Issues in Educational Research, 30(2), 2020 473

Appropriate physical contact: The alignment of policy

and male primary teacher perceptions
Vaughan Cruickshank
University of Tasmania, Australia

Young children often seek acceptance and warmth from their teachers in the form of
physical contact. However, this expectation can create fear and uncertainty for male
teachers who are unsure of what is, and is not, appropriate physical contact for a man to
make with their young students. This paper builds on previous research by ascertaining
male primary teachers’ perceptions of when it is appropriate for them to make physical
contact with their students and examining the alignment of these perceptions with
relevant policy guidelines. Findings suggest that policy documents may need more
specific clarity about what is and is not acceptable physical contact for teachers to make
with their students. The comparison of perceptions and policy can provide important
insights into male primary teachers’ knowledge of appropriate physical contact and could
be used to inform coping strategies to help them persist in the teaching profession.

Introduction

Fear and uncertainty surrounding physical contact can be a difficult challenge for male
primary teachers. Young children often seek acceptance and warmth from their teachers
in the form of physical contact (Smith, 2008), however numerous studies (e.g., Burn &
Pratt-Adams, 2015; Cruickshank, Pedersen, Cooley & Hill, 2018; Reid et al., 2019) have
found that male primary teachers are not comfortable with this expectation. This
discomfort stems from their perceptions that actions such as hugging a distressed or
injured child are acceptable for their female colleagues, but not necessarily acceptable for
them. Previous research (e.g., Gosse, 2011) has specifically noted male primary teachers
(N=223) who were very reluctant to interact with their students in ways they believed
many women would consider accepted behaviour for nurturing their young pupils.
Similarly, studies such as Palmer et al. (2019) and Sargent (2000) found that male primary
teachers were not comfortable being tactile (e.g. hugging a distressed child), but used
“compensatory activities” (Sargent, 2000, p. 425) to develop relationships with their
students without using the same level of physical contact as their female colleagues.
Compensatory activities can be defined as “strategic attempts to offset the lack of
touching and closeness in the classroom” (Sargent, 2000, p. 427), and include low-level
non-intrusive physical contact, such as handshakes and high fives. Female teachers are
also likely to include handshakes and high fives in their classroom practice, yet, the
previous research described above suggests male teachers could be using these strategies
because they perceived other more tactile strategies were too risky for them to use.

Male primary teachers are highly aware of the dangers of making physical contact with
their students. Studies (e.g., Ashcraft & Sevier 2006; Cushman, 2005; Mills, Martino &
Lingard, 2004) have noted men who were very fearful of being accused of making
inappropriate physical contact, and consequently, choose not to make any physical contact
with their students, to reduce the chance of such an accusation. This strategy could work
474 Appropriate physical contact: The alignment of policy and male primary teacher perceptions

for some men, but does not align with other research (e.g., Ashley & Lee, 2003; Cushman,
2008; White, 2011) that found evidence of schools wanting males to display behaviours
that demonstrated that they had a caring ‘feminine’ side. Eleven of the principals in
Cushman’s New Zealand study stated that it was important for male teachers to
deconstruct stereotypes by being caring, talking about feelings and showing emotions. The
breadth of opinion in these and other studies highlight the assistance that male teachers
require in developing strategies to deal with challenges surrounding making physical
contact with their students.

Male primary teachers have reported that they are unsure of what is, and is not,
appropriate physical contact for a man to make with his young students. This fear and
uncertainty could contribute to men choosing to leave the teaching profession and
choosing not to become teachers in the first place (Cruickshank, 2016; Cushman, 2007;
Thornton & Bricheno, 2006). Identifying coping strategies to help male teachers deal with
the fear and uncertainty they experience around physical contact is a vital step in stopping
their declining numbers (Cruickshank, 2019a, McGrath & van Bergen, 2017) in primary
school classrooms. This decline is problematic considering calls from policy makers (e.g.,
Martin & Marsh, 2005), parents and school leaders (e.g., Cushman, 2008) and statutory
authorities (e.g., Weldon, 2015) for a greater number of male teachers in primary schools.

Additionally, previous research (e.g., Cushman, 2005) has found that the fear and
uncertainty male teachers experienced in relation to physical contact can be exacerbated
by a lack of knowledge and understanding related to policy. Cushman noted that few
schools have detailed physical contact policies to assist new teachers, particularly male, to
know where to set their boundaries in relation to physical contact. She also stated that
when schools do give direction on this topic, this advice is often followed by males and
ignored by females. This paper attempts to build on previous research in this area by
ascertaining male primary teachers’ perceptions of when it is appropriate for them to
make physical contact with their students, and examining the alignment of these
perceptions with relevant policy guidelines. The comparison of perceptions and policy will
provide important insights into male primary teachers’ knowledge of appropriate physical
contact and could be used to inform coping strategies to help them persist in the teaching
profession.

The present study

It is important to acknowledge that the participants in this study were all working in non-
government schools. Therefore, these findings are not claiming to be representative of
male teachers working in government primary schools. The non-government schools
participants worked in were all affiliated to a denomination of Christianity, predominantly
Catholic. Private Christian schools are strongly focused on the ‘pastoral care’ of their
students. The term ‘pastoral care’ originated in Jesus’ image as the Good Shepherd who
takes care of his flock, and emphasises care for, and growth of, the whole person
(Catholic Schools Tasmania, 2014). This focus on pastoral care is aimed at nurturing and
enhancing the personal, social, physical, emotional, mental and spiritual wellbeing of
Cruickshank 475

students in order to develop them as Christian men and women (St Mary’s Catholic
Primary School, 2018).

