Piper, Heather & Stronach, Ian. (2008). Don't Touch! The Educational Story of a Panic. Reviewed by Ruth Rees, Queen’s University, Canada

Piper, Heather & Stronach, Ian. (2008). Don’t Touch! The Educational Story of a Panic. London: Routledge Pp. xii + 167         ISBN 978-0415420082 Reviewed by Ruth Rees Queen’s University, Canada July 10, 2009 This book is timely and is very aptly titled, even to its punctuation mark. The title reinforces the semi-hysterical and negative connotation of touching students within the school setting. The premise is that current society believes that touching, i.e., any touching (by anyone of anyone in any circumstances) is bad. The authors, researchers from Manchester Metropolitan University, UK, express their concern with this premise. The book is based upon their qualitative research, questionnaires returned from over 400 people: children and young people from the gamut of educational settings: preschool, elementary, secondary, residential schools, a school for those with emotional and behavioural challenges, and Summerhill School, with participants from a variety of privileged to unprivileged backgrounds. Moreover, the researchers observed over 20 different interactions between adults and students and carried out 45 interviews with children and young people; they interviewed 48 teachers and other professionals including headmasters and six parents. Some of the case studies were written up and included as specific chapters in the book, written by other researchers. Chapter 1 introduces the ‘problem’ of touching. It discusses, from an international perspective, the differences between good and bad touching in several different countries, noting its risky nature both for adults and for children. They contend that a moral panic prevails, where “the defensive behaviour of professionals along with this pornographic refuelling by the media…help to reproduce the very situation we would all claim to decry…the fear of accusation of some form of abuse” (p. 11). Their concern is that “these same defensive practices are contributing towards the creation of a nation of abusers…” (p. 11). Chapter 2 is written by Catherine Scott, from the University of Wollongong in Australia. Her contribution is a discussion about the decline of trusting in our society, and the increase in suspicion that anyone or everyone is a potential abuser, including those in traditional positions of power and authority (e.g., teachers, academics, and, unfortunately, researchers). Scott focuses on the now tenuous role of research ethics committees; they were originally established to protect the participants, through informed consent. However, a more contemporary view in this “climate of fear” (p. 21) could also be construed as limiting or constraining faculty members in their freedom of research (and, in particular, research on a unacceptable subject such as touching). Moreover, in our efforts to ensure the protection of children (another concern of ethics committees), Scott contends that we could end up, in essence, silencing through eliminating those voices of children, the very same children who we are trying to protect by uncovering, through research, abusive touching! Chapter 3 outlines the UK legislation that relates to this issue. Interestingly, the authors could find no specific legislation that inhibits the touching of children. A criminal record check (used widely by school boards in England, Australia, and North America) only ensures is that individuals with no known prior record of abusing children may be hired to work in places where children are present. Vague and implicit policy since the early 1990s has voiced the need to safeguard touching practices. Yet, the authors contend, these growing precautions toward child protection “make omnipresent the potential of the sexual monster—or the inappropriate toucher” (p. 35). Chapter 4 reports data on the above and other issues gleaned from 402 qualitative responses to the authors’ questionnaire (which was not included in this book). Respondents were ambivalent as to the ‘policy’ on no touching: either they reported it as a straightforward (no touch) policy or were told to rely on their common sense in terms of handling situations. The UK Local Educational Authorities (LEAs) were found uniformly to have the same wording on their policy documents, following as the authors indicated the same script. My own work on policy has revealed that any policy without procedures and/or explanation reveals an inadequacy of the policy makers to communicate it appropriate. I loved the quote that the authors inserted from one headmaster who dared speak against the common response, reinforcing the authors’ argument: Bear in mind the lesson of history—eccentric grumpy old ladies were burnt to death as witches by jumpers on a hysterical bandwagon…Not everyone who comforts a hurt child should be at risk of being labelled as a paedophile. (p. 47) Chapter 5 presents the theory underpinning the authors’ argument relying on Nancy’s (1993) and Montagu’s (1971) work. The authors point out the historic nature of past behaviours and transgressions in terms of touching. Nancy presented the idea of ‘free touch’, i.e., the concept of one having the freedom to touch, which, the authors wrote is “analogous to ‘free speech’” (p. 65). The authors conclude with the statement that “incorporating freedom within a frame of restrictions (or licences) is to rest freedom on a founding unfreedom” (p. 65). The next five chapters report the findings of the research, using the case study approach to focus on the different educational contexts. The first case study in chapter 6 is on the early years, using two playgroups. Those early year practitioners are aware of the prevailing no-touch norm and, for the most part, act accordingly. In some instances, this response is to the detriment of the young child where a demonstration of the caring nature of the practitioner (ironically called ‘a caregiver’) would have been more appropriate, given the situation. The authors too point out the irony of the situation where these professionals are seemingly more concerned about others watching them then their own appropriate response to meet the immediate needs of the child (e.g., a hug to make the hurt go away). Chapter 7 is written by Helen Lawson, a researcher from the authors’ same university, on a small infant and junior school in rural England. She found that the adults interviewed had their own “view on touch and pupils. Although it was felt that not to touch children could be detrimental to their emotional and physical well-being, there was no agreement on the parameters of touching…some teachers had no qualms at all about using reassuring touch whereas for others touching a child, who is merely seeking comfort and reassurance, is a minefield…” (p. 95). The irony is that the school indicated that it promoted “a caring and family ethos” (p. 95). Helen Bowen, manager of the South Manchester