Intergenerational touch in physical education in relation to heteronormativity: Female students’ perspectives

Intergenerational touch as a research field

Intergenerational touch as a research field goes back approximately 15–20 years and has mainly focused on issues relating to physical contact between adults and children in sport, the preschool and PE. Research has shown that there is an increased level of anxiety about physical contact amongst professionals in these areas (Andrzejewski and Davis, 2008; Fletcher, 2013; Jones, 2004; Öhman and Quennerstedt, 2015; Piper and Smith, 2003; Piper et al., 2013). The greatest fear is of being suspected of improper behaviour, or being falsely accused of molestation or sexual harassment. At the same time, physical contact in PE is often regarded as necessary and an essential part of PE by teachers and students alike (Caldeborg et al., 2017; Fletcher, 2013; Öhman, 2017). It is also a well-known fact that sports coaches, and PE and preschool teachers feel that something that was previously not questioned has now become risky behaviour (Duncan, 1999; Fletcher, 2013; Öhman, 2017; Taylor et al., 2014). As Jones (2004: 55) puts it: ‘where touch is concerned, teaching is a risky business’. In other words, the no-touch discourse has made PE teachers more reluctant to use physical contact as a pedagogical tool, which in turn can have a negative effect on students’ learning and development in the subject. However, there are differences in how physical contact is viewed or debated in different countries. In Sweden, the debate about physical contact in PE is still fairly new, whereas in more risk-averse countries, such as the US, UK and New Zealand, it is more accentuated (Burke and Duncan, 2016; Öhman, 2017; Öhman and Grundberg-Sandell, 2015).

The heteronormative discourse in society and in school PE

It is important to describe how we, in this study, define heteronormativity. Our analysis is informed by a similar concept of heteronormativity as that suggested by Larsson et al. (2009: 4), namely as ‘a tendency in our culture to interpret social interaction from the given standpoint that everyone is heterosexual, and that heterosexual desire is related to boys and girls being different and “opposite”’. We could even say that, regardless of age, the majority of the population (in western society) heavily invest in heteronormative discourses (Coates, 2013; Cockburn and Clarke, 2002; Paechter, 2017). In order to understand this investment in heteronormative discourses, Butler’s concept of the ‘heterosexual matrix’ can be useful. According to Butler, the heterosexual matrix refers to a dominant gender model in which a stable sex (male or female) is expressed through a stable gender (masculine or feminine), in order for people to understand and make sense of their own and others’ bodies (Butler, 1990). These stable genders are then ‘hierarchically defined through the compulsory practice of heterosexuality’ (Butler, 1990: 151). In addition, Larsson et al. (2011: 70) describe the heterosexual matrix as ‘a perceptual grid through which people’s looks and actions are interpreted’. In other words, and in accordance with Larsson et al. (2011), the heterosexual matrix conditions how students feel that they can engage in or talk about a certain topic or activity appropriately, in order to be viewed as normal, that is, heterosexual. In addition, the fact that heterosexuality often maintains a gender hierarchy in which women are subordinate to men in western society (Schilt and Westbrook, 2009) is important for understanding our view of heteronormativity.