One of the key elements of pastoral care is the development and nurturing of quality
relationships within school communities (Catholic Schools Tasmania, 2014). There are
numerous strategies teachers can use to build positive relationships with their students,
yet, the use of physical contact is common for teachers developing rapport with young
children, particularly when these children are injured or upset (Andrzejewski & Davis,
2008; Johansson, Hedlin & Aberg, 2018). This situation can create a challenge for male
teachers in Christian primary schools who are expected to develop strong relationships
with their young students, but do not feel comfortable using physical contact. This
discomfort could also have been added to by the findings of the recent Royal Commission
into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. The final report (Commonwealth of
Australia, 2017) stated that 94% of perpetrators were male, predominantly priests and
teachers. Additionally, 59% of survivors stated that they were abused in an institution
managed by a religious organisation. While participants in this study are unlikely to be
personally involved with this Royal Commission, it is important to acknowledge that it
may have resulted in an increased awareness and heightened scrutiny of the actions of
men in schools.

Method

Participants

A total of 175 Tasmanian male primary teachers were invited to respond to an online
survey containing open ended questions focused on their perceptions of appropriate and
inappropriate physical contact with their students. 57 accessed the survey, of which 53
(mean age = 37.82, SD = 10.44) completed it. This number represents 30.3% of the
identified population. Demographic details can be seen in Table 1. Interview participants
were chosen from amongst the participants who self-nominated at the end of the survey
and contacted by email. The interview participants (n=5) were purposively sampled from
those that self-nominated at the end of the online survey (N=18) to ensure a variety of
ages, schools, years of experience and geographical locations.

Table 1: Survey participant demographic characteristics (N=53)

No. men
Age n Experience n teachers n Principal n Parent n 1st career n
in school
21-40 36 0-5 years 12 1 7 Male 26 Yes 34 Yes 32
41+ 17 6+ years 41 2+ 46 Female 27 No 19 No 21

Procedures

Survey participants were contacted through their school principals and invited to fill out
the online survey (Appendix A). Participants were required to provide consent before they
476 Appropriate physical contact: The alignment of policy and male primary teacher perceptions

could access the open-ended survey items, and all responses collected during August and
September 2015 were anonymous. This study was approved by the Tasmanian Social
Science Human Research Ethics Committee (Approval number: H12257). The survey
data collected and analysed was used to construct the guiding interview questions around
participants’ perceptions of appropriate and inappropriate physical contact with their
students. All interview participants were interviewed for approximately 30 minutes in June
2016. Interview participants chose, or were provided with the pseudonyms Fenton, Fred,
Harry, James and Steve.

The guiding questions for these interviews were designed to allow participants the
opportunity to describe their perceptions of the factors that lead to physical contact with
their students being acceptable or unacceptable in different contexts. The direction of the
interview was led primarily by the experiences and views shared by the participant, and all
interviews were audio-recorded. After the interviews were transcribed, clarifying questions
were added via track changes before the transcripts were returned to participants to check
for accuracy and add additional explanatory information if required. All interview
participants added clarification and additional material to these questions using track
changes before sending the document back. Member checking is an important strategy for
minimising researcher bias (Berger, 2015), and was undertaken to try and ensure that the
collection and representation of data was done in a way that authentically represented the
voices of participants.

Qualitative data from the open-ended survey questions were initially coded line by line
into key themes in both an inductive and deductive manner before being consolidated
into themes for discussion. The same process was followed for the analysis of interview
data. These themes were modified and refined through the data analysis process (Dagkas,
Benn & Jawad 2011). The findings presented below utilised excerpts from the open-ended
survey responses and the verbal responses of interview participants. These data are
presented together in an attempt to present a more informed picture of participants’
perceptions of the factors that influence the appropriateness of making physical contact
with their students. All coding and analysis was done using the NVivo software package
(Version 10).

Policy review

Initially this review focussed on the policies of the Tasmanian Catholic Education Office
(TCEO) and Christian Schools Tasmania (CST), because participants were employed in
these sectors. Due to a lack of information in these Tasmanian policies, further policies
from around Australia were accessed via organisation websites. While I did not expect that
a male teacher in a Tasmanian catholic school to follow, or probably even look at, the
policy of, for example, the South Australian Department of Education; I was interested in
whether these policies could assist male primary teachers by detailing strategies that
potentially they could use in their schools, in situations where the directions in their own
physical contact policy documents were vague or non-existent. In all, 14 policies and
teacher code of conduct documents were reviewed. This review included policies from all
six Australian states, the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory. Both
Cruickshank 477

government and non-government policies were reviewed, as well as the policies of

organisations such as Edmund Rice, who govern numerous Australian Catholic schools.
The 14 reviewed policies are listed in Table 2 below.

Table 2. Reviewed physical contact policies

Organisation State Policy

Edmund Rice Education Australia All Code of conduct
Australian Jesuit Province All Principles, protocols and standards of practice
Dept of Education and Training ACT Code of professional practice
Department of Education NSW Professional responsibilities
Catholic Education Wollongong NSW Code of conduct
Teachers Registration Board NT Protective practices
Catholic Education Brisbane Qld Code of conduct
Catholic Education South Australia SA Code of conduct
Dept of Education and Child Services SA Protective practices
Catholic Education Commission Tas Code of conduct
Christian Schools Tasmania Tas Code of conduct
Department of Education Tas Conduct and behaviour standards
Victorian Institute of Teaching Vic Code of conduct
Department of Education WA Code of conduct

It is important to note that this policy review was undertaken during the data analysis
phase of this study. The survey did not contain any questions specifically relating to the
policies subsequently analysed and the researchers did not ask any policy related questions
during the interviews. The purpose of this paper is to use the survey and interview data, in
light of the subsequent policy review to see how what policy says aligns with the
participants’ views. This comparison is important as it might reveal gaps in participants’
knowledge of appropriate physical contact and areas in which policy wording could be
used to inform coping strategies for men dealing with challenges surrounding making
physical contact with their students.

