Chapter One: Introduction
‘Touching children should be an expectation, not a taboo.’
(Grant, 2013)
Children living in residential children’s homes in the UK are amongst the most vulnerable members
of our society (Berridge, 1985; Marshall, 2004; Utting, 1997). Residential care is widely considered a
‘last resort’ for many children and young people who cannot be placed elsewhere, and such children
are often labelled as having ‘challenging behaviour’ (Berridge, 2011:4). When the voices of looked
after children (Henceforth, LAC) are sought in research, they consistently highlight the importance of
having a dependable, stable relationship with a trustworthy and reliable adult (Steckley, 2011;
Blades et al, 2011; McLeod, 2010). The relationships between staff and young people are therefore
crucial to children and young people’s experiences within residential care (Lefevre, 2011; Smith,
2009; Berridge, 1986). For these children, whose families are not able to care for them for a
multitude of reasons, these buildings becomes their homes and the staff their substitute families.
Social workers find placements for these children and spend time with them obtaining their wishes
and feelings, but it is the residential care workers who carry out the day to day care (Berridge, 1985).
Children living in residential children’s homes have also been referred to as the ‘new untouchables’
(Marshall, 2004:8), and touch aversion within such settings has provoked academics to warn that
these children may be at risk of ‘touch hunger’ (Lynch and Garret, 2010:389). The psychological and
emotional implications of such aversion can be highly detrimental for children who have often
experienced traumatic and disrupted early childhood experiences. However touch cannot be
researched in isolation, and Steckley (2009) argues that ‘[i]n our struggle to keep touch integrated as
a natural and essential part of providing care to children, we are wise to strongly resist it being
separated from the wider context of relationships’. The role of touch in children’s residential care is
under-researched (Steckley, 2011; Lynch and Garrett, 2010; Ferguson, 2011a). Little is known about
how, why and when staff choose to touch, or not to touch, LAC in these settings. The absence of
knowledge of young people’s perceptions is a distinctively identified gap (Lynch & Garrett, 2010).
Therefore, the importance of understanding how staff relate to young people in residential care is
crucial, and furthermore, the role of touch within this relationship must be clarified. This dissertation
will outline a qualitative research project, utilising participant observation supported by semistructured interviews, designed to acquire depth understanding of this subject area. Observing how
1
staff and young people relate to each other in practice, alongside gaining insight into participants’
worlds through interviews (Denzin, 1997).
The dissertation has four chapters. This chapter introduces and provides a general overview of the
dissertation. Chapter two consists of a literature review, exploring why touch is important in raising
children (Field, 2003), wider themes pertaining to moral panic associated with adults touching
children (Piper and Stronarch, 2008), the role of touch within children and family social care
(Ferguson, 2011a) and finally the role of touch within residential childcare (Steckley, 2011; Berridge,
2011). Chapter three will outline the methodological underpinnings of a qualitative research project
designed to explore this topic. This will include addressing issues such as methodology, participants,
the proposed research field, ethics, methods, data collection, analysis and reflexivity. Chapter four
will outline findings from a modest pilot study based on a day in a residential home for young people
aged 15-17. This will include outlining how the findings and experience of fieldwork will inform the
three year PhD research project. Chapter five will summarise and conclude the dissertation.
2
Chapter Two: Literature Review
‘The greatest sense in our body is our touch sense. It is probably the chief sense in the processes of
sleeping and waking; it gives us our knowledge of depth or thickness and form; we feel, we love and
hate, are touchy and are touched, through the touch corpuscles of our skin.’
(Tayler, 1921:157)
2.1 Why Touch?
For Montagu (1986:128 - original emphasis), the definitions of touch - and the act of touching - are
as follows:
‘Originally derived from the Old French touche, the word touch is defined by the Oxford
English Dictionary as “the action or an act of touching (with the hand, finger, or other part of
the body); exercise of the faculty of feeling upon a material object”. Touching is defined as
“the action, or an act, of feeling something with the hand, etc”. The operative word is
feeling. Although touch is not itself an emotion, its sensory elements induce those neural,
glandular, muscular, and mental changes which in combination we call an emotion. Hence
touch is not experienced as a simple physical modality, as sensation, but affectively, as
emotion.’
What is demonstrated within this definition is that touch, and its subsequent uses, are intensely
complicated; principally owing to the complex interplay between touch and emotion. For Wortham
(2010:128), the complexities of individual difference pertaining to interpretations of touch provoke
the entirely apt dilemma: ‘[t]he question always remains whether touching strokes or strikes the
other’. What is markedly evident therefore is that the specifics of touch within this research project
must be clarified and defined at the preliminary stages of this dissertation, in order to contextualise
a specific area which is both manageable and meaningful. This dissertation is seeking to explore the
role touch plays within the context of adults relating to children in residential children’s homes. In
order to effectively address this area, a number of broader themes need to be considered before
focussing on the intricacies of this topic. Firstly, what research has been carried out in relation to the
significance of touch? Secondly, what can current literature inform us about adults relating to
children in social care, and the role of touch within this? And finally, what has already been
researched in relation to touch in children’s homes, and how can this research project produce
original and valuable findings pertaining to the subject area? The literature review will answer these
questions in the specified order.
3
2.1.1 Touch and Raising Children
To touch - and be touched – is an essential and natural aspect of human life (Montagu, 1986). For
children raised by their birth parents, touch is actively promoted and encouraged as being
fundamental in raising happy, healthy and securely attached children (Field, 2003; Brazleton and
Cramer, 1990). A clear example of this is the increasing promotion of skin-to-skin contact following
birth in which government funded research has been consciously publicised linking this primal form
of human touch to a variety of positive outcomes for both parents and children (Baby Friendly
Initiative, 2013). The role of touch in raising children has been widely researched, and numerous
pieces of research link touch to various positive outcomes for children including: physical health
(Suomi, 1995; Ironson et al, 1996; Spitz, 1945; Schanberg, 1995), physical growth (Settle, 1991;
Powell et al, 1967), social development (Major, 1990), emotional development (Fisher et al, 1976;
Field, 1999; Barr, 1990) and mental health (Field et al, 1992; Widdowson, 1951). At The Institute of
Touch in Miami, researchers have carried out over 100 pieces of research linking massage therapy to
‘enhancing attentiveness, alleviating depressive symptoms, reducing pain and stress hormones and
improving immune function’ (The Institute of Touch Online, 2013). Conversely, there is a substantial
base of research linking touch deprivation in childhood to aggression, poor attachment and
behavioural challenges in adolescence and adulthood (Field, 1999; O’Neil and Calhoun, 1975;
Prescott and Wallace, 1976). Whilst highly deterministic, for Field (2003:63), ‘lack of sensory
stimulation in childhood leads to an addiction to sensory stimulation in adulthood, resulting in
delinquency, drug use, and crime’.
The research cited above utilised quantitative research methods, using standardised experiments
wherein control groups are allocated and findings relating to differences between groups are
statistically analysed for numeric significance with ‘emphasis on directly observable entities’
(Bryman et al, 2012:127). Whilst this body of research provides valuable contributions to
understandings of touch’s potential; noted limitations of such research methods are that findings
are not contextualised in various settings and cultures, alongside the lack of ‘depth understanding’
of participants worlds (Bryman et al, 2012). Equally, thus far the research reviewed has related to
the importance of touch for children raised by birth parents. For children raised outside of birth
families, who may not have experienced ‘good enough’ early childhood experiences of containment
and touch, more may be needed as they grow older (Steckley, 2011:1).
For leading child
psychoanalyst Donald Winnicott ‘anti-social behaviour’ is as an expression of insecurity and loss
from a child who has not received sufficient nurture from their mother. In turn he argues that such
children are ‘looking to society instead of his own family to provide the stability he needs'
4
(Winnicott, 1973:228). Steckley (2011:14) concludes by defending that practitioners must ensure
children’s touch needs are being met in order to both emotionally and physically contain them
through turbulent periods of their lives. Consequently the role of touch within non-familial
relationships, including wider themes pertaining to touch in child care work in the UK, will now be
explored.