In PE, the focus in studies of gender and heteronormativity has been on the effects this has had on students, that is, how students feel they should act in order to be viewed as normal, that is, straight or heterosexual (Amade-Escot, 2017; Larsson et al., 2011). How students adapt their ways of acting and being so that they do not deviate from the (heterosexual) image they feel obliged to uphold has also been highlighted (Cockburn and Clarke, 2002; Larsson et al., 2011). When studying young people’s social construction of the ideal body in PE, Azzarito (2009) concluded that students have traditional views of the ideal female and male body and claim that the ideal body is attractive to the opposite sex. Related to the apparent emphasis on differentiating between femininity and masculinity, several researchers have also studied how these gender positions are constructed and how they might be challenged in PE. For example, when reviewing the results of a number of studies conducted over the last 20 years, Amade-Escot (2017) concluded that gender inequalities are common in PE and that gender is constructed differently by students and teachers of PE and also across cultures. Just as PE teachers lean on traditional ideas about gender and avoid challenging gender stereotypes, students tend to do the same and display little resistance to gender stereotypes (Larsson et al., 2009). Rather, ideas about the sexes as naturally different and attracted to each other are reproduced. In other words, gender patterns in PE are a matter of continuity, rather than change (Larsson et al., 2011). One reason for this could be that gender patterns are regarded as ‘natural’ (e.g. girls are weaker than boys). Another reason, as argued by Larsson et al. (2011), is that gender patterns are intertwined with heteronormativity and include a social and cultural ‘demand’ to be normal, that is, heterosexual. There are exceptions, however, and in a study conducted by Larsson et al. (2014) they found that some students did challenge hetero-norms during a dance class, that the teacher also acted on this challenge and, as a consequence, changed his plans for the lesson. Nonetheless, the authors also point out that teachers seldom act on students’ challenges of the hetero-norm, but instead simply let them fizzle out. A problem with dominating discourses, such as heteronormativity, is that being, appearing and acting in certain ways are deemed more correct or socially acceptable than others. This in turn puts pressure on those who do not quite fit into these socially acceptable heterosexual gender stereotypes, but are instead expected to change their ways in order to be viewed as normal and compliant (Cockburn and Clarke, 2002; Coates, 2013; Larsson et al., 2011). As a consequence, heteronormativity in all areas of society is reproduced, which makes it difficult to stray from this ‘normal’ path, be different and resist the dominant discourse.

Connection between intergenerational touch and heteronormativity

What we know about heteronormativity in society and PE, as presented in the previous section, can also be related to issues that have emerged in studies of intergenerational touch. Although heteronormativity in general has not been the focus of studies of intergenerational touch, it is clear that physical contact is often interpreted as something sexual and, specifically, heterosexual. Jones (2004) concludes that in contemporary society, children are viewed as sexually vulnerable due to the potentially dangerous sexuality of adults/teachers. Indeed, the teachers in the Öhman (2017) study were reluctant to demonstrate movements with students of the opposite sex. In addition, Berg and Lahelma (2010: 39) describe a male teacher’s reasoning about assisting students in gymnastics: ‘Touching acquired its sexualized meaning only due to the fact that it occurred between a male and a female’. This, together with similar studies, shows that physical contact can be regarded as something (hetero)sexual and that male PE teachers in particular are more troubled by fears of physical contact than their female counterparts (Foster and Newman, 2005; Jones, 2004; Munk et al., 2013; Öhman, 2017). For example, Munk et al. (2013) discuss the changed behaviour of male preschool teachers due to an increased focus on paedophilia in society. In order to minimize the risk of being accused of sexual abuse, PE teachers in different countries have now limited their use of physical contact with students (Burke and Duncan, 2016; Jones, 2004; Öhman, 2017). It can therefore be observed that ‘no touching’ characterizes the creation of the safe teacher, the safe practice and the safe child (Fletcher, 2013; Jones, 2004; Öhman and Quennerstedt, 2015). Unfortunately, being on the safe side and avoiding physical contact can also mean that all teachers are viewed as potential molesters who require constant surveillance (Jones, 2004; Taylor et al., 2014), even though student voices indicate that this is not always the case (Caldeborg et al., 2017).

The research presented above clearly shows that heteronormative ideals predominate in society and school (Azzarito, 2009; Coates, 2013; Cockburn and Clarke, 2002; Larsson et al., 2009, 2011; Paechter, 2017). In addition, male teachers seem to feel more at risk of being suspected of improper behaviour than their female colleagues (Foster and Newman, 2005; Jones, 2004; Munk et al., 2013; Öhman, 2017). Most research on intergenerational touch in PE has previously been conducted from a teacher’s perspective. However, in a study by Caldeborg et al. (2017), the major finding was that physical contact between PE teachers and students needed to have a clear purpose in order for students to support it as a pedagogical tool. But the issue is more complex than that. The ‘clear purpose’ is often understood through implicit and tacit contracts between teachers and students, which can be difficult to comprehend or interpret. The no-touch discourse that is so apparent in studies of intergenerational touch from a teacher’s perspective is not necessarily as explicit amongst the students. However, the students’ ways of talking about physical contact in PE are informed by an educational environment that in many cases is heteronormative.