The structure of the following findings and discussion section has been influenced by a
similar policy review conducted by Cushman (2005), who reviewed the New Zealand
Educational Institute's Code of Practice. Cushman concluded that “appropriate contact
situations” (p. 235) were limited to those involved in physical restraint, first aid and
physical education. These three contexts have been used as part of a framework for this
section, which includes a review of policy wording, and relevant data from participants
detailing their perceptions of policy and its impact on their practice. These data sources
are compared to show that most participant perceptions do align with policy directives in
these ‘appropriate contact situations’. Other situations not identified by Cushman but
referred to by policy and or participants will also be examined.
478 Appropriate physical contact: The alignment of policy and male primary teacher perceptions

Findings and discussion

Physical restraint

Student safety and wellbeing is a key priority for teachers and a key aspect of pastoral care.
Consequently, participants in this study indicated they believed it was appropriate for
them to make physical contact to protect themselves and others from harm. Many
participants described how they had, and would continue to separate students who were
fighting or physically endangering themselves or others. For example:

If I have a child who has been misbehaving or I might need to restrain, planning ahead is
a big thing for me to ensure that if I do have to be physical there is someone else there
to witness how it is done. Fortunately I haven't had too many students here who I've
needed to restrain; and if I have ever had to restrain a student it has been a very minor
incident. So maybe just holding their hand or something like that or putting my hand on
their shoulder (James).

I have had to separate students who were fighting and have never been reprimanded for
doing so. I would always attempt to stop a student hurting another student physically or
otherwise (Survey Respondent 37).

I would stop students who were fighting or attempting to hurt another student. This can
involve things like physically restraining them until they cool down or grabbing a
students’ wrist before they hit someone (Survey Respondent 44).

These and other similar comments clearly illustrated that participants believed it was
appropriate for them to make physical contact to protect students from harm. These
findings align with previous research such as Cruickshank (2016) and Cushman (2005).
Participants indicated that the immediate safety of their students was more important to
them than worrying about other people scrutinising their actions. It seemed that in
potentially dangerous situations many participants made the quick decision that making
physical contact was in the best interests of their students. Participants willingly made
physical contact to assist their students, despite any fear and uncertainty they might have
experienced. These actions aligned with the wording of relevant Tasmanian policy
documents that identified physical restraint as an appropriate contact situation.

For example, the TCEO (2007) guidelines on appropriate physical contact state that
physical contact is appropriate “in order to prevent harm or further harm to students, self
and others” (p. 4). An interpretation of this wording suggests that teachers can physically
restrain students to protect themselves or others, yet there was no specific information on
how they should and should not do this. Similarly, Christian Schools Tasmania (CST)
mentions physical restraint in the more detailed “physical contact with students” section
of their code of conduct for teachers. They stated that physical contact is appropriate to
protect students, self and others as long as the physical intervention is “proportional to
the circumstances” (CST, 2015, p. 12). Even though such wording suggests a common-
sense approach, it is very subjective and highly likely to change from one context to the
next, depending on the strength of the student and teacher involved. This subjectivity
Cruickshank 479

might make male teachers uncertain whether they would have support from leadership if
they decided to take physical action in order to protect a student or themselves. The CST
guidelines also contain numerous cautionary statements such as advising teachers to be
mindful of the potential for touch to be misconstrued, which add further subjectivity and
uncertainty. The more detailed directives the Christian Schools Tasmania guidelines
contained were likely to be helpful to some male primary teachers, yet they still did not
contain specific information about how a teacher should restrain a student if required.

When other physical contact policies around Australia were reviewed, it appeared that the
South Australian guidelines for staff working in education settings (Government of South
Australia, 2019) contained some more specific directions on how a teacher should or
should not restrain a student. While all policy documents listed physical restraint as an
acceptable situation to make physical contact, the ‘appropriate physical contact’ section of
the South Australian guidelines contained a section specifically about safe practice when
using physical restraint. Along with typical cautionary statements such as using
“reasonable force” (p. 17), teachers are instructed to grip clothing rather than the body
whenever possible, take care to avoid contact with the breasts if restraining a female, and
continue talking to the child throughout the incident so they understand that physical
restraint will stop as soon as it is no longer necessary. Teachers should not apply force to
the head or neck, restrict breathing or hold a child by the hair or ear. These appear to be
common sense directions, yet the lack of specific definitions for terms such as ‘reasonable’
might contribute to male primary teachers being uncertain of exactly what physical contact
they can make, and fearful of making contact that others might perceive as unreasonable.
It is important to note that numerous documents (e.g., Department of Education and
Training, 2006; Government of Western Australia, 2011) stated that physical restraint
should only be used as a ‘last resort’.

Male primary teachers who are fearful of making unreasonable contact could resort to
non-physical interventions to managing violent behaviour. The Government of South
Australia (2019) suggested that these more verbal strategies could include directing the
child to a safe place while directing other students to move away, talking to the child
about the problem and what will happen if their behaviour continues, and sending for
assistance from other staff when required. These guidelines do offer more specific
directions than many other reviewed policies, yet questions remain. For example, teachers
are given no direction on contacting the groin of either male or female students. As other
body parts such as the head and breasts are specifically mentioned, the omission of this
and other areas could be interpreted as implying that they can be touched during the
physical restraint of a student. Teachers are unlikely to make this assumption, yet they
could experience fear and uncertainty about physically restraining a student because of the
lack of specific direction in policy documents.