Women’s Aid, wrote chapter 8, describing the secondary school case study. The researchers had great difficulty in gaining access to a secondary school, as many headmasters refused to get involved in the study. Through personal contacts and knowledge of a ‘maverick’ headteacher, they gained access to that school. During the course of their study, however, the headteacher changed, to one more business-like. Teachers referred to themselves as being in loco parentis and reported that they would only “touch or hug their pupils as parents might … in exceptional circumstances” (p. 100). Teachers were reported of being fearful of being unjustly accused; furthermore, that feeling of unease was picked up by some students. Also teachers believed that a “motherly middle-aged woman” had more freedom to touch a pupil than an “unmarried childless man” (p. 100). Bowen found that, despite the no touch policy, there were circumstances where there was touching, although these are supposedly not permitted. The case study chapter on a residential Special Need school (identified as a school with children who have severe disabilities) is written by John Powell, another researcher at the same UK university. The school welcomes children with autistic challenges, communication and hearing difficulties, and/or behavioural issues. The policy is that “less touch, not more, is a better or at least safer option…recognising the rights of the many young people in its care” (p. 110). The concern too is a fear of the negative consequences an improprieties would have on the school’s reputation. But despite this concern, the school accepts its responsibility of sex education of their pupils and, with its residential setting, realizes that these developing students need personal time to experience life. Chapter 10 presents the authors’ case study of Summerhill School. They noted that a more comprehensive version of this case could be found in an earlier paper (Stronach and Piper, 2008). When made aware of the outside world’s concerns of no touching, the students, teachers, administrators considered that policy as “inconceivable” (p. 122). The school is run democratically with full student participation to handle issues as they arise; “each case of ‘touching’ or ‘not touching’ was decided on its own merits” (p. 134); social sanctions are prevalent. Here the authors introduce the concept of ‘relational touch’ where the outside world required distance or a pushing away of adults, yet the school and the school’s culture were such that people were always in touch with others (and with themselves). Adults were aware of the outside world and the risks of touching; that threat was perceived to some degree by administrators and teachers within Summerhill. The final chapter, 11, revisits the main themes of the book and “ends with a call for a more ethical practice, one that encourages professionals not to slavishly follow ‘no touch’ guidelines, but to put touch back into context (i.e., relationships) and take account of trust and friendships’” (p. 135). The research indicated that the authors’ premise of no-touching practices as problem-laden was well founded. They assert that educators as professionals should “be based on a sophisticated judgement of motive and context which is guided partly by ‘good sense’” (p. 146); this they refer to as motives, context, and values. Stronach and Piper (2008) propose a rethinking of the concept through the child’s perspective, rather than being controlled by ill-founded “assumptions of horror, harm, and abuse” (p. 146). This is an extremely well-written book. The prologue clearly lays out the chapters and different contributors; the structure is effective with the different case studies demonstrating the increasing absurdity and inapplicability of the existing implicit ‘no touching’ policy in existence in many schools/systems in England (and elsewhere). The comprehensive endnotes and references provided sufficient assistance in helping the reader gain an understanding of the content. I would suggest that further editions include the questionnaire used by the authors, and perhaps even their letter requesting participation in this study. Chapter five, the theoretical chapter, I found to be somewhat obtuse, undoubtedly because of the indirect approach to the subject of touching, despite being forewarned by the authors. I am presuming that the other contributors (i.e., Scott, Bowen, and Powell) were the lead researchers of those other schools; perhaps a brief explanation should have been added to the prologue. The quotes that were included from some of the interview participants and from other references were, I thought, carefully selected and most appropriate. In fact, I have taken the liberty of using some of those same quotes in my review here. I would urge any educator—academic and practitioner—to take Piper and Stronach’s advice; collectively we need to rethink this widespread "no touch" implicit policy. Moreover, we must consider the implications first from the children’s perspective (putting the needs of students first) and only then from the perspective of an adult professional. Under what conditions and by whom is touching appropriate and preferred (to demonstrate the caring nature of the supposed educator as caregiver)? Just as we are striving to reduce prejudices in our classrooms and schools, we should also be aiming at eradicating the societal stereotype of touch and touching. I applaud the authors and their fellow researchers for pursing this topic and more so given the obvious challenges they faced: ethical clearance, participants, and the anathema of the topic itself. The parallel between the need for academic freedom (freedom to research) and the freedom to touch makes this topic even more important to resolve, and to resolve soon. References Montagu, A. (1971). Touching. The human significance of the skin, 3rd edition. New York: Harper and Row. Nancy, J.-L. (1993). The birth to presence, (translation). B. MacDonald. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Stronach, I., & Piper, H. (2008). Can liberal education make a comeback? The case of ‘relational touch’ at Summerhill School. American Educational Research Journal, 45(1), 6-37. About the Reviewer Ruth Rees, PhD Professor of Education Queen’s University Kingston, Ontario, Canada Dr. Ruth Rees is Professor and Registrar in the Faculty of Education at Queen's University in Kingston, Canada. She is a research-practitioner, carrying out research in educational leadership in order to contribute to more effective leadership practices. She teaches in both the BEd and graduate programs in Education, and is the Director of the Principals' Qualifications Program that is provincially mandated for those educators whose goal is to be a vice-principal or principal in a public school in Ontario. She is also working with three Institutes of Education in the People's Republic of China to assist in the development of leaders of schools there.