This study contributes important knowledge to the field of intergenerational touch in PE. We know that heteronormativity and the no-touch discourse in PE are dominant in western society as a whole. Finding out how female students talk about physical contact in PE in relation to heteronormativity can help us to better understand and discuss the consequences for the students, their teachers and the subject content in PE.

Data gathering and participants

The study reported in this article is part of a larger data collection (Caldeborg et al., 2017) originally consisting of six focus group interviews (two of which were all male and four all female) using photo elicitation. The data used in this article consists of the four all-female focus group interviews, involving a total of 13 students who were interviewed during their final year at an upper secondary school in western Sweden. The focus group interviews lasted between 18 and 30 minutes. The school offers vocational and educational programmes and the majority of the students at the school are ethnic Swedes from middle-class homes. Information-oriented selection (Flyvbjerg, 2006) was used to maximize the utility of information from a small group of students. In terms of learning outcomes, the participating students were representative of those who traditionally do well in PE. Accordingly, this group of students could be described as the ‘most likely’ type of participant (Flyvbjerg, 2006: 231) in terms of being able to observe and describe learning in PE. In order to explore the sensitive issue of physical contact in a subject like PE, being comfortable with the PE curriculum and a willingness to share their experiences were regarded as important criteria for participant selection. In view of the study’s potentially sensitive topic, selecting students on a voluntary basis was also regarded as the most ethical strategy. All the participants were over the age of 18 and had 11 years’ experience of PE in school, although in their final year PE was no longer on their timetables. The participants were briefed about the purpose and method of the study prior to the interviews, told that participation was voluntary and that confidentiality would be assured. In addition, the school nurses and school welfare counsellors were informed about the study in case sensitive issues emerged in the focus group interviews that the students needed professional help with. Apart from these more obvious ethical concerns, the ethical procedures in this study follow the Swedish Research Council’s recommendations ² .

Focus group interviews

Focus group interviews are effective in that they trigger memories and information that might not emerge in individual interviews (Fontana and Frey, 2005; Kamberelis and Dimitriadis, 2005). This is largely due to members of the focus group helping each other to remember things. The focus group interview questions were inspired by those posed in the Öhman and Quennerstedt (2015) study and covered areas such as when and why physical contact is used or not used in PE and when it is or is not relevant. For example, the students were first of all asked to describe what they saw in the photos and whether they recognized the situations portrayed in them. The students were also asked questions such as when they considered physical contact between teachers and students to be relevant in PE, in which situations (if any) they considered such contact not to be relevant and how the subject of PE would be affected if physical contact between teachers and students was banned in PE lessons. Thus, although the students were not specifically asked about aspects of heteronormativity, gender issues emerged in a re-read of the focus group interview transcripts. Generally, the outcome of focus groups is more successful if the interviewees do not know each other, but share homogeneity in for example ethnicity, age or gender (Cohen et al., 2011; Patton, 2015). This guideline is generally followed, unless ‘the group will discuss something that is usually only discussed amongst friends’ (Cohen et al., 2011: 437). In this study, the participating students volunteered to take part in groups of their own choice (groups of friends), which meant that no group ended up being mixed gender. However, we are aware that mixed-gender groups could have added new/other valuable perspectives.