2.1.2 Moral Panic and No Touch Policies
In contrast to the wealth of research findings discussed above promoting touch as highly important
in human well-being - offering medicinal and therapeutic potential - there is the suggestion that the
UK and other western countries are becoming increasingly ‘touch adverse’ (Field, 2003; Piper and
Stronarch, 2008). The topic of touch is becoming progressively sensitised, such sensitivity is
markedly heightened when occurring between adults and children. It has been suggested that
childcare work is swiftly becoming a ‘no-touch’ zone (Johnson, 2000), which is concerning in light of
substantial research signifying positive potentials of touch.
Piper and Stronarch (2008) extensively researched the role of touch in education, utilising
documentary analysis, qualitative surveys and interviews. Findings included extreme policies and
procedures implementing ‘no touch’ guidance, including one nursery school wherein the ‘whole
body of the child or young person was identified as a risk arena, and touch is proscribed almost
entirely’ (Piper and Stronarch, 2008:36). Interpretation of touch by children was highlighted as
particularly risky, wherein children’s interpretations of touch as a sexualised advance or ‘battery’
presented high risk to adults in relation to resulting allegations. Problems associated with no-touch
policies are highlighted when requirements to demonstrate ‘care and concern’ are ‘technicised and
dehumanised on the basis of what seem to be predominantly legal fears’ (Piper and Stronarch,
2008:38). Interestingly, within the work the authors suggest that some childcare workers actively
choose to ‘break’ rules pertaining to touch, as they believed touch was too necessary to discount
(Piper and Stronarch, 2008:47). The primary conclusion of the research was that wider fears
emerging pertaining to touching children should be understood as a ‘moral panic’.
Stanley Cohen (1972:9), who developed the Moral Panic theory, defined it as ‘[A] condition, episode,
person or group of persons emerges to become defined as a threat to societal values and interests.’
Such defined threat is then inflated and permeated by media reaction, which consequently filters
into societies psyche. For Cohen, ‘[t]he argument is not that there is “nothing there” … but that the
reaction to what is observed or inferred is fundamentally inappropriate’ (2002: 172). Similarly, whilst
acknowledging legitimate concerns about risk, Piper and Stronarch (2008:47) argue that current
5
reactions to touch are ‘a deeply irrational and disproportional response to a perceived yet widely
exaggerated risk’. A number of academics echo concerns pertaining to moral panic surrounding
touch, stressing a number of potentially harmful consequences. These include suggestions that such
responses protect adults from lawsuits and not children from harm (Piper and Smith, 2003) and that
moral panic obscures children’s needs (Tobin, 1997). For Johnson (2000:22), a major concern is that
child-care workers in the UK ‘[h]ave in fact let the moral panic irrationally define us and (mis)guide
our understandings of children and how we interact with and relate to them’. Johnson (2000:47)
argues that a multidisciplinary approach, addressing the issue of touch, must be adopted to ‘create
and open up more mature intellectual debates about the various issues in an attempt at restoring a
sense of balance to our respective disciplines’.
It is evident therefore, that the use of touch is not a simple affair. And debates surrounding touch
go far beyond an individual’s emotional response, to wider societal perceptions of touch. The use of
touch needs to be understood within distinct contexts. Research pertaining to education settings is
highly informative in relation to wider fears relating to touch between children and non-related
adults. However the roles of teachers (educators) and social care workers (corporate parents) are
very different and such differences must be clarified. Therefore, how social workers and residential
workers should relate to children using touch will now be explored.
2.2 Touch and Social Care
Social workers and residential care workers are expected to act as corporate parents to LAC on
behalf of local authorities. The House of Commons report regarding LAC (March, 2009:6.145)
denoted corporate parenting – initiated in 1998 with the Quality Protects Programme – as:
‘The principle is that the local authority is the corporate parent of children in care, and thus
has a legal and moral duty to provide the kind of support that any good parents would
provide for their own children. This includes enhancing children's quality of life as well as
simply keeping them safe.’
What is established through this assertion is: whilst social workers and care staff are not directly
‘family’ to LAC in their care, there is an expectation that they provide care ‘that any good parents
would’. Whilst subsection 2.1.2 explored wider themes pertaining to fear in childcare work such as
education, touch and relating should be different within this context as the adults are expected to be
demonstrating family-like care. Equally given the significance of touch highlighted previously, for
children who are unable to be looked after by their birth families the use of touch must be clarified
6
to ensure their touch needs are met (Steckley, 2011). Therefore, the role of touch within social care
shall now be explored, particularly within the context of adults relating to children.
The area of ‘touch’ is under-researched in the field of children and family social care (Lynch and
Garrett, 2010; Steckley, 2011; Ferguson, 2011a, Piper, Powell and Smith, 2006). It has been
associated with ‘fear’ (Lefevre, 2010), defined as ‘ambiguous’ (Lynch and Garrett, 2010:389) and
‘taboo’ (Ferguson 2011a:95). For Lynch and Garrett (2010:389), lack of clear statutory regulation
pertaining to touch leaves practitioners bewildered as to when and how touch should be used. The
National Association of Social Workers guidance, however, does offer this advice:
‘Social workers should not engage in physical contact with clients when there is a possibility
of psychological harm to the client as a result of that contact. Social workers who engage in
appropriate physical contact with clients are responsible for setting clear, appropriate and
culturally sensitive boundaries that govern such physical contact’
(NASW 2000, Standard 1.10).
Evident here is the emphasis on the limitation of potential harm. For many social work academics,
recognition of why touch should be carefully considered is acknowledged, however associated fear
towards touching children is disproportionate with related benefits of physically connecting with a
child through touch (Piper and Stronarch, 2008; Grant, 2013; Smith, 2009; Ward, 1999).
McKinney and Kempson (2012:190) argue that:
‘[a]lthough touch can and has been used in unhealthy ways with clients, one must not
overlook the value of touch in creating positive bonds or attachments […] and how these
attachments affect the kind and quality of relationships people experience throughout their
lives’.
Demonstrated within this is that touch is recognised as being important in building relationships.
Whilst complexities are acknowledged, the potential of touch is viewed as too important to ignore.
First and foremost, social workers are bound by law and moral integrity to protect and promote
children’s welfare. Touch is an aspect of child protection work that has been highlighted as a tool to
protect children and identify abuse (Lynch and Garrett, 2010; Ferguson, 2011a). However, this
dissertation does not pertain to protection, but to relating. When LAC’s voices have been sought in
research, overwhelmingly emphasised is that their experiences of state care are significantly
impacted by the relationships they have with practitioners (Steckley, 2011; Gallagher and Green,
7
2012; Blades et al, 2011; McLeod, 2010).
The importance of relational work, and building
relationships with children, is emphasised widely and is a crucial aspect of working with LAC. The
Utting Report (1997:32) directs practitioners to:
‘…provide the necessary warmth, affection and comfort for children’s healthy development
if we are not further to damage emotionally children and young people who have usually
had a raw deal from life.’
Increasing recognition of the need to discuss the use of touch in order to practice effectively with
LAC is becoming increasingly prominent (Steckley, 2011; Grant, 2013; Johnson, 2000; Smith, 2009;
Ferguson, 2011a).
Piper, Powell and Smith, (2006:1) appeal to professionals to take a more
considered approach to the touching of children. If workers prioritise relational work with children
and young people, there are times this can be demonstrated through sensitive, compassionate and
professionally informed touch (Ferguson, 2011a). Therefore, factors influencing such avoidance will
be explored further.
2.2.1 The Social Construction of Looked After Children
Ferguson (2011a:101) demonstrates how sociological theories can inform theorising child care work
through explorations pertaining to the social construction of LAC:
‘Sociologists have shown how disgust and fear of the ‘other’ arise from a combination of
social and psychological processes.
