scandinavia to the broader European context. We will explore the impact of external and internal governance, i.e. how media reports and changes in educational policies are connected to teachers’ means of reflexivity and self-governance in relation to touch (cf. Alison 2004).

Andrzejewski, Carey E. & Davis, Heather A. (2007). Human contact in the classroom. Exploring how teachers talk about and negotiate touching students. Teaching and Teacher Education. No. 24, pp. 779-794. Berill, Deborah, P., & Martino, Wayne (2002). ”Pedophiles and Deviats”: Exploring Issues of Sexuality, Masculinity and Normalization in the Lives of Male Teacher Candidates. In Rita M. Kissen (Ed.) Getting ready for Benjamin: Preparing teachers for sexual diversity in the classroom. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield. Butler, Judith (2004). Undoing gender. New York: Routledge. Foster, Tor & Newman, Elizabeth (2005). Just a knock back? Identity bruising on the route to becoming a male primary school teacher. Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice. Vol. 11, no. 4. pp 341-358. Johnson, Richard (2001). Rethinking risk and the child body in the era of ‘no touch’. In. Alison Jones (ed.) Touchy subject. Teachers touching children. Dunedin: University of Ontago Press. Jones, Alison (2004). Social anxiety, sex, surveillance, and the ‘safe’ teacher. British Journal of Sociology of Education, Vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 53-66. King, James. R. (2004). The (im)possibility of gay teachers for young children. Theory Into Practice, Vol. 43, no. 2, pp. 122-127. McWilliam, Erica & Jones, Alison (2005). An unprotected species? On teachers as risky subjects. British Educational Research Journal, Vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 109-120. Owen, Pamela M. & Gillentine, Jonathan (2011) Please touch the children. Appropriate touch in the primary classroom. Early Child Development and Care. Vol. 181, no. 6, pp. 857-868. Piper, Heather & Stronach, Ian (2007) Don’t touch! The educational story of a panic. London: Routledge. Åberg, Magnus & Hedlin, Maria (2012a). Förskolläraren – ett hot? (The preschool teacher – a threat?). Norsk pedagogisk tidskrift. Vol. 96, no. 6, pp 441-452.