Photo elicitation

The main idea with photo elicitation is to use photographs in the interview situation to trigger memories (Collier, 1957; Harper, 2002; Katzew and Azzarito, 2013) and therefore give rise to richer data (Hall et al., 2007; Meo, 2010). In this study, the photos that were used depicted situations in which physical contact was used as a pedagogical tool in PE and helped the students to discuss the portrayed situations in full. The photos selected for this study were inspired by, and somewhat in line with, the situations in which physical touch is used by teachers in PE, as described by Öhman and Quennerstedt (2015). That is, touch as a precondition for certain subject content in PE, such as a teacher holding a student’s legs in a swimming pool to help with breaststroke leg kicks, or a teacher helping a student to do correct dance moves by holding/steering the student’s shoulders. The photos also included touching as a way of creating beneficial conditions for learning, such as a teacher giving a student a high five, or putting an arm around a student’s shoulder in a pep-talk. Lastly, the photos showed touching as a human necessity and an expression of care, such as a teacher comforting a sad student or a teacher giving a student a hug. Fifteen photos were used, all depicting male and female teachers and students. However, when using photos like this it is important that they ‘break the frame’ (Harper, 2002), in the sense of leading to discussions about the topics the researcher is interested in. The photos used in this study were found by googling phrases such as ‘touch in PE’, ‘teacher help in PE’, ‘learning to swim’ or ‘teaching PE’ (or their equivalent in Swedish) and reflected situations that are common in a PE context. In addition, in the focus group interviews the students were specifically asked whether they recognized the situations depicted in the photos and if there were photos that they did not understand. Most of the students confirmed that the photos depicted situations that they found familiar.

Analytical steps

As indicated in the introduction, this study is based on a re-analysis (Alvesson, 2003) of focus group interview transcripts from another study by Caldeborg et al. (2017) and is motivated by: (a) the risk of missing out on the linguistic resources used by students to talk about their experiences of physical contact in PE if the students’ voices are only analysed in terms of the goals and the teaching of PE; and (b) the empirical observation from the previous study that the students talk about themselves and their teachers in a heteronormative way. Inspired by the steps for thematic analysis as described by Braun and Clarke (2006), the transcriptions of the focus groups interviews in the previous study were re-read/analysed for this study. In the continuance of this paper, the methodological concept ‘themes’ is replaced with the more theoretical concept of ‘performatives’. Both researchers familiarized themselves with the transcripts independently and initial ideas and interesting features were coded. The researchers then met to discuss the coded features that were regarded as relevant to the aim of the study and put them in potential performatives. These were then checked in relation to the coded extracts in order to make sure that they formed coherent patterns. Three performatives were generated and quotations relating to each performative were extracted as illustrations. In other words, a systematic process of categorization, guided by the analytical questions (p. 6), led to the performatives.

Methodological discussion

Discussing experiences of physical touch can be both sensitive and difficult for some students. The use of focus groups helps to avoid sensitive issues arising in the interviews and gives the participants an opportunity to speak more generally about a subject (Wibeck, 2010). Further, when using photo elicitation, it is the photographs themselves that are the centre of attention, not the group members (Hall et al., 2007). This can help to avoid some of the tensions that interviewees may experience in one-to-one interview contexts. Thus, these approaches are mainly chosen for ethical reasons. It is also important to be aware that the interviewee and the interviewer bring their own cultural backgrounds to an interview (Cohen et al., 2011). The interviewer in this study is an experienced PE teacher and as such has tacit knowledge (Tracy, 2010) of the particular age group and the PE subject and practice. In the present study, this was an advantage; for example when the students talked about dodgeball, somersaults or a particular dance move, the interviewer immediately knew what the students were talking about. However, previous experience or knowledge of this kind can also colour the researcher’s interpretation of what is being said in the interviews (Öhman, 2007). For instance, it is possible that the interviewer draws premature conclusions about what is being said. For this reason, the analysis of the focus group interview transcripts was conducted jointly by both authors. In addition, the transcripts and drafts of the article have also been peer reviewed in different research environments, consisting of researchers in the field of PE and sport science and also scholars from other fields, in order to minimize the risks of such bias and strengthen the re-analysis.

