Touch in residential child care: staff’s bodies and children’s agency

Enacting the overweight body in residential child care: Eating and agency beyond the nature–culture divide

“…This study pursued the somewhat more general aim of reconstructing the corporeality and materiality of children’s agency in residential care (Eßer, 2017). Here, ethnography presented itself as a valuable research strategy for examining the concrete everyday practices through which local cultures are established, culturally and materially.…”

“…As Pink (2015) emphasizes, ethnographic research offers the opportunity to do justice to the different senses, which often leads us to the normally not spoken, the invisible and the unexpected -those things that people do not perhaps necessarily think it would be worth mentioning, or things that tend to be felt or sensed rather than spoken about. (p. 53) This study pursued the somewhat more general aim of reconstructing the corporeality and materiality of children's agency in residential care (Eßer, 2017). Here, ethnography presented itself as a valuable research strategy for examining the concrete everyday practices through which local cultures are established, culturally and materially.…”

Silencing touch and touching silence? Understanding the complex links between touch and silence in residential child care settings

“…The touch literature differentiates various static touch categorisations, generally distinguishing between good and bad touch, designated as sexual or platonic, nurturing or abusive (Aquino and Lee, 2000;McNeil-Haber, 2004;Owen and Gillentine, 2011), with absent touch or touch deprivation sometimes also being discussed (Green, 2017). These categorisations generally conflate the physical touch configuration with a distinct meaning, such as a hug representing positive and nurturant touch (Eßer, 2018). However, despite 'affectionate' touch being vital for child development (Field, 2014) and adult mental health (Linden, 2015), 'appropriate' child/carer touch or more generic normative touching practices vary considerably culturally, historically and ideologically (O'Malley-Halley, 2007), Some qualitative studies suggest the significant impact absent or abusive touch in childhood can have on adults' self-esteem, body image, platonic and intimate relationships, and on giving and receiving touch (Johansson, 2013;Sakson-Obada, 2014).…”

Honneth and positive identity formation in residential care

“…It is acknowledged that the concept of “love” is also contested in residential care and not without its complications given the risk averse society in which the service is delivered (Smith et al, ). In this article, it is suggested that love is understood as a form of recognition and as such permits expressions of warmth and affection including physical touch (Eber, ; Steckley, ), hugging, brushing a child's hair, snuggling in to read a book together, watch a film, cook meals, and do households tasks together (Almquist & Lassinantti, ; Kendrick, ; Lausten & Frederiksen, ). Although these elements of daily care are apparent in some residential child care settings, it is also the case that in the risk averse macroclimate surrounding the delivery of residential child care, these more intimate aspects of daily care have been compromised by worker fear and a lack of clarity regarding role (Brown et al, ).…”