The persistent stigmatizing of the poor and
demonization of groups by government and the media make them into outsiders and
marginalized ‘others’ against which the purity of ‘us’, the decent and the civilized, is
secured.’
Thus far, explorations acknowledge the moral panic surrounding touch, alongside how touch may
harm and benefit children. However very little attention has been paid to the social construction of
these children, and how constructions may inhibit the use of touch. Such inhibitions can be both
physical and psychosocial. For example, Allen and Morton (1961:64) discuss the physical dirt and
smell ‘which defy the imagination’, that can be a regular aspect of working with some children and
families. Alongside tangible limiters of touch, it has also been suggested that more subconscious
psychosocial limitations may be prevalent regarding what these children represent. Ferguson
(2011a:100) argues ‘the painful truth that [is] these children generate mixed emotions’, whereby
professionals may ‘distance themselves [as] it feels safer to do so because they fear contamination
by the child and the family’.
8
Processes regarding how staff socially construct children living in residential care may provide
valuable insight into why touch avoidance appears to be so prominent. Sociological theorising
pertaining to class disgust, stigma, and othering largely focuses on adults; however academics have
highlighted how children are indeed subject to such psychosocial constructions (Miller, 1997; Lawlor,
2002; Ferguson, 2011a). Lawlor (2002:107) who researched representations of class identities,
found the media constructed ‘real’ children as ‘middle-class, white, unknowing, innocent and
vulnerably dependent’. In contrast working class children were considered in much lower regard,
and there was a decreased concern for their wellbeing. Discussions pertaining to class disgust argue
that ‘...disgust evolved to protect the human being from coming too close’ (Skeggs, 2005:970). In
essence internal reactions to socially constructed objects of disgust provoke individuals to impose
physical barriers between themselves such objects.
Furthermore, the manner in which LAC living in residential care are regularly stigmatised has been
explored widely both in a historical context (Oliver, 2003; Petrie, 2003; Jones & Novak, 1999;
McClure, 1981; Winter, 2006), and in contemporary practice (Berridge, 2011; Shaw, 2013; Emond,
2003; Snow, 2008; Desetta, 1996). Crucially, such issues relating to stigma have also been reported
by children themselves (Ofsted, 2009). Snow (2013:119) demonstrates how:
‘Stigma is a marker of identity. It is the identification of the “Other” or the other bad side of
a good-bad coin. The process of “Othering” excludes and sets up structural forces that
prompt discriminatory practices.’
Ferguson (2007:13) argues that ‘[i]n many respects the key to unravelling the meaning of child abuse
within institutional care lies in understanding the concept of neglect and it’s links with sexual
morality and the notion of ‘moral danger.’ This suggests that LAC in residential children’s homes
were historically more susceptible to abuse because adults perceived them to be contaminated
objects, wherein their status as contaminated ‘others’ allowed for adults to freely utilise negative
touch and perpetrate abuse (Ferguson, 2007).
This argument, whilst relatively uncultivated, is an important area to develop to explore how
sociological theories may inform such decisions surrounding touch. Explorations may provide useful
insight into alternative motives for touch avoidance and should be considered further.
9
2.3 Touch in Residential Children’s Homes
Residential children’s homes are plagued by a history of caring for illegitimate, unwanted and poor
children (Oliver, 2003:45) and multiple exposures of serious incidents of severe child abuse (Utting,
1991, 1997).
They have also undergone multiple policy changes (Berridge, 2011).
Within
contemporary social work practice with LAC, priority is allocated to placing children with foster
families in order to offer as ‘normal’ a childhood as possible (Berridge, 2011; Smith, 2009). However,
for some children, foster families are unable to meet their needs and residential care is the only
option. Hence residential children’s homes are still a much-needed resource within children and
families social work, offering short-term to long-term placements for LAC. This final section of the
literature review will specifically address research pertaining to residential care.
Firstly by
identifying statistical information regarding who currently lives in the UK’s children’s homes.
Secondly, by briefly establishing why the relationship with children between residential care staff
and social workers should be considered differently. And finally, by assessing what has been
researched so far pertaining to touch, alongside clearly identifying gaps this project intends to meet.
2.3.1 Profiling the Current Population
The latest government statistics regarding current statistics on residential children’s homes shows
that in 2010/11:

5,890, 9% of the total LAC population, live in residential children’s homes, secure units or
hostels (p.5).

4,840 children live specifically in children’s homes (p.5).

63% of children are male (p.6).

95% of children are between 13-18 years old (p.6).
Reasons for entering children’s homes were cited as:

77% of children due to abuse, neglect or family dysfunction.

13% of children due to disability.

6% of children due to socially unacceptable behaviour.

4% of children due to absent parenting or parental illness (p.7).
(DOH, 2012:5-13)
Such crude statistical information is included at this stage in order to profile the population of
children currently living in children’s homes. The limitations of such data are that markedly little
10
information regarding the personalities, perspectives and feelings of these children are offered
(Denzin, 1997). Nor does the information offer any insight into what life is like for children living in
the homes. Equally, categorical variables used to group children into groups limits the scope for
individual difference, or detailed reasoning for why children come to live in homes are offered
(Bryman, 2004).
Nonetheless, broad generalisations regarding the national population can be
obtained through such data and will be useful in chapter four when analysing how representative
the pilot study is of the population as a whole. The data does demonstrate that children’s homes
often cater for older children in the care system, with boys being overrepresented (Berridge, 2011).
Equally, children are placed within children’s homes for a multitude of reasons, many having
experienced traumatic early childhood experiences.
2.3.2 Touch and Relational Work in Residential Children’s Homes
Touch in residential children’s homes, whilst linked, must be considered distinctly from touch in field
social work. Lefevre distinguishes between touch in field work and residential care, wherein the
latter touch is ‘much more the norm’ because of the close and routine nature of the caring
relationship (Lefevre 2010:209). As established in the introduction, the relationship with care staff
for children living in residential care is fundamental to their care experience (Berridge, 1986;
Berridge and Brodie, 1999; Berridge, 2011; Smith, 2009; Steckley, 2011, Emond, 2003). With fewer
caseloads and less administrative responsibility for residential care staff, in contrast to social
workers, there is more time for relational work which should be the priority (Berridge, 2011). With
this in mind, the final section of the literature review will critique what research has been carried out
thus far specifically looking at touch in children’s homes, and clearly identify gaps this project
intends to fill.
2.3.3 Touch in Residential Children’s Homes
Research obtaining children’s perspectives of various aspects of life in children’s homes includes:
food practices (Punch et al, 2013), peer group relationships (Emond, 2003), offending behaviour
(Shaw, 2013) and satisfaction levels in residential care (Kendrick et al, 2005). Without exception, all
pieces refer to the importance of relationships between staff and young people, highlighting the
fundamental significance of relational practice, and a need to clarify and explore what constitutes as
both positive and negative forms of relating.
Currently in related literature there are a small number of academics who explore the subject of
touch and make suggestions regarding how it should be used. Some caution against touch, for
11
example Lefevre (2010:209), who argues that ‘[a]ffectionate touch is not sanctioned between
workers and children and young people’. This is perhaps indicative of wider fears that have been
explored previously, and does not account for contextual and relational factors that would warrant
such touch. On the contrary, a great deal more of the literature pertains to concerns surrounding
the implementation of no-touch policies. Ward (1999) explored fears regarding touching children
heavily critiquing the concept that residential staff should not touch children, asking ‘can we really
care for children this way?’. This is echoed by Smith (2009:127) who argues that touch can be used
relationally, and questions the reality of touch avoidance:
‘One of the most disturbing features of residential practice over the past decade or so has
been the development, in the name of safety, of ‘no touch’ policies (in many cases these are
less policies and more inchoate practice cultures that take on the strength of policy). Such
policies or assumptions are ridiculous because, as anyone who has worked with children will
know, they are impossible to implement – children operate in perpetual movement; they
bump into adults, hit against them, hang on them, become involved in scraps that require
intervention and sometimes even demonstrate affection.’