First aid

Similar to physical restraint, situations involving first aid were also identified by most
participants as being appropriate for them to make contact with their students. Steve
480 Appropriate physical contact: The alignment of policy and male primary teacher perceptions

stated that he was willing to make physical contact that was in “the interest of the child”
and said that this would include first aid. Other comments included:

I generally do not make physical contact unless it is of a first aid situation. If I need to
make contact to assist a student I ensure I ask permission first and am never in a one on
one environment with a student (Survey Respondent 9)

I ensure that any physical contact, due to first aid, upset or relocation is observed by a
senior colleague and that it is appropriate zonal contact (Survey Respondent 13)

I have and will continue to physically assist injured students. If students are in pain I am
more concerned with helping them as quickly as possible, rather than worrying about
what other people would think of the physical contact I make (Survey Respondent 23).

As with situations involving physical restraint, these perceptions might have been
influenced by a belief that student safety was more important than worrying about what
other people might think of them making physical contact with their students. It seemed
that preventing further injury to their students caused many participants in this study to
disregard their self-protective mindset and make physical contact to assist their students.

Most participants indicated they would make physical contact to assist students in need of
first aid, yet other participants appeared to be less willing to do this. Fenton detailed an
alternative approach that involved contact only when absolutely necessary;

Fenton: If it is a cut or scrape I have given them a wipe or a Band-Aid etc. to use or put
on but I will not actually administer that myself. In most of those cases it is really a
noncontact all the time sort of situation. If someone had broken a limb and I had to
carry them I would do that but I would want a female member of staff present who said,
“Can you carry them please” and then escort me down to first aid. Thankfully I've never
been in any life-threatening situations but if you're in a situation like that then you have
to respond. There does come a point when political correctness does have to take a back
seat such as if someone is drowning.

Researcher: So for you that line of actually making physical contact is almost death?

Fenton: Yes. Unless there is an absolute necessity to me to physically be involved I will

stand back. I can talk, I can guide, I can hand things (Fenton).

Fenton’s comments clearly indicated that he had adopted an approach that was non-
contact in nearly all situations. He had developed this approach primarily for self-
protection, as he was very fearful of being accused of making inappropriate physical
contact with students in these situations. This finding aligns with previous research from
Burn and Pratt-Adams (2015), who noted that male teachers’ feel highly scrutinised so
they self-surveil, and consciously avoid making physical contact with their students.
Fenton’s fear and resultant self-protection mindset appeared to have been a significant
influence on his behaviour in situations where his student had minor injuries, but he did
acknowledge that he would act and make physical contact in life-threatening situations.
His reference to political correctness having to take a back seat in severe situations might
Cruickshank 481

have suggested that he was uncertain if physical contact was even appropriate in these
instances. Alternatively, Fenton might have been saying that he wanted to make physical
contact in first aid situations but believed it was politically correct for him not to do so.
Either way, it seems nonsensical for male primary teachers such as Fenton to be
uncomfortable assisting injured students until their injuries become life threatening.

The majority of policies identified first aid as a situation in which it was appropriate for a
teacher to make physical contact with a student. No policy wording inferred it was
inappropriate to make physical contact in first aid situations, yet, policies such as the
TCEO (2007) provided no direction for teachers in these situations. CST (2015) and other
organisations that identified first aid as appropriate (e.g., Government of Western
Australia, 2011; Northern Territory Government, 2011) stated that any physical contact
for the purposes of student care must be age, maturity, and health appropriate. Teachers
were advised that they should always ask permission before making physical contact with
a student, and advise them of their intention to touch the specific body parts required to
assess their injury. The review of all 14 policies revealed that it was appropriate for male
teachers to make physical contact with students in first aid situations, if the directions
described above were followed. This review indicated that participant perceptions did
align with policy directives surrounding physical contact and first aid, yet, this was less
clear for participants from Catholic schools.

In class demonstrations

The only subject that participants specifically referred to in relation to the appropriateness
of physical contact was health and physical education. Previous research has noted that
health and physical education teachers commonly use demonstrations in their pedagogical
delivery (Hyndman et al., 2019). Most primary schools in Tasmania have part time
specialist health and physical education teachers, but classroom teachers can be involved
in these lessons:

When we go to the pool with the preps and I get in and the kids are doing star floats, I'll
grab their legs and pull them apart so they can feel what the position is like. With the
2/3s I'll still get in the pool, but I might not be quite so hands-on, and by the grade
4/5/6 you're not in the pool anymore. If we are doing something like netball or soccer, I
might position someone correctly and say “put your body here, kick it that way” but only
if it is really necessary because they're not getting it (Steve).

I am very conscious about making any physical contact with students. If I need to make
contact to assist with a physical skill, I always ask permission first and make sure there
are other people around (Survey Respondent 16).

I do not get involved with gymnastics, swimming or after last year; dance. Very sad, but I
have had a few problems last year with safety issues. I guided a child and was
reprimanded, thus why I won’t do those activities any more. I will do activities that do
not require me to physically assist my students (Survey Respondent 45).
482 Appropriate physical contact: The alignment of policy and male primary teacher perceptions

Steve’s comments about physically guiding students who were uncertain of correct
technique were echoed by several other participants. These comments indicated that some
male primary teachers believed it was appropriate for them to make physical contact with
their students to physically assist students with the correct performance of a skill or
movement. The third comment above indicated that not all participants shared this belief
or had positive experiences with making physical contact in physical education situations.
This survey respondent gave no contextual information about how he did the guiding,
student age, or whom the reprimand had come from; which made it hard to make a
judgement on the appropriateness of his actions. His, and other similar comments did
indicate a lack of participant consensus about the appropriateness of making physical
contact during in class demonstrations.

