Questioning the no-touch discourse in physical education from a children's rights perspective

Abstract

AbstractIn this paper we question the rationality of 'no-touch policies' and offer an alternative approach to the matter of physical contact between teachers and students in the context of physical education (PE) in schools. Earlier research has drawn attention to how a discourse of child protection is starting to affect how physical contact is viewed in PE practice. The avoidance of intergenerational touch is increasingly justified by referring to the children's rights agenda. Here, arguments for 'no-touching' are linked to children's right to be protected from harm. In the paper we explore a children's rights-based viewpoint that supports the use of and need for physical contact in PE teaching by developing theoretical and practice-based arguments. An alternative children's rights perspective, based on rights theorising, is used to formulate the theoretical argument. Interviews with 16 PE teachers about their experiences of physical contact in their pedagogical work form the practice-based arguments. The two arguments provide a way of looking at intergenerational touch in education from the vantage point of children's human right to develop to their full potential, which can support a need for physical touch in pedagogical situations.Keywords: TouchingIntergenerational touchChild protection policyChildren's rightsPhysical education Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.Notes1. For a deeper discussion of this complexity, see the special edition of Sport, Education and Society entitled 'Hands off! The practice, policy, and politics of touch in sport and educational settings' (Piper et al., Citation2013a, Citation2013b), and also the book Touch in Sports Coaching and Physical Education (Piper, Citation2015).2. In line with this, Andrzejewski and Davis (Citation2008, p. 793) claim that 'issues related to touch in classrooms are really challenging to talk about as there is no readily available discourse'.3. The research has approached these matters from two different angles: initially empirical and descriptive investigations, which highlight and reveal harm and abuse in sports settings (e.g. Fasting, Citation2005), and more recently from a more critical perspective (e.g. Piper et al., Citation2013a). Our own concern is in line with the latter.4. Bobbio's concept is proliferation and includes more aspects than contextualisation.5. The project is funded by the Swedish National Centre for Research in Sports (CIF). See also Ohman and Grundberg Sandell (Citation2015).