Whyte (cited in Biddulph, 2003:74) argues that physical contact with children is important for
relationship building, advising ‘If you want to get on with boys, learn to wrestle’. Whilst this may be
a gender-based stereotype, for which there is not the space to discuss further, the sentiment that
playful touch can be used to develop relationships through play with children is a valuable
contribution. The question of using touch within social work practice has also been explored online
on the Community Care website, and various professionals and care-leavers commented on the use
of touch in practice. Jarone Macklin-Page, a care leaver from Norfolk, argues:
‘Children will feel lonely and rejected if it’s obvious professionals are nervous to be around
them or don’t want to touch them, children want to be liked by the people caring for them.
A simple hug or pat on the back can be reassuring and comforting in the right context. We
mustn’t forget that some of these children may have had no experience at all of positive,
healthy physical contact’ (Community Care Online, 2010).
Each of these contributions adds to the understanding that touch is an important tool for
communication, practical caring and demonstrating genuine compassion towards children. However
there are limitations to anecdotal evidence or opinions regarding topics which lack the rigour of
scientific research. Therefore, the literature review will now examine such work.
12
A modest research area relating to touch is the use of physical restraint. Steckley has written about
the link between containment and physical restraint (Steckley and Kendrick, 2005; Steckley, 2009;
Steckley, 2011). Within her research Steckley used semi-structured interviews and vignettes to ask
both staff and young people about the experiences of physical restraint. This research is highly
valuable as physical restraint involves touch, explores the identified research field and obtains
perspectives of young people which been noted as an existing gap (Lynch and Garrett, 2010).
Equally, the research highlights that some young people actively seek physical restraint in order to
emotionally contain their emotions and feelings (Steckley, 2011:5). Or in order to attain physical
touch, for example Helen, a young person, who said:
‘I think I just needed a cuddle...That’s just my way of dealing with anger...most of my
restraints have been my fault.’ (Steckley 2011:14).
Furthermore, some young people said that physical restraint improved relationships with staff, for
example Brian, a young person, when asked about the relationship with staff following restraint said:
‘They’re protecting me, man…you feel like they’re protecting you, so you feel you up your
confidence with them’ (Steckley, 2011:7).
However, this dissertation does not seek to exclusively explore restraint, but everyday uses of touch.
Equally, whilst interviews are indeed valuable in gaining insight into participants’ perspectives, there
are limitations with not observing interactions to confirm that such explanations are accurate
(Stimpson and Webb, 1975). Similar concerns relate to using vignettes, which may be useful in
gaining perspectives from children and young people into how they may respond in hypothetical
situations, however limitations relate to how accurately perceived responses and genuine responses
may correlate (Jenkins et al, 2010). Observations of touch in practice need to be obtained in order
for ‘researchers to observe what people do, while all the other empirical methods are limited to
reporting what people say about what they do’ (Gans, 1999:540).
David Berridge, perhaps the leading current academic in UK residential childcare currently has
carried out a number of pieces of ethnographic research into children’s homes (Berridge, 1986;
Berridge and Brodie, 1998; Berridge, 2011). These are broader pieces of research relating to
residential childcare as a whole, and do not specifically address the issue of touch, or mention it in
the first two pieces. However, in the final piece (Berridge, 2011:49-50) there are two short
paragraphs referring to observations of touch in practice within the context of staff and child
relationships and ‘risk-culture’. The author notes:
13
‘[I]t is sometimes claimed that children’s residential care is unduly ‘risk averse’, which limits
the relationships…this includes attitudes to appropriate physical contact between young
people and adults such as ‘hugs and cuddles’’ (2011:49).
Whilst the researchers report not observing a ‘great deal of physical contact’, they did witness a few
examples of staff giving young people side-hugs, a child laying across a workers lap, and in one case
a ‘huge-hug’ (2011:50). Also noted is that ‘older teenage boys are not the easiest group for
professionals to demonstrate physical reassurance; despite this, in one home we recorded that
relationships appeared close and affectionate’ (2011:50). The authors conclude that ‘it did not seem
that everyday interactions in the sample of homes studied were unduly restricted by a risk adverse
culture’ (2011:50).
This is, thus far, the only piece of research which specifically observes and describes staff relating to
children in a physical manner. It offers insight that other pieces of research do not offer as the
objective stance of the researcher as an outsider is able to describe interactions without
misinterpretation by participants (Denzin, 1997). Interestingly, despite perceptions that residential
care is significantly risk averse – the authors suggest otherwise. Limitations of the research include
minimal time spent in homes (2-3 days each), limited depth explorations of touch and a lack of
feelings and interpretations from staff and young people. Therefore, whilst useful, this piece of
research does not offer sufficient insight to gain depth understanding relating to the subject area.
There are a number of key themes that have been highlighted throughout this literature review.
Touch is a broad and convoluted area, with multiple avenues to explore. What is required in such a
complex area is depth understanding, informed by observations of touch in practice triangulated
with feelings and interpretations of both children and adults within this setting. The following
chapter will outline a research proposal for a three year project designed to explore such a gap.
14
4.1 Methods
The primary consideration of this small scale pilot study was to explore the extent to which the
proposed research methods would appropriately answer the research questions. The pilot required
lengthy considerations regarding practicalities of a number of issues including: ethics, access and
data analysis. The experience of carrying out ethnography also required reflections relating to more
intrinsic details such as how I would relate to participants? How I would negotiate the changes
pertaining to being a researcher and being a member of staff? Where should I physically locate
myself within the research field? Where and how should I record data? After considering many
issues prior to the day, I eventually decided to go to the field and utilise the experience as a learning
exercise for many of the questions I could not answer in advance. Therefore, I took vague
reassurance from Hammersley and Atkinson (2007:20) that ‘each researcher must find out for him or
herself what is required to produce an ethnographic study’, and arrived at the field with a notebook,
pen, Dictaphone and a range of emotions ranging from trepidation to anticipation.
I used participant observations to observe interactions between staff and young people (Ganz,
1999), and semi-structured interviews to explore the feelings, thoughts and individual accounts of
participants’ worlds (Hammersley and Atkinson, 2007:97). I was mobile in my research in so far as I
did not sit down in one place but moved around the home, following young people, following staff
and observing interactions to study naturally occurring events. On the day there was not the
opportunity, nor did I feel it appropriate, to utilise the car. Whilst aiming to prioritise participant
observation, I spent a considerable amount of time interviewing participants. The drawbacks and
benefits of such will be examined further below.
4.4 Findings
There were three main themes that emerged from the data specifically regarding touch: Knowing
the Child, Different Types of Touch and Touch as ‘natural, yet risky’.
4.4.1 Knowing the Child
Each staff member said it was important to ‘know the child’ when making decisions surrounding
touch. This was supported by observations of varying levels of touch used between staff members
and ‘Ben’ and ‘Sam’, two boys who live in the home. The relationship between Ben and staff
appeared close and comfortable, and Ben has been living in the home for over three years. I directly
witnessed four physical interactions with Ben. In contrast, whilst the staff members appeared
friendly and warm to Sam, his duration at the home was much shorter (6 months) than Ben’s. I did
not witness any physical interactions between staff and Sam. Ben was looking for a job online and
15
each member of staff on shift went in to the computer room with Ben and offered verbal praise.
One female staff member (Olivia) ruffled Ben’s hair during this interaction, alongside giving verbal
encouragement. Ben responded by smiling and talking about the job.
When explored in interviews, five out of six members of staff reported that knowing this child was
the most important factor to consider before touching them. For example:
Trevor [staff member]: “Errrr..yea. It’s, it can be construed differently by different young
people. Gotta be aware before you touch em, not a bad thing, but, depending on the young
person’s back ground, they might have been physically abused and you don’t know, well, you
do know because you’ve built up that relationship but how they gonna accept it, are they
going to accept it or not. You’ve gotta be careful, you’ve got to know your young person
you’re working with?”
