Pedagogical touch: exploring the micro-realities of coach–athlete sensory interactions in high-performance sports

ABSTRACT

Background

Touch has emerged as a social taboo rather than as an educational tool among sport pedagogues, especially in the #MeToo era. Believing that minimising physical contact will protect themselves from sexual allegations, instructors (coaches and PE teachers) are increasingly opting for hands-off practices, which transforms sport into a no-touch zone. Although extant sport literature has focused on the potential risks and controversial issues of intergenerational touch, academic endeavours exploring its pedagogical value in sensory interaction are limited.

Purpose

This study emphasises the fundamental necessity of pedagogical touch (PT) in high-performance sports. Drawing on Merleau-Ponty’s (1968) ‘flesh’ as an elemental tissue knitting the inter-world by entangling (subjectively sensing and objectively being sensed) the existences of oneself, others, and the world, we examine the micro-realities of PT occurring in coach–athlete interactions. As one of the few empirical investigations using video analysis, this study is expected to complement the current understanding of coach–athlete tactile communication by linking it with Merleau-Ponty’s phenomenological concepts.

Methods

Sensory ethnography was employed to comprehend the nuances and dynamics of PT in coach–athlete relationships. Sixteen participants, comprising eight coaches and eight adolescent athletes across four high-performance sports (golf, taekwondo, wrestling, and handball), were selected. Empirical data were gathered through observations using body-mounted camcorders (GoPro7), stimulated recall interviews, and semi-structured interviews. The data were analysed by alternating between inductive fieldwork and deductive framework.

Results and discussion

Our empirical investigation revealed three key findings. First, PT aims to transfer each sport’s normative body schema of postures, muscles, and senses. Second, the overlapping zone of tactile, visual, and auditory sensations—synaesthesia—enables coaches to explore athletes’ inner sensory conditions appropriately for individualised prescriptions of PT. Third, coaches utilise objects as extended bodies to touch opposite-sex athletes without skin-to-skin contact. Reflecting on the results, we discuss conducive considerations for coaches to maintain the pedagogical benefits of touch: (a) educational persuasion regarding the discomfort caused when athletes’ body schema is de/reconstructed by PT; (b) appropriate questions to understand athletes’ internal sensations; and (c) inclusive application of object-mediated touch to ensure the safety of PT by avoiding direct contact with athletes’ sensitive body parts, irrespective of sex or gender.

Conclusion

Based on the findings, the authors suggest that sporting agencies broaden their attention towards supporting coaches to be professionally prepared for potential touch-related problems. This can be achieved by offering coaches opportunities to cultivate their ethical and pedagogical sensibilities about intergenerational touch through education on actual un/professional PT cases, instead of continuing with the current no-touch discourses (less touch, less problem). Thereby, coaches, who face dilemmas regarding tactile communication without alternative pedagogies, can reflect on their own practice compared to others’ PT cases while building didactic contracts with their athletes and handling problematic circumstances.

KEYWORDS:

• Pedagogical touch
• flesh
• body schema
• synaesthesia
• extended body

Introduction

Growing social anxiety around abuse has triggered strict regulations aimed at minimising the potential peril of coaches’ body contact in sport settings (Garratt, Piper, and Taylor 2013; Piper, Taylor, and Garratt 2012; Piper, Garratt, and Taylor 2015). These policies have undoubtedly contributed to the enhancement of athletes’ safety, welfare, and rights across multiple dimensions (e.g. Lang and Hartill 2014; Rhind and Owusu-Sekyere 2018); however, they simultaneously characterise coaches as ‘dangerous individuals’, capable of perpetrating abuse (Lang 2010, 2015; Lang and McVeigh 2020; Taylor, Piper, and Garratt 2016). In this risk-averse society, which defines the act of adult–child (adolescent) touch as suspicious regardless of its pedagogical appropriateness (Lang 2015; McWilliam and Sachs 2004), sport has been rapidly transforming into a no-touch zone (Gleaves and Lang 2017; Lang 2015; Piper, Taylor, and Garratt 2012; Piper, Garratt, and Taylor 2015). As exemplified by hashtags such as #CoachDontTouchMe (e.g. Eberle and Müller 2018; Gaedicke et al. 2021), physical proximity with athletes entails the risk of being seen as (sexual) offenders by the media, outsiders, and even fellow coaches; therefore, believing that ‘no-touch at all is the correct, safe and prudent option’ (Piper, Garratt, and Taylor 2013a, 578), coaches are increasingly opting for hands-off practices (Lang 2015; Piper, Garratt, and Taylor 2013b; Taylor, Piper, and Garratt 2016).