Both male and female students were interviewed, although in the findings section only examples from the female students are provided and discussed. One reason for this is that there were few explicit references to heteronormativity in the male students’ talk, possibly because the interview questions did not focus on heteronormativity. However, this does not mean that the male students lacked similar experiences. Of the 13 female students who were interviewed, more or less all discussed physical contact between teachers and students in PE in relation to heteronormativity. However, in the findings section only six of the 13 female students are represented, because their responses and comments were the most clear and explicit in terms of exemplifying the identified performatives.

Gendering with age

This performative shows how the female students see themselves as not only students, but also as women in a heteronormative way, and that this happens as they grow older. It is thus not a case of paedophilia, but rather the relationship between a woman and a man. One example of how heteronormativity becomes visible in the students’ talk is a conversation about PE teachers dividing the students into teams by touching their shoulders to show them where to go:

In this quote, the teacher moves from being simply ‘the teacher’ to becoming a gendered person. Emelie automatically refers to ‘the teacher’ as male. At the same time, Linn explains that the teacher is a ‘he’ in this situation because they themselves are young women. This is an example of how the heteronormative discourse penetrates the students’ understanding of the situation. However, Linn’s earlier response (‘I love it that you say he’) at the same time shows an awareness of the heteronormative discourse. In order to understand the students’ experiences of moving from being a student to also becoming a woman, in terms of physical contact in PE, they explain that this happens in the transition from childhood to young adulthood. In the students’ talk about this transition, heteronormative assumptions become visible. For example, several of the students say that young children do not think about the teacher as male or female, but that as children grow older, a heteronormative tension between males and females develops. In one of the groups, the female students discuss a photograph of a young male teacher standing behind a girl aged around 10 and lifting her at the waist to do a pull up on a bar. In the conversation, the girls talk about whether that kind of physical contact is appropriate. As the teacher is simply trying to help the girl, they do not see what else he could have done. One of the girls says that if she was 10 she would not think twice about it, but now that she is older things would be different. The other girls do not fully agree, but the reasoning continues along these lines:

In this quote, Linn and Emelie talk about there being a distinct difference between childhood and womanhood when instructed by a male teacher. One way of understanding this is that as they grow older the girls look upon themselves and the male teacher as heterosexual beings. To them it is natural for a male teacher to be potentially attracted to them as (young) women. Hence, as female students become older, they gender themselves and male teachers in a heteronormative way. It thus becomes clear that the heteronormative discourse in society affects how the female students view both themselves and male teachers. One way of comprehending how the female students have ended up in this relation with the teacher can be understood as a result of the performative gendering with age. This performative shows how the students identify themselves as they advance in the educational system. The performative being wary of men demonstrates how they deal with this identity-formation:

But I think that when you are little you don’t think like that, you think that the grown-up is helping you, but as you get older, you kind of know how it can turn out, you know…and you will hear more when you are older. (Ester)

Being wary of men

The previous performative shows that when the heteronormative discourse trickles down to the students’ discursive practices (in terms of physical contact in PE), as they grow older female students often express themselves and male teachers in gendered and heteronormative ways. However, they also talk about that women are always at risk of being subjected to sexual harassment. In the students’ talk about physical contact in PE, it is thus possible to detect a need to be suspicious or wary of men in general. Here too age has an important role to play. This is recurrent in several of the focus group interviews. An example of the importance of age is a conversation with Idun and Jenny when discussing the age of the child in the photograph described earlier and the differences between childhood and young adulthood:

In this quote, Idun explains why, as a young adult, she is more aware that something like sexual harassment can happen. She relates this to the group’s discussions about physical contact and a photograph of a female student and a male teacher. Another female group also concludes that there is a difference between having male and female PE teachers, in that as female students they are more willing to accept a female teacher’s physical contact than that of a male, because ‘you can get a little more suspicious with a male teacher’ (Emelie). Idun also says: ‘well it is not so often that a woman exposes another woman to abuse’. The girls also say that what they have read or heard affects their views of male PE teachers when it comes to physical contact:

If you have heard about something that has happened (referring to sexual harassment) then you think that it can happen again […], like picture 3, if I had been helped like that then I might have thought, well…something might happen here…if I’m not careful. (Ester)

Here, the students explain that they are wary of men because men have more power. In other words, men’s position in society is more powerful and seemingly of more value, especially in the patriarchal society in which these students live. These girls are part of a man’s world, not the other way around.