Louise [staff member]: “Well if you mean, if they’re upset give them a, come on, pat them on
the leg you know I think you should do. But some of em aren’t used to, even their own
parents giving them a hug so you have to watch, who you’re doing it to. And erm, just be
sympathetic and they whole time and urm, yea I think it is good but you have to watch who
it’s with, and whether their comfortable with that. And you get to know the young person”.
This is reflective of literature and guidance (Steckley, 2011; Smith, 2009; NASW, 2010). It was
evident that touch was perceived as a tool within the context of knowing a child insofar as
conceptualising knowledge of children’s individual histories and deciding how comfortable they may
be with touch. 3 out of 6 staff members also made specific reference to how comfortable they are
with touching, and how this impacts their practice.
4.4.2 Different Types of Touch
There was a strong emphasis within interviews that touch should be viewed as situational and
contextual. I have identified four main categories as a result of both interview and observation data:
purposeful touch avoidance, token touch, playful touch and affectionate touch.
Purposeful Touch Avoidance
Purposeful touch avoidance were situations where staff purposefully chose not to physically interact
with young people. Largely informed by staff conceptions that touch was not required, or wanted,
from the young people. This was explained by staff with regards to the age, or perceived touch
aversion of individual children. The general attitude of the staff was that the young people living at
the home currently do not like ‘over the top’ demonstrations of touch, and four out of six staff said
16
they would be more ‘touchy feely’ with younger children. This was also made sense of by staff
within a wider context of changing activities and touching relating to different aged children,
alongside required levels of touch:
Penny [staff member]: And I think these need a cuddle and an arm round them now and
again you know, when they’re upset. Not so much these older ones, but the little ones, you
know. Bed time stories, sitting and chilling with them ya know.
Touch avoidance was also explained in terms of not being overbearing with young people and giving
them space:
Olivia [staff member]: “I certainly hugged other kids, it’s quite obvious if a kid wants a hug,
and if they’re a sort of touchy feely person, we used to have a girl who always used to fling
her arms around us. I don’t know if I’d openly go and hug someone who didn’t look like they
wanted a hug ya know.”
Overall the staff made sense of touch avoidance as a deliberate attempt to not appear overbearing,
or impose on young people’s personal space. No staff made references to avoiding touch for
reasons of anything which could be interpreted as a personal dislike of the children in the home.
Affectionate ‘Symbolic’ Touch
‘Symbolic Touch’ is uses of touch such as: ruffling heads, tapping shoulders, handshakes or other
similar uses of affirmative, acknowledging touch. This type of touch was largely used to indicate
congratulations, support, hello and goodbyes etc. It was deemed as particularly useful with boys.
Symbolic touch was much more accepted within the staff’s talk than hugs and cuddles as a less
invasive yet acknowledging manner of physically interacting with children. When ‘symbolic touch’
was discussed with the male young people, they did not specify it as innovative in relating to staff,
neither expressed dislike or mistrust regarding this form of touch. As discussed earlier, this kind of
touch was used whilst Ben was looking for a job.
Ben [Young Person] specifically identified this type of touch within the interview:
Researcher: What do you think about touch?
Ben: What do you mean by touch?
Researcher: Do they touch you very much? I mean like everyday uses of touch.
17
Ben: I dunno, I think. They touch you like, give ya a pat on the shoulder or something, like
compliment you or something.
Researcher: How does it make you feel?
Ben: o.k.
Within this extract, two things are evident. Firstly, the young person did not indicate any discomfort
surrounding the use of touch, nor imply abnormality. Secondly, eliciting information from young
people can be difficult in one to one interviews, particularly surrounding topics that may be personal
or intimate.
This was evident in a number of interviews, particularly with the boys, which
demonstrates how participant observations may assist in enabling data collection. For Ben, who was
actually touched relatively freely throughout the day, appearing to show signs of enjoying this,
observations were far more informative than interview data.
Playful Touch
Play fighting was seen as a manner of communicating with the young people, also significantly with
the boys. It was specifically noted as a manner in which staff can meet children’s touch needs:
Paul [staff member]: “we had one young lad here who did like physical contact but you can
ya know, put your hand on his back and you’ll have a bit of a wrestle and a bit of physical
contact”
I observed two instances of play fighting between a staff member (Matt) and Ben. The first instance
was in the kitchen, whilst Matt was twisting Ben’s ear he said: “Look at this for relationship
building”. In response Ben was laughing and appearing to enjoy this interaction. Following this,
when I asked how he felt in an interview setting, Ben replied “It’s good maaann, I want him to do it
again and again”. A similar interaction was witnessed in the office later in the day. Matt and Ben
appeared to have a close and affectionate relationship. It must be acknowledged that there was a
definite aspect of ‘playing up’ to the research process. Whilst the interaction was quite possibly
staged to some extent, influenced by my previous relationship with both participants, nonetheless it
appeared spontaneous and jovial. When explored in an interview with Matt, he appeared to have a
very natural approach to caring for young people, prioritising ‘fun and banter’ alongside ‘acting like a
brother’. When asked about what is important when working with young people, Matt replied:
Matt: “Building up a good relationship with them, making them laugh. Making them laugh
means their happy. Treating them like you normally would, with your family and friends”.
18
Within this, Matt heavily emphasises the role of fun and laughter with the young people. In the
home on the day there was a very jovial atmosphere. Both staff and young people laughed and joke
together. All members of staff mentioned the importance of having fun and laughing with the young
people.
Affectionate Touch: ‘A Hug as a ‘Turning Point’
Affectionate touch is any kind of hug or cuddle between staff and young people. I did not observe
any such interaction within the home on the day. However affectionate touch was raised in an
interview setting by 16 year old Sophie who, prior to any questions surrounding touch, proffered a
story about how a hug between her and a member of staff had changed their relationship. This she
explained was due to feeling accepted by the staff member, and her changed conception of the staff
member as a person. She now refers to hugs as a regular part of their daily interactions:
Sophie [Young Person]: Yea, well one day she came over and gave me a hug and stuff like
that, so…bit random but...Well, I don’t know really but I guess because I didn’t really get on
with her but then things kind of…changed.
Researcher: because…?
Sophie: she gave me an ‘ug. I don’t know, at first I just thought she was a bit up herself, and
then like, I started to talk to her properly.
Researcher: Talk to me about the hug.
Sophie: I just came in from my grandma’s one day and she just went “Sophieee” like that,
and then she just gave me this massive ‘ug. And now, like, yesterday cause she was dead
tired I was all like ‘Where’s me ‘ug?’ , so she said ‘Ahh, I’ve not given you an ‘ug. And then
she came over, and gave me an ‘ug. Just like that.
Indicative in this is the suggestion that physical contact allows the young person to know that staff
like them and accept them.
As mentioned in chapter two, care leaver Jarone Macklin-Page
(Community Care Online, 2010) argues that touch is important in demonstrating affection towards
young people.
This is evident in Sophie’s conversations wherein an affectionate cuddle was
perceived as acceptance within the relationship between her and the staff member. Equally, this
appears to be an important aspect of their relationship to Sophie, and the retraction of this
interaction would possibly provoke distress and feelings of rejection.
The value placed on
affectionate touch by young people, contrasted with none of this touch being observed, suggests
that there may be scope for development in this area.
19
4.2.3 Touch as ‘normal’, yet ‘risky’.
Knowing the child also influenced whether touch was perceived to be a ‘risk’ or not with individual
children. Within the interviews, all staff member mentioned that touch was ‘normal’, and made
reference to understanding this within the wider context of caring for children. This was often
informed by relationships with their birth children; four of out five parent staff members made
direct links between touch in relationship building with their children.
Paul [Staff Member]: “But that’s just what that relationship is and the kids, they don’t get
that from anywhere else you know? I mean I think about contact with my son, you then,
what that does for development and relationships and bonding and stuff, and then, if you’ve
got none of that”.