While some studies have highlighted how safety policies, regulations, and guidelines nudge coaches towards no-touch practices (e.g. Lang 2010, 2015; Piper, Taylor, and Garratt 2012; Piper, Garratt, and Taylor 2013a, 2013b, 2015; Taylor, Piper, and Garratt 2016), others have problematised prevailing concerns around touch in sports. For instance, Pépin-Gagné and Parent (2016) argued that coaches’ dread of false allegations is perhaps overblown as athletes can distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable behaviours, and therefore, do not view all touches from coaches negatively. Gleaves and Lang (2017) similarly noted that athletes’ parents generally deem coaches’ physical contact legitimate as long as it relates to preventing harm, teaching techniques, and caring emotions; indeed, some parents criticise coaches’ increasing reluctance to touch as a dereliction of duty. Furthermore, several scholars have examined the dilemma/paradox of intergenerational touch and its negotiation between instructors and learners, which determines the appropriateness of touch in educational settings (e.g. Andersson, Öhman, and Garrison 2018; Caldeborg 2022; Jones, Bailey, and Santos 2013). Specifically, Caldeborg, Maivorsdotter, and Öhman (2019) asserted that the didactic contract—the instructor and learner’s reciprocal expectations or responsibilities in certain educational scenes—is maintained or breached depending on the situation. For instance, learners seldom feel uncomfortable with instructors’ touch when its purposes are clear (e.g. learning complicated skills, preventing injuries, and giving comfort or encouragement) and when it fits with their personal preference (i.e. each learner has a different boundary for physical contact). Hence, pedagogues should individualise their touching practices for each athlete (Milius et al. 2021) while considering various elements that affect the implicit agreement on when, where, and how intergenerational contact can occur (Andersson, Öhman, and Garrison 2018; Caldeborg 2022; Caldeborg, Maivorsdotter, and Öhman 2019). This would promote the effectiveness of positive tactile communication for instructing techniques, preventing injuries, strengthening relationships, mitigating conflicts, and regaining emotional control (Andersson, Öhman, and Garrison 2018; Kerr et al. 2015; Kraus, Huang, and Keltner 2010; Milius et al. 2021; Miller, Franken, and Kiefer 2007).

Despite the existing literature’s contributions towards knowledge of touch, some points remain underexplored. First, most studies lack diverse perspectives on the no-touch issue, and relatively few question the dominant polarising rhetoric (‘for’ or ‘against’ the no-touch discourse), which could disempower both instructors and learners in educational settings (Caldeborg, Andersson, and Öhman 2022). In this vein, Lang (2015) underlined endeavours to differentiate positive and negative aspects of touch instead of simply criticising the policies’ restrictiveness. Noting that the mainstream discourse has been grounded in a narrow understanding of children’s rights, Öhman and Quennerstedt (2017) called for alternative approaches to prevent pedagogues from avoiding intergenerational touch that would hamper children’s best interests (in terms of both their safety and development). Similarly, in South Korea, the present research setting, sporting stakeholders have been given educational materials and guidelines advocating ‘prohibition or minimisation of body contact between coaches and athletes’ (e.g. National Human Rights Commission of Korea: NHRCK 2017, 2019) based on the social perception of coaches as ‘potential perpetrators’ (Ryou and Lee 2020, 507). Akin to North American and Western European coaches (Gaedicke et al. 2021; Lang 2015; Milius et al. 2021; Öhman and Quennerstedt 2017; Pépin-Gagné and Parent 2016), Korean coaches face dilemmas on how to treat athletes in the absence of alternative pedagogy (Ryou and Lee 2020); nevertheless, discussions on such alternative directions remain rare.

Second, the irreplaceability of touch in sensory interaction has received little academic attention, compared with the active interest in its emotional, relational, and technical effects (e.g. Jones, Bailey, and Santos 2013; Kerr et al. 2015; Kraus, Huang, and Keltner 2010; Milius et al. 2021; Miller, Franken, and Kiefer 2007). For instance, Van Manen (2013) emphasises instructors’ pedagogical sensitivity to learners’ holistic growth based on his emotion-driven classification of five types of touch: care, respect, worth (self-esteem), responsibility, and love. Milius et al. (2021) also underscored the vitality of positive tactile communication (e.g. high-five or fist bump) in improving the coach–athlete relationship. However, the benefits of touch in sensory interactions have seldom been examined.