Similar to the first aid situation, no policy wording stated or inferred it was inappropriate
to make physical contact when demonstrating skills in health and physical education
classes. The TCEO (2007) and CST (2015) provided no mention of these situations in
their policy documents. Other states inferred the acceptability of physical contact for
demonstration without directly stating it. For example, the NSW Professional Responsibilities
(NSW Government, 2015) indicated that “If teachers physically contact students in class
demonstrations, such as PE or drama lessons, they should explain the activity involved
and what they will do” (p. 1). Similarly, the Government of South Australia (2019) stated
that “Where touch is essential for safety reasons (e.g., with aquatic or gymnastic
instruction), always tell the child or young person that you need to hold them in a
particular way and seek their permission to do so” (p. 16). The South Australian document
directed teachers to use verbal instructions rather than touch where possible, yet, the
wording of these two statements indicates that these situations are perceived as likely to
occur and that physical contact is acceptable if required. The only policy that does state
directly that examples of appropriate physical contact included demonstrations during
physical education (Government of Western Australia, 2011), cautioned that this contact
was “subject to a test of reasonableness” (p. 8). This wording is another example of the
highly subjective contents of policy documents that can lead to male primary teachers
being fearful and uncertain about making physical contact with their students. The
alignment of participant perceptions and policy is much harder to judge in physical
education contexts, due to the lack of information in policy documents, particularly
Tasmanian documents, and a lack of consensus amongst participants.

Other situations

In addition to the contexts described above, participants also identified challenges and
strategies relating to physical contact when delivery of pastoral care, such as consoling
students and congratulating students. Student age and specific body locations appeared to
be important considerations when making physical contact in these situations. These other
situations were mentioned by some policies but were omitted from many others. It was
therefore difficult to determine if these organisations considered physical contact to be
unacceptable in these situations, or if they had not even considered them. This
inconsistency was added to by the wording of different policies giving teachers conflicting
advice on the same situation.
Cruickshank 483

Hugging an upset student

Participants’ in this study had contrasting views on the appropriateness of men hugging an
upset student. Most participants in this study indicated that they would not be
comfortable making physical contact in this situation. This finding aligns with numerous
previous studies (e.g., Gosse, 2011; Burn & Pratt Adams, 2015) who have encountered
male primary teachers who were also reluctant to make physical contact in this context.
Participants made statements such as:

I feel it is ridiculous that I cannot comfort a child when they are in distress as it might be
seen as inappropriate even though hugging a child when they are upset is perfectly
reasonable. This issue doesn't affect my day to day interaction as I don't do it (Survey
Respondent 9).

It is ok for female staff to hug children when they are hurt/upset but it is not OK for
men when similar or the same circumstances exist (Survey Respondent 18).

I do not feel comfortable hugging students in my class (Survey Respondent 27).

Despite this majority view, a vocal minority believed it was vitally important that male
primary teachers did hug their students:

I am certainly aware of other people’s perceptions, but I do respond to a hug, I just have
to really be careful and make sure everything is done in public. If they come and lean up
against and I don't push away because they are doing that for a reason (Fred).

I don't want my students thinking that male teachers can’t give them a hug. The worst
thing male teachers can do is withdraw. How can you not console a prep child by giving
them a hug? Men can and should be nurturing as well (Harry).

This comment demonstrates that there are male primary teachers who think it is
appropriate for men to hug an upset young student. This finding aligns with previous
research (e.g., Cruickshank, Pedersen, Cooley & Hill, 2019; White, 2011) that noted male
primary teachers who believe men should display the same behaviours as their female
colleagues do. Despite the passion of participants such as Harry these beliefs were not
consistent across most participants in this study. These men will need to adopt other less
physical strategies to ensure they are nurturing the students in their care.

The TCEO (2007) code of conduct made no mention of the appropriateness of a hug in
this situation, and this lack of information was consistent across the CST guidelines (2015)
as well as the great majority of teacher code of conduct documents across Australia.
Those policies that did mention this context gave contradictory advice on the
appropriateness of making physical contact. The New South Wales professional
responsibilities guidelines (NSW Government, 2015) stated that it was appropriate to
provide reassurance by putting an arm around a younger student who is hurt or seeking
comfort, whereas South Australian teachers are directed to discourage younger children
from inappropriate expectations of hugs (Government of South Australia, 2019). When
484 Appropriate physical contact: The alignment of policy and male primary teacher perceptions

physical contact guidelines do not offer clear advice, and guidelines from similar bodies
around Australia offer conflicting advice, it is easy to understand why men might be
uncertain about what they should do when providing pastoral care to their students, and
fearful of doing the wrong thing.

Congratulating students

There was more agreement evident in participants’ perceptions of the appropriateness of

making physical contact when congratulating students. Most participants who referred to
these situations indicated they believed making physical contact was appropriate. For
example:

I am really into shaking hands and giving them high-fives so that kind of contact helps to
develop rapport where they don't feel uncomfortable if I do put my hand on their
shoulder. So it sets a precedent of what acceptable physical contact is, and that it is quite
normal for boys and girls (James).

I will give students a pat on the shoulder or upper back if they have done a good job. I
think small gestures like this are important for congratulating and building rapport with
students (Survey Respondent 28).

I give students high fives or fist bumps when they have done a good job; the boys in
particular really like this (Survey Respondent 47).

These comments were consistent with previous research (e.g., Cruickshank, 2016; Sargent,
2000), and physical contact guidelines from organisations such as CST (2015) that listed
shaking hands, and pats on the upper arm or back as being acceptable physical contact.
Participants believed that making this low level non-intrusive physical contact was an
important part of providing pastoral care and building rapport with students without
needing the same level of physical contact as their female colleagues. These and other
comments also revealed that participants were very particular about where on their
students’ bodies they made contact with in the event that they did choose to make
physical contact in order to congratulate them. This review indicated that participant
perceptions did align with policy directives surrounding physical contact and
congratulating students, yet, this was less clear for participants from Catholic schools as
the TCEO (2007) made no mention of this context.