Matt [Staff Member]: “Touch is just natural innit, you wouldn’t think about hugging your
own kids”.
The importance of touch with their own children, and the impact it has on building bonds and
relationships was evident through their talk. Touch was largely perceived as a normal manner of
interacting with children and young people within a wider holistic approach to relating to children.
Also evident was the awareness that young people living in residential care may not receive such
nurture from elsewhere.
In contrast, touch within residential settings was conceptualised as ‘risky’ by staff, primarily in
relation to individual interpretations of touch by the young people. For this staff team the threat of
a young person making an allegation was frequently noted as a reason to firmly consider touch in
practice prior to use. Five out of six staff members mentioned incidences wherein allegations have
been made by young people pertaining to touch. Whilst staff members did mention frustrations at
the wealth of risk assessments in many areas, none mentioned this in relation to touch. This
suggests that the staff team believe that touch is a risky area, and such risk assessments are
necessary within this area.
Within this context knowing the child could be interpreted as a manner in which staff determine
how likely a young person is to make an allegation. In this respect it not only touch that is perceived
to be risky, but the young people themselves, who represent a direct threat to staff members’
careers. The importance of the relationship is consequently heightened and complicated as not only
do staff have to gain the trust of young people, but young people have to acquire staff members
trust prior to touch being utilised. In essence, the young person is being socially constructed as a
dangerous ‘other’ who represents a heightened perceived threat to individual’s careers.
20
Trevor: “Back up for your own protection as well as theirs. If something does kick off and go
to court, you’ve gotta have something to back up your actions. If anyone was to make
accusations, and you’ve not logged it/colleagues aren’t aware of what’s happened. If
anything went off and you’ve not documented it, it leaves you wide open for criticisms.”
Equally, there was a level of frustration noted at the juxtaposition between care and risk and the
dilemmas such contradictions present for staff. Thus demonstrating how such decisions create
personal dilemmas for staff who attempt to manage contrasting emotions.
Paul: “But then, if you’re caring for that young person and they’re upset you’re not just
gonna stand there. You know what I mean? They need, there needs to be a level of contact.
I dunno, it’s what applicable for each young person, and what’s going on with that
relationship… think what it boils down to is good intent you know - if it’s for the right
reasons, and for what it creates - as opposed to what you might stand to lose out on if you
avoid touch.”
It appears that Paul concludes that touch is ‘worth risking’ with regards to potential for gain. Evident
within this section is that touch was perceived to be both a risk and a requirement. Recognition was
given for children’s primal need for touch, and for some staff breaking ‘rules’ allowed them to
demonstrate ‘humanity’ to the young people in their care. However, the frequent reference to
potential allegations suggests that the danger pertaining to related allegations predominantly
outweighed the related benefits.
21
Chapter Five: Conclusion
‘We need to envision a way forward that enables us to meet the touch related needs of children.’
(Steckley, 2011:9)
An overwhelming emphasis on minimising harm provoked by inappropriate touch and related
misinterpretations has been highlighted in the literature. However, insufficient attention is paid to
how touch avoidance may itself harm children. Moreover, it is clear that the moral panic pertaining
to contemporary childcare work needs to be critically explored and challenged, particularly in
relation to children who have already suffered significant emotional and often physical and/or sexual
harm and neglect. How children currently living in residential children’s homes are conceptualised
should also be further researched in order to challenge any poor care practice provoked by their
social construction.
This dissertation outlines a research proposal designed to amend this gap in research by observing
firsthand how touch is used in practice with the UK’s vulnerable children and young people.
Alongside gaining insight from the frontline professionals who work these children, the research will
also meet the specifically acknowledged gap by exploring children and young people’s perspectives
of touch within such settings. The research findings will indicate how, when and why frontline
professional care staff do or do not choose to touch the children they work with, paying attention to
how such engagements affect children’s well-being. If residential children’s homes are going to
provide children with safe, nurturing and well-informed care such care should recognise the wealth
of research identifying the crucial significance of touch. Avoidance of such a critical topic does not
display integrity towards providing the care these children require and, indeed, deserve.
22
Bibliography
Allen & Morton (1961) This is Your Child: The Story of the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, London:
Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Baby Friendly Initiative (2013) Research Home Page. Available at:
http://www.unicef.org.uk/BabyFriendly/News-and-Research/Research/
[Accessed 12th March 2013]
Barr, R. (1990) ‘Reduction of infant crying by parent carrying. In Gunzenhauser, Brazelton and Field,
Advances in Touch, pp. 105-116.
Beck, U. (1992) Risk Society, London: Sage.
Berridge, D. (1985) Children’s Homes, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Berridge, D. & Brodie, I. (1998) Children's Homes Revisited, London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Berridge, D. (2011) Living in Children’s Residential Homes, London: DOH.
Blades, R., Hart, D., Lea, J. and Willmott, N. (2011) The Prison Reform: Care – a stepping stone to
custody? London: The Prison Reform.
Blaike, N. (2000) Designing Social Research, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bloor, M., Fincham, B. and Sampson, H. (2007) Qualiti (NCRM) Commissioned Inquiry into the Risk to
Well-Being of Researchers in Qualitative Research. Available at:
www.cf.ac.uk/socsi/qualiti/CIReport.pdf
[Accessed 6th June 2013]
Bott, E. (2010) ‘Favourite and others: reflexivity and the shaping of subjectivities and data in
qualitative research’, Qualitative Research, vol. 10, pp. 159-173.
Brady, A. (2006) The SAGE Online Dictionary of Research Methods. Available at:
http://srmo.sagepub.com/view/the-sage-dictionary-of-social-research-methods/n137.xml
23
[Accessed 20th June 2013]
Brazelton, T. & Cramer, B. (1990) The Earliest Relationship – Parents, Infants and the Drama of Early
Childhood, Boston: Persius Books.
Brewer, J.D. (2000) Ethnography, Buckingham: Open University Press.
Bryman, A. (2004) Social Research Methods (second edition), Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bryman, A., Becker, S. & Ferguson, H. ed. (2012) Understanding Research for Social Policy and Social
Work. Bristol: Policy Press.
Buscher, M., Urry, J. & Witchger, K. (eds) (2010) Mobile Methods. New York: Routledge.
Butler, I. and Williamson, H. (1996) Children Speak: Children, Trauma and Social Work, London:
NSPCC.
Carey, M. (2009) The Social Work Dissertation: Using Small-Scale Qualitative Methodology,
Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Cassell, J. (1978) ‘Risk and benefit to subjects of fieldwork’, The American Sociologist, vol. 13, pp.
134-143.
Coates, E. (2002) ‘“I forgot the sky!” Children’s stories contained within their drawings’, International
Journal of Early Years Education, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 21-35.
Coffey, A. (1999) The Ethnographic Self, London: Sage.
Cohen, S. (1972) Folk Devils and Moral Panics: The Creation of the Mods and Rockers, London:
MacGibbon and Kee.
Cohen, S. (2002) Folk Devils and Moral Panics, 30th Anniversary Edition. London: Routledge.
Colosi, R. (2006) Dirty dancing? An ethnography of lap-dancing, Portland: Wilan Publishing.
Community Care Online (2001) ‘Sometimes when we Touch’. Available at:
http://www.communitycare.co.uk/articles/19/07/2001/32475/sometimes-when-we-touch.htm
24
[Accessed 12th March 2013]
Community Care Online (2010) ‘Should Social Work be a Touch-Free Zone?’ Available at:
http://www.communitycare.co.uk/articles/20/08/2010/115114/should-children39s-social-work-bea-touch-free-zone.htm
[Accessed 12th March 2013]
Corby, B., Doig, A. and Roberts, V. (2001) Public Inquiries into Residential Abuse of Children, London:
Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Denzin, N.K. (1997) Interpretive Ethnography: Ethnographic Practices for the 21st Century, London:
SAGE.
Desetta, A. (1996).The heart knows something different: Teenage voices from the foster care system,
New York, NY: Persea Books.