The difference between gendering with age and being wary of men is that in the latter, the students’ discussions focus on being prepared for something that might happen. This performative focus on being female in a heteronormative society which means dealing with the relationship between women and men by being wary of men. In contrast, in gendering with age, it is the female students’ views of themselves as not only students, but also as women, that are in focus. Heteronormativity, which is also connected with viewing physical contact as something sexual, is very tangible in several of the focus group interviews. The students argue that it is more acceptable for women to be open about sexual harassment than it is for men. For example, they say that men who are exposed to sexual harassment remain silent in order to avoid being called gay. This in turn indicates that it is men who expose others to sexual harassment (both men and women) and that being regarded as homosexual is uncomfortable:

It therefore seems easier for a woman to express that she has been exposed to sexual harassment than it is for a man – almost as if a woman expects to be exposed or harassed.

Feeling sympathy for men

The previous performatives show how female students move from being ‘just’ students to also being young women. They also show these female students’ feelings of being wary of men as a kind of readiness. At the same time, this third performative shows how female students feel sympathy, or understanding, for men. This last performative is connected to the other two through the heteronormative discourse. Several students agree that women are subordinate to men in society and, because of that, are more or less obliged to show care and sympathy for men in general. However, it seems to these students that many things in society, such as sexual harassment, have become hyped up and that this also affects them. In addition, they claim that as they hear or read so many negative things about rapists, sexual assaults and paedophiles in the newspapers, other media and from people around them, they come to view men in a certain way. This is exemplified by Linn, who says: ‘It’s all so hyped up that you almost think that everyone could be a rapist, which is not the case at all’.

This is obviously a complex issue. The language that is used to report and talk about such issues will affect how students think and act about similar issues in the future. In a heteronormative sense, Linn’s comment that everyone could be a rapist should probably be understood as every man could be a rapist, but not every woman. At the same time, Linn shows that she is aware of the heteronormative discourse by saying: ‘which is not the case at all’. In line with this, the students reflect on and react to the heteronormative discourse by feeling sympathy for men. The students’ assumptions that male teachers may have something sinister in mind when touching students put these teachers in awkward and exposed positions. For example in one focus group, and after some discussion, the students say:

The girls in this extract clearly sympathize with male teachers, who risk being suspected of improper behaviour simply because they are male. Another example of this is when a group of girls are asked whether there is a difference between a male or female PE teacher in terms of physical contact:

It is obvious to these girls that there is a clear difference between being taught by a male or female PE teacher and that they also feel uncomfortable about this. At the same time, it is important to mention that in the girls’ continued reasoning they also say that it all depends on the teacher’s professionalism. If teachers act professionally, it does not really matter what the teacher’s gender is. Some of the girls also reflect that male teachers are more at risk of getting into trouble than female teachers, even if they touch in exactly the same way:

In this quote, the girls make it explicit that a male teacher is more likely to get into trouble than a female counterpart simply because of his gender, which according to them is ‘really stupid’. In several of the focus group interviews the students conclude that the reason why men are more likely to be accused of physical contact in PE is because males rape or sexually harass females in society as a whole. In other words, the students recognize that male PE teachers face certain difficulties when touching students simply because they are men.

According to these findings, it is apparent that heteronormativity affects the students’ discursive practices regarding physical contact in PE. We have presented three performatives in which the female students regulate their talk about physical contact in PE. All three performatives are related to heteronormativity. Gendering with age relates to female students who as they grow older also identify themselves as young women in a heteronormative way. Being wary of men additionally focuses on being prepared for something to happen, for example sexual harassment. Finally, the students recognize that the constant suspicion of males is troublesome for men and as a result feel sympathy for them.