Body parts

Participant’s comments revealed that if they ever made physical contact with their
students, they were very conscious of where on their students’ body they contact. Some
men made specific reference to the parts of the body they believed were appropriate to
make contact with.

If I have to touch them then I'm a bit more particular and specific about where I touch
them and how I touch them - only on the shoulder or elbow (Fred).
Cruickshank 485

In relation to comforting a student I only ever put one hand on either their shoulder or
back and make sure my stance and body position is open and positive. In relation to
younger students who want to hold your hand; I allow it. But when they want to sit on
your knee or lean up against you I say to them that I need some space to read the book
better (Survey Respondent 9).

These and other comments demonstrated that participants in this study were very aware
of which parts of students’ bodies they made physical contact with. These remarks echoed
previous research on male primary teachers such as Ashcraft and Sevier (2006) which
identified these body parts. Like James above, the actions Fred and others described were
consistent with guidelines such as those written by CST (2015). It was also evident that
participants tried to make sure they did not embarrass or offend their students if they
choose not to respond to requests for physical contact. This behaviour was consistent
with the South Australian guidelines for staff working in education settings (Government
of South Australia, 2019) and highly relevant for those male primary teachers working in
the early childhood area.

Fred’s acceptance of physical contact as a part of his teaching could be partly attributed to
his experience in the early childhood area. Students of this age are much more tactile,
especially when in need of support and reassurance (Johansson et al, 2018; Smith, 2008).
As these younger students require more physical help and comfort those men who teach
in early childhood are likely to become accustomed to a higher level of physical contact
when delivering pastoral care than men who teach older students.

Student age

Participant data suggested that there was a perceived difference between making contact
with a grade six student and making contact with a younger early childhood student. This
finding aligns with previous research such as Cushman (2009). This difference might be
because a comforting hug for a five-year-old is seen as more socially acceptable and
innocent than a similar act with a more mature pre-teen. It is difficult to define the exact
age at which it becomes less appropriate to make physical contact with students. Despite
this difficulty, many participants suggested there was a difference between making physical
contact with early childhood (kinder to grade two) students, and making physical contact
with upper primary (grade three to six) students;

When they are younger in grade 2/3 I think it is more acceptable that the girls might
come and have a kick of the football and things like that and it's a bit easier to build
relationships without being so aware that you do need to be a bit careful. I think that
upper primary is where you become aware of it [physical contact] and need to consider it.
So just make sure you're a bit more hands off. I generally am very hands on with kids but
once it gets to grade 5/6 girls even a pat on the back you just don't go there, I think
(Steve).

I am much more aware of this [physical contact] with students once they get to about
grade three and are considered upper primary (Survey Respondent 10).
486 Appropriate physical contact: The alignment of policy and male primary teacher perceptions

These comments reveal that male teachers are much more aware of making physical
contact with students once they have entered the upper primary grades and started to
mature and develop physically. Their statements echo teacher comments from previous
research such as Andrzejewski and Davis (2008). Steve appeared to be comfortable
making physical contact with students but believed that it was less appropriate for male
primary teachers to contact older students, particularly female. Consequently, the physical
contact he made with his students decreased as their age increased. Steve’s comments
imply that he would have to constantly adjust his teaching approach and level of physical
contact to ensure he was interacting appropriately with all students. Most of the policy
documents reviewed made no mention of student age affecting the appropriateness of
physical contact, but many included subjective statements such as all physical contact
“must be age appropriate” (Government of South Australia, 2019; p. 16). Despite this lack
of direction from policy, age did appear to be an important consideration for the
participants in this study.

Unofficial policies

Despite the glaring omissions from policy documents, no participants in this study directly
stated that policy contributed to their fear and uncertainty in relation to making physical
contact with their students. While teachers should be aware that policy documents exist,
the lack of conversation on policy suggested that some participants may likely not be
aware of the existence, contents or shortcomings of the policies dictating the
appropriateness of their actions. Rather, participants referred to ‘unofficial’ policies (i.e.
unwritten social and institutional norms) that did affect their behaviour regarding physical
contact.

As far as I'm aware there is no policy that says a male teacher should not comfort a child
in distress. You would think the policy would be the same for all teachers but it's sort of
the unspoken reality that as a male you are very much more aware of any physical
interaction with the kids, even sitting close to a kid (Fenton).

The simplest, and dare I say 'expected' strategy is to maintain personal space at all times.
In the event of injury, provide verbal comfort and send for a female member of staff.
When dealing with an upset child, remain in the open or move to an open area, ask a
friend to remain close, sit opposite, never next to, the child and depending on the
issue/gender of the child involved, send for a female member of staff. As a man I am
'allowed' to deal with angry, aggressive boys, but not girls. While none of this is written
anywhere in school, policy, it is an agreed upon and generally understood policy-by-
default (Survey Respondent 24).

Numerous participants stated that they had experienced double standards in terms of
what was acceptable physical contact for male and female teachers to make with their
students. Cushman (2005) identified these double standards in her work on male primary
teachers and reported that they often resulted in physical contact policies being followed
by men and ignored by women. This situation revealed an obvious inequity as these male
teachers felt that they could not comfort an upset child like a parent or female teacher
could, without putting themselves at risk.
Cruickshank 487

Conclusion
Participant perceptions of when and where it was appropriate for them to make physical
contact with their students were largely in line with policy documents. Despite this
alignment, many of these documents were vague and lacked the depth of information
required by male primary teachers who were fearful and uncertain in relation to physical
contact. Some examples of missing information included where on the body a teacher
could make contact when physically restraining a violent student, and whether the
appropriateness of physical contact was affected by student age. These omissions made it
difficult to compare participants’ perceptions and policy documents.