Dickson-Swift, V., James, E. L., Kippen, S., & Liamputtong, P. (2007) ’Doing sensitive research: What
challenges do qualitative researchers face?’ Qualitative Research, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 327- 353.
Department of Health (2012) Children’s Homes Data in England Pack.
Available at:
http://media.education.gov.uk/assets/files/pdf/c/childrens%20homes%20data%20pack%20march%
202012.pdf
[Accessed 12th June 2013]
Duncombe, J., & Jessop, J. (2002) 'Doing rapport' and the ethics of 'faking friendship'. In M.
Mauthner, M. Birch, J. Jessop & T. Miller (Eds.), Ethics in Qualitative Research (pp. 107-122). London:
Sage Publications.
Emond, R. (2013) ‘Food and Feelings in Residential Childcare’, British Journal of Social Work, vol. 43,
no. 3, pp. 1-17.
Ely, M. (1991) Doing Qualitative Research: Circles Within Circles, London: Falmer Press.
Economic and Social Research Council (2010) ESRC Framework for Research Ethics, Available at:
http://www.esrc.ac.uk/_images/Framework-for-Research-Ethics_tcm8-4586.pdf
[Accessed on 12th May, 2013]
25
Ferguson, H. (2007) ‘Abused and Looked After Children as ‘Moral Dirt’: Child Abuse and Institutional
Care in Historical Perspective’, Journal of Social Policy, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 123-139.
Ferguson, H. (2010) ‘Therapeutic Journeys: the car as a vehicle for working with children and families
and theorizing practice’, Journal of Social Work Practice, vol. 24, no.2, pp. 121-138.
Ferguson, H. (2011a) Child Protection Practice, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
Ferguson, H. (2011b) Mobilities of welfare: the case of social work. In: Buscher, M., Urry, J. &
Witchger, K. (eds). Mobile Methods. New York: Routledge, pp. 72-87.
Field, T.M., Grizzle, N., Scafadi, F., Adams, S., and Richardson, S. (1999) ‘Massage Therapy for
Depressed Mothers’, Infant Behaviour and Development, vol. 19, pp. 109-114.
Field, T.M. (2003) Touch, London: The MIT Press.
Fisher, J., Rytting, M., and Heslin, R. (1976) ‘Affective and evaluative effects of an interpersonal
touch’, Sociometry, vol. 39, pp. 416-421.
Fox , M., Martin, P. & Green, G. (2007) Doing Practice Research, London: SAGE.
Fraser, S. (2004) Situating Empirical Research. In: Fraser, S., Lewis, V., Ding, S, Kellett, M. and
Robinson, C. (eds). Doing Research with Children and Young People. London: Sage, pp. 15-27.
Freilich, M. (ed) (1970) Marginal Natives: Anthropologists at Work, New York: Harper and Row.
Gale, E. and Hegarty, J.R. (2000) ‘The use of touch in caring for people with learning disability’, The
British Journal of Developmental Disabilities, vol. 46, no. 91, pp. 97-108.
Gallagher, B. and Green, A. (2012) ‘In, out and after care: Young adults' views on their lives, as
children, in a therapeutic residential establishment’ Children and Youth Services Review, vol. 34, no.
2, pp. 437-450.
Gans, H. J. (1999) ’Participant Observation in the era of “Ethnography”’, Journal of Contemporary
Ethnography, vol. 28, pp. 540-548.
Grant, (2013) ‘Touching Children should be an Expectation, not a Taboo’. Available at:
http://festivaldangerousideas.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/touching-children-should-beexpectation.html
26
[Accessed 14th August 2013]
Gubrium, J.F. and Holstein, J.A. (1997) The New Language of Qualitative Method, London: Oxford
University Press.
Guillemin, M., & Gillam, L. (2004) ‘Ethics, reflexivity, and “ethically important moments” in research’,
Qualitative Inquiry, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 261.
Guillemin, M., & Heggen, K. (2009) Rapport and respect: negotiating ethical relations between
researcher and participant. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 291-299.
Hammersley, M. & Atkinson, P. (1995) Ethnography: Principles in Practice, New York: Routledge.
Haney, L. (2002) 'Negotiating Power and Expertise in the Field', in T. May (editor) Qualitative
Research in Action. London: Sage.
Hirsch, P. (1995) Tales from the field: learning from researchers’ accounts. In: Hertz, R., Imber, J. B.
(Eds.), Studying elites using qualitative methods. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage, pp. 72-79.
Hobbs, G.F., Hobbs, C.J. and Wynne, J.M. (1999) ‘Abuse of Children in Foster and Residential care’,
Child Abuse and Neglect Review, vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 1239-1252.
Hoffman, J. E., (1980). ‘Problems of access in the study of social elites and boards of directors’, In:
Shaffir, W. B., Stebbins, R. A., Turowetz, A. (Eds.), Fieldwork experience: Qualitative approaches to
Social Research. New York: St. Martin’s Press, pp. 121-134.
Hornsby-Smith, M. (1993) ‘Gaining Access’ in Researching Social Life, Gilbert, N. (Ed.), London: Sage.
House of Commons (2009) Section Six: Corporate Parenting. Available at:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmchilsch/111/11110.htm
[Accessed 3rd June 2013]
Humphries, B. and Martin, M. (2000) ‘Disrupting Ethics in Social Research’ In: Humphries, B. (Ed.)
Research in social care and social welfare: issues and debates for practice. London: Jessica Kingsley
Publishers Ltd, pp. 69-86.
27
Ironson, G., Field, T., Scafidi, F., Hashimoto, M., and Kumar, M. (1996) ‘Massage Therapry is
Associated with Enhancement of the Immune System’s Cytotoxic Capacity’, International Journal of
Neuroscience, vol. 84, pp, 205-217.
James, A. (2001) Ethnography in the Study of Children and Childhood. In, Handbook of Ethnograhy.
Eds (Atkinson, P., Coffey, A., Delamont, S., Loftland, J. and Loftland, L. London: Sage. Pp 246-257.
Johnson, R. (2000) The Disappearance of Touch in Caring for Children, New York: Peter Lang
International Academic Publishers.
Jones, P. (1993) Studying Society - Sociological Theories and Research Practices, London: HarperCollins.
Kendrick, A., Milligan, I. and Avan, G. (2005) ‘’Nae too bad’: job satisfaction and staff morale in
Scottish residential child care’, Scottish Journal of Residential Child Care, vol. 4, no. 1, np. 22-32.
Kellett, M., and Ding, S. (2004) Middle Childhood. In: Fraser, S., Lewis, V., Ding, S, and Robinson, C.
(eds). Doing Research with Children and Young People. London: Sage, pp, 161-174.
Lawlor, S. (2002) ‘Mobs and monsters: Independent man meets Paulsgrove woman’, Feminist
Theory, vol. 3, pp. 103-113.
Lawlor, S. (2005) ‘Disgusted Subjects: the Making of Middle-Class Identities’, The Sociological Review,
vol. 53, no. 3, pp. 429-446.
Lee, R. M. and Renzetti, C.M. (1990) ‘The Problems of Researching Sensitive Topics’, The American
Behavioural Scientist, vol. 35, no. 5, pp. 510-524.
Lefevre, M. (2010) Communicating with children and young adults: Making a difference, Bristol: The
Policy Press.
Lowery (2001) ‘Ethnographic Research Methods’ In: Thyer, B.A. (ed.) The Handbook of Social Work
Research Methods. London: Sage, pp. 357-372.
Loftland, J. and Loftand, L.H. (1995) Analysing Social Settings: A Guide to Qualitative Observation and
Analysis, Belmont, CA: Wadsworths Inc.
Lynch, R. & Garrett, P.M. (2010) ‘‘More than Words’: Touch Practices in Child and Family Social
Work’, Child and Family Social Work, vol. 15, pp. 389-398.