Most policies and participants agreed that it was appropriate to make physical contact with
students in situations involving physical restraint and first aid; yet contrasting opinions
were evident for other situations such as in class demonstrations and hugging upset
students. A review of the 14 policies revealed that many made no mention of these other
situations. These omissions made it impossible to ascertain whether these organisations
viewed contact as appropriate or inappropriate in these situations. Further inconsistency
was evident when the policy documents that did refer to these situations were in direct
conflict. Participant opinions were also in direct conflict when referring to situations such
as hugging an upset child.

Physical contact guidelines such as those written by the TCEO (2007) and CST (2015)
could be improved through the inclusion of more specific directions on appropriate
behaviour in common teaching contexts, such as those involving first aid, physical
restraint and upset students. This increased guidance could allow teachers, particularly
male, to be more confident in their actions when offering their students the pastoral care
and support they require, and help them develop coping strategies to deal with the fear
and uncertainty they experience in relation to physical contact. Alternatively, more detailed
guidelines could perpetuate the gendered double standards noted by participants and
Cushman (2005). These guidelines would be gender neutral and written for all teachers,
yet the reality described by both Cushman and participants in this study is that they could
make the experiences of male primary teachers even harder. Female teachers are likely to
continue making the same amount of physical contact they currently do, whereas their
male colleagues would likely feel that they had to follow strictly all guidelines
(Cruickshank, 2019b).

More detailed guidelines could reduce some of the uncertainty surrounding when and
where male primary teachers should make physical contact with their students, but they
might not reduce their fear. If men are to feel less fearful about making physical contact
with their students they will need the support of their colleagues, school leaders, and the
school community. Future research should also explore how to best educate teachers and
members of the school community about what is contained in policy documents. Male
primary teachers who continue to be fearful of being accused of making inappropriate
physical contact with their students might decide that not making any physical contact
with their students is the best way to cope with this challenge and consequently protect
themselves from accusations of inappropriate behaviour.
488 Appropriate physical contact: The alignment of policy and male primary teacher perceptions

Acknowledgement

The author would like to thank Associate Professor Glenn Savage for his time and advice
on an early draft of this article.

References

Andrzejewski, C. E. & Davis, H. A. (2008). Human contact in the classroom: Exploring

how teachers talk about and negotiate touching students. Teaching and Teacher Education,
24(3), 779-794. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2007.02.013
Ashcraft, C. & Sevier, B. (2006). Gender will find a way: Exploring how male elementary
teachers make sense of their experiences and responsibilities. Contemporary Issues in Early
Childhood, 7(2), 130-145. https://doi.org/10.2304/ciec.2006.7.2.130
Ashley, M. & Lee, J. (2003). Women teaching boys: Caring and working in the primary school. Stoke
on Trent, United Kingdom: Trentham Books.
Berger, R. (2015). Now I see it, now I don’t: Researcher’s position and reflexivity in
qualitative research. Qualitative Research, 15(2), 219-234.
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1468794112468475
Burn, E. & Pratt-Adams, S. (2015). Men teaching children 3-11: Dismantling gender barriers.
London, United Kingdom: Bloomsbury. https://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/men-
teaching-children-3-11-9781472527356/
Christian Schools Tasmania (2015). Code of conduct.
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/598e5425914e6bba68a1de0d/t/5ab9b4472b6a
28f01f6870a2/1522119756055/2018+CST+Code+of+Conduct.pdf
Commonwealth of Australia (2017). Final report: Royal commission into institutional responses to
child sexual abuse. https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/final-report
Cruickshank, V. (2016). The challenges faced by male primary teachers. Doctoral thesis,
University of Tasmania. https://eprints.utas.edu.au/23795/
Cruickshank, V. (2019a): How do Australian male primary teachers cope with social
isolation in their schools? Education 3-13.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2019.1645191
Cruickshank, V. (2019b). Male primary teachers’ fear and uncertainty surrounding physical
contact. Education 3-13, 47(2), 247-257.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2018.1434221
Cruickshank, V., Pedersen, S., Cooley, P. D. & Hill, A. (2018). Towards a measure of
gender-related challenges faced by male primary teachers. Australian Journal of Education,
62(1), 49-60. https://doi.org/10.1177/0004944117751440
Cruickshank, V., Pedersen, S., Cooley, D. & Hill, A. (2019). How do male primary
teachers negotiate expectations to perform gendered roles in their schools? Australian
Educational Researcher, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-019-00337-z
Cruickshank 489

Cushman, P. (2005). Let’s hear it from the males: Issues facing male primary school
teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(3), 227-240.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2005.01.012
Cushman, P. (2007). The male teacher shortage: A synthesis of research and worldwide
strategies for addressing the shortage. KEDI Journal of Educational Policy, 4(1), 79-98.
http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/25573635/male-teacher-shortage-
synthesis-research-worldwide-strategies-addressing-shortage
Cushman, P. (2008). So what exactly do you want? What principals mean when they say
'male role model'. Gender and Education, 20(2), 123-136.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09540250701805847
Cushman, P. J. (2009). Three men teachers, three countries and three responses to the
physical contact dilemma. International Journal of Education, 1(1), 1-16.
https://doi.org/10.5296/ije.v1i1.210
Dagkas, S., Benn, T. & Jawad, H. (2011). Multiple voices: Improving participation of
Muslim girls in physical education and school sport. Sport, Education and Society, 16(2),
223-239. https://doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2011.540427
Department of Education and Training, ACT (2006). Teachers’ code of professional practice.
http://www.det.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/17692/TeachersCode_ofPro
fessionalPractice.pdf
Gosse, D. (2011). Race, sexual orientation, culture and male teacher role models: “Will any
teacher do as long as they are good?” The Journal of Men's Studies, 19(2), 116-137.
https://doi.org/10.3149%2Fjms.1902.116
Government of New South Wales (2015). Professional responsibilities. [not found 14 Feb
2020]http://www.dec.nsw.gov.au/about-us/careers-centre/school-
careers/teaching/your-teaching-career/approved-teachers/casual-teacher-
induction/professional-responsibilities
Government of South Australia (2019). Protective practices for staff in their interactions with
children and young people.
https://www.education.sa.gov.au/sites/g/files/net691/f/protective_practices_for_sta
ff_in_their_interactions_with_children_and_young_people.pdf
Government of Western Australia (2011). Code of conduct.
http://www.det.wa.edu.au/policies/detcms/policy-planning-and-
accountability/policies-framework/guidelines/code-of-conduct1.en?cat-id=3457094
Hyndman, B., Suesee, B., McMaster, N., Harvey, S., Jefferson-Buchanan, R., Cruickshank,
V., Barnes, M. & Pill, S. (2019). Physical education across the international media: A
five-year analysis. Sport, Education and Society, 25(3), 1-18.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2019.1583640
Johansson, C., Hedlin, M. & Åberg, M. (2018). A touch of touch: Preschool teacher
education students' reflections about physical touch. Issues in Educational Research, 28(4),
953-966. http://www.iier.org.au/iier28/johansson.pdf
490 Appropriate physical contact: The alignment of policy and male primary teacher perceptions