28
Marshall, K. (2004) ‘”Names can never hurt me”: Does naming suspects help children?’, in Steckley,
L. (2011) ‘Touch, Physical Restraint and Therapeutic Containment in Residential Child Care’, British
Journal of Social Work, pp. 1-19.
Masson, J. (2000) The Legal Context. In: Fraser, S., Lewis, V., Ding, S, Kellett, M. and Robinson, C.
(eds). Doing Research with Children and Young People. London: Sage, pp. 43-58.
Major, B. (1990) Gender and Status Patterns in Social Touch. The impact of setting and age. In
Gunzenhauser, Brazelton and Field, Advances in Touch, pp. 148-154.
McLeod, A. (2010) ‘‘A Friend and an Equal’: Do Young People in Care Seek the Impossible from their
Social Workers?’, British Journal of Social Work, vol. 40, pp. 772-788.
McKinney, K.G. and Kempson, D.A. (2012) ‘Losing Touch in Social Work Practice’, National
Association of Social Workers, vol. 1, pp. 189-191.
Menzies-Lyth, I. (1960) ‘Social Systems as a Defence Against Anxiety – An Empirical Study of the
Nursing Service of a General Hospital’, Human Relations, vol. 13, pp. 95-121.
Miller, W.I. (1997) The Anatomy of Disgust, Harvard University Press: London.
Montagu, A. (1986) Touching: The Human Significance of The Skin, New York: Harper and Row.
National Association of Social Work (2000) Code of Ethics for the National Association of Social
Workers. Available at: http://www.socialworkers.org/pubs/code/code.asp
[Accessed 1st July, 2013]
Noaks, L. and Wincup, E. (2004) Criminological Research - Understanding Qualitative Methods,
London: Sage.
Oliver, C. (2003) The care of the illegitimate child: the Coram experience 1900-45. In Brannon, J. &
Moss, P. ed. Rethinking Children’s Care. Buckingham: Open University Press, pp. 44-60.
O’Neil, P.M., and Calhoun, K.S. (1975) ‘Sensory Deficits and Behavioural Deterioration in
Senescence’, Journal of Abnormal Psychology, vol. 84, pp. 579-582.
Payne, G. and Payne, J. (2004) Key Concepts in Social Research, London: Sage.
29
Piper, H., Powell, J. & Smith, H. (2006) ‘Parents, Professionals, and Paranoia: The Touching of
Children in a Culture of Fear’, Journal of Social Work, vol. 6, pp. 151-167.
Piper, H. and Smith, H. (2003) ‘’Touch’ in educational and child care settings: dilemmas and
responses’, British Educational Research Journal, vol. 29, no. 6, pp. 879-894.
Piper, H. and Stronarch, I. (2008) Don’t Touch! The Educational Story of a Panic, Abingdon:
Routlegde.
Powell, G. F., Brasel, J.A., and Blizzard R.M. (1967) ‘Emotional deprivation and growth retardation
stimulating idiopathic hypopituitarism’, New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 176, pp. 1271-1278.
Punch, S., McIntosh, I., Dorrer, N. and Emond, R. (2010) ‘”You don’t have to be watched to make
your toast”: Surveillance and Food Practices within Residential Care for Young People’, Surveillance
& Society, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 290-303.
Prescott, J.W., and Wallace, D. (1976) Developmental Sociobiology and the Origins of Aggressive
Behaviour. Paper presented at the 21st International Congress of Psychology, July 18-25, Paris.
Ross, N., Renold, E, Holland, S. and Hillman, A. (2009) ‘Moving stories: using mobile methods to
explore the everyday lives of young people in public care’, Qualitative Research, vol. 9, pp. 605-623.
Schanberg, S. (1995) The Genetic Basis for Touch Effects. In Field, T.M. (ed.), Touch in Early
Development, 67-79.
Scott, K. (2008) ‘A little knowledge is a Dangerous Thing.
Available at: http://www.spiked-
online.com/newsite/article/224#.UiHwsDY2O5o
[Accessed 21st August 2013]
Shaw, J. (2013) ‘Why Do Young People Offend in Children’s Homes? Research, Theory and Practice’,
British Journal of Social Work, vol. 1, pp. 1-17.
Settle (1991) ‘My experience in a Romanian Orphanage’, Massage Therapy Journal (Fall), Pp. 64-71.
Sheller, M. & Urry, J. (2006) ‘The New Mobilities Paradigm’, Environment and Planning A, no. 38, pp.
207-226.
30
Sin, C.H. (2005) ‘Seeking Informed Consent: Reflections on Research Practice’, Sociology, Vol. 39, No.
2, pp. 277-294.
Skeggs, B. (2005) ‘The Making of Class and Gender through Visualizing Moral Subject Formation’,
Sociology, vol. 39, pp. 965-982.
Smith, M. (2009) Rethinking Residential Care – Positive Perspectives, Bristol: Policy Press.
Snow, K. (2008) ‘Disposable Lives’, Children and Youth Services Review, vol. 30, pp. 1289–1298.
Snow, K. (2013) ‘Turning Stigma into Pride’, The Philanthropist, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 119-123.
Social Work Research Ethics Council (2013) Guidance for Social Care Research. Available at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/139565/dh_41224
27.pdf
[Accessed 14th June 2013]
Spencer, G. (1982) ‘Methodological Issues in the Study of Bureaucratic Elites: A Case Study of West
Point’, in: Burgess, R. G. (Ed.), Field Research: a Sourcebook and Field Manual. London: George Allen
& Unwin, pp. 77-87.
Spitz, R. (1945) ‘Hosipitalism’, Psychoanalytical Study of the Child, vol. 1, pp. 53-74.
Spradley, J.P. (1980) Participant Observation, New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Steckley, L. (2009) Don’t Touch.
Available at: http://www.cyc-net.org/cyc-online/cyconline-
dec2009-steckley.html
[Accessed 13th August 2013]
Steckley, L. (2011) ‘Touch, Physical Restraint and Therapeutic Containment in Residential Child Care’,
British Journal of Social Work, pp. 1-19.
Stimson, G. & Webb, B. (1975) Going to See the Doctor - The Consultation Process in General
Practice. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Suomi, S.J. (1995) Touch and the immune system in rhesus monkeys. In Field, T.M. (ed.), Touch in
Early Development, 89-103.
31
Taylor, J.L. (1921) The Stages of Human Life, in Montagu, A. (1986) Touching: The Human
Significance of The Skin, New York: Harper and Row. Pp, 4.
The Institute of Touch Online (2013) Available at: http://www6.miami.edu/touch-research/
[Accessed 13th March 2013]
Tobin, J. (1997) Making a Place for Pleasure in Early Childhood Education, Michigan: Edward Brothers
Ltd.
University of Nottingham (2010) Code of Research Conduct and Research Ethics, Available at:
http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/csc/academic-integrity/PhD/nottingham-research-code-ofconduct.php
[Accessed on 12th May, 2013]
Utting, W. (1997) People Like Us: A Review of the Safeguards for Children Living Away from Home,
London, Department of Health.
Ward, A. (1999) ‘“Residential staff should not touch children”: Can we really look after children in
this way?’, in A. Hardwick and J. Woodhead (eds), Loving, Hating and Survival: A Handbook for All
Who Work with Troubled Children and Young People, Aldershot, Ashgate Arena.
Webb, E., Campbell, D., Schwartz, R. & Sechrest, L. (1966) Unobtrusive measures: Nonreactive
measures in the Social Sciences, Chicago, IL: Rand-McNally.
Whyte, P. (1994) ‘If you want to get along with boys learn to wrestle’, in Smith, M. (2009) Rethinking
Residential Care – Positive Perspectives, Bristol: Policy Press. Pp. 128.
Widdowson, E. M. (1951) ‘Mental Contentment and Physical Growth’, Lancet, vol. 1, pp. 1316-1318.
Wortham, S.M. (2010) The Derrida Dictionary, London: Continuum International Publishing Group.
32
33