Martin, A. & Marsh, H. (2005). Motivating boys and motivating girls: Does teacher gender
really make a difference? Australian Journal of Education, 49(3), 320-334.
https://doi.org/10.1177/000494410504900308
Mills, M., Martino, W. & Lingard, B. (2004). Attracting, recruiting and retaining male
teachers: Policy issues in the male teacher debate. British Journal of Sociology of Education,
25(3), 355-369. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142569042000216990
McGrath, K. F. & van Bergen, P. (2017). Are male teachers headed for extinction? The
50-year decline of male teachers in Australia. Economics of Education Review, 60)October),
159-167.
Northern Territory Government (2011). Protective practices: For teachers in their interactions with
children and young people
https://www.trb.nt.gov.au/system/files/uploads/files/2019/TRB%20NT%20-
%20Protective%20Practices%20.pdf
Palmer, C., Cruickshank, V., Drummond, M. & Reid, D. (2019). Male primary school
teachers, masculinity and identity work in regional Australia. Sport, Education and Society,
25(3), 261-273. https://doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2019.1578207
Reid, D., Palmer, C., Drummond, M. & Cruickshank, V. (2019). Framing gender:
Representing male teachers in the Australian and New Zealand press. Australian
Journalism Review, 41(1), 37-52. https://doi.org/10.1386/ajr.41.1.37_1
Sargent, P. (2000). Real men or real teachers?: Contradictions in the lives of men
elementary teachers. Men and Masculinities, 2(4), 410-433.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1097184X00002004003
Smith, J. (2008). The experience of crossing over into pink collar work. Saarbrucken, Germany:
VDM Verlag Dr Muller.
St Mary’s Catholic Primary School (2018). Student pastoral care policy.
http://www.stmarysarmidale.catholic.edu.au/ourschool.php?id=28
Tasmanian Catholic Education Commission (2007). Code of conduct.
https://catholic.tas.edu.au/_d/2200
Tasmanian Catholic Education Commission (2014). Pastoral care and well-being.
https://catholic.tas.edu.au/support-for-students
Weldon, P. R. (2015). The teacher workforce in Australia: Supply, demand and data issues.
Camberwell, Vic: Australian Council for Educational Research.
https://research.acer.edu.au/policyinsights/2/
White, S. (2011). Dads as teachers: Exploring duality of roles in the New Zealand context.
The Journal of Men's Studies, 19(2), 173-186. https://doi.org/10.3149/jms.1902.173

Appendix A: Survey questions

Question set 1: Demographics

What is your age?

How many years teaching experience do you have?

Cruickshank 491

What grades have you taught? (Select all that apply)

Kinder
Prep
Grade 1
Grade 2
Grade 3
Grade 4
Grade 5
Grade 6

What has encouraged/motivated you to be a primary school teacher?

Question set 2: Physical contact

In your teaching career have you ever had to make physical contact with one of more of
your students for any reason? If yes, please describes some of these situations.

When do you believe it is acceptable for a teacher to make physical contact with their
students?

Are there any factors that influence this acceptability, or is your previous answer true for
all teachers in all primary school classes? Please elaborate on any influencing factors.

When do you believe it is not acceptable for a teacher to make physical contact with their
students?

Do you have any other comments?

Appendix B: Indicative interview questions

Can you tell me about your experiences of being a male primary teacher?

In your teaching career have you ever had to make physical contact with one of more of
your students for any reason? If yes, please describes some of these situations.

When do you believe it is acceptable for a teacher to make physical contact with their
students?
492 Appropriate physical contact: The alignment of policy and male primary teacher perceptions

Are there any factors that influence this acceptability, or is your previous answer true for
all teachers in all primary school classes? Please elaborate on any influencing factors.

When do you believe it is not acceptable for a teacher to make physical contact with their
students?

Do you have any other comments?

Prompt questions (if required)

Do you think your gender has affected your experiences in relation to making physical
contact with your students? Can you tell me about some specific examples?

How do you deal with uncertainty in relation to making physical contact with your
students?

Dr Vaughan Cruickshank is a former health and physical education teacher who

taught mainly in primary schools. He is currently a lecturer in the School of Education,
Launceston Campus, University of Tasmania, where he is the program director of the
Bachelor of Education (Health and Physical Education) and (Science/Maths) programs.
Email: [email protected]

Please cite as: Cruickshank, V. (2020). Appropriate physical contact: The alignment of
policy and male primary teacher perceptions. Issues in Educational Research, 30(2), 473-492.
http://www.iier.org.au/iier30/cruickshank.pdf