Third, previous studies relying on conventional surveys and post-training interviews have not fully captured the context of dynamic tactile interactions. While Jones, Bailey, and Santos (2013) utilised photography to explore the complexities of touch in coaching settings, they left the photos’ interpretation to the readers, even though ‘[the image] data cannot speak for itself’ and ‘require at least a minimum, tentative analysis’ (Piper, Garratt, and Taylor 2013a, 580). As subtle tactile communication between coaches and athletes is required for successful body pedagogy, which aims to enhance individuals’ comprehension of their own and others’ corporeality (Evans et al. 2008; McMahon and Penney 2013), understanding the nuances and dynamics of pedagogical touch (PT) is essential in high-performance sports. Nonetheless, few studies have used video analysis to investigate the micro-realities of touch (Caldeborg, Andersson, and Öhman 2022).

To address these gaps, this study illuminates why PT is irreplaceable in sensory teaching–learning through flesh (Merleau-Ponty 1968), which is particularly suited to explore the dynamics of PT (subjectively perceiving ↔ objectively being perceived) between coaches and athletes. Instead of repeating the prevalent discourse, we seek an alternative direction (e.g. Öhman and Quennerstedt 2017) by answering the following research question: ‘What actually occurs in the micro-realities of PT during coach–athlete sensory interactions?’ This empirical examination using body-mounted camcorders (GoPro7) is expected to complement the current understanding of tactile communication by linking it with Merleau-Ponty’s phenomenological concepts.

Theoretical framework

Merleau-Ponty’s philosophy can be broadly categorised into two aspects: the inner-world of the body and the inter-world of the flesh. His earlier works discuss the body as the epicentre of knowledge (e.g. Merleau-Ponty 1962, 1963), while his later work (1968) concentrates on the flesh—the elemental fabric that weaves intersecting/crossing points (chiasm) between subject and object, body and world, and one’s world and others’. Despite flesh’s salience in clarifying ontological interactions among diverse existences (Merleau-Ponty 1968), most relevant sport studies tend to converge upon his initial works to emphasise individuals’ distinct experiences in movement. However, as coaching practice requires dynamic interactions among various stakeholders within the sporting network (e.g. Jones and Wallace 2005; Lyle and Cushion 2010; Occhino, Mallett, and Rynne 2013), the existing studies’ lens, deprived of flesh (Merleau-Ponty 1968), has limitations in elucidating how a sportsperson’s inner-body world coexists with those of others. Thus, this study employs Merleau-Ponty’s flesh to reveal PT’s micro-realities and its irreplaceability in dynamic sensory teaching–learning via the concepts of body schema, synaesthesia, and extended body.

Body schema¹ is a form of a priori knowledge that unconsciously turns one’s kinaesthetic perception in a certain direction (Merleau-Ponty 1962, 1963, 1968); for example, typing without consciously thinking about each finger’s movements. Given this pre-reflective and pre-logical feature, the body schema can be labelled as ‘knowing without knowing’ (Crossley 2001, 122). It is tacitly engraved in the performer’s behavioural structure (Merleau-Ponty 1963) and becomes useful or useless depending on the circumstance. To reach ‘the mature operation of a body schema’ (Gallagher 2005, 67), individuals should modify or refine their schema with learning and practice, because it is not a fixed template, but malleable through interactions with objects, people, and surroundings (Gallagher 2005; Johnson 1987).

Synaesthesia is the overlapping zone that enables perceptual transitions among various senses (Merleau-Ponty 1962). As human sensory organs are closely linked, stimulation in one part resonates with heterogeneous components and other people (Merleau-Ponty 1962, 1968). For instance, adults who have been burnt by fire can indirectly feel its heat (tactile) just by seeing burning firewood (visual) or hearing its sizzling or crackling sound (auditory). Conversely, toddlers, who lack corresponding perceptual experiences of fire, cannot connect the auditory and visual with tactile sensory inputs because the extent of embodied imagination hinges on one’s accumulated experiences (Johnson 1987).

Extended body allows the sensory ranges of the flesh to incorporate objects into one’s body schema (Merleau-Ponty 1962, 1968). Similar to how blind individuals communicate with the world through a cane (Merleau-Ponty 1962), the flesh of objects infiltrates our sensory perception while expanding its realm; the cane then exists as ‘an extension of his [the user’s] own flesh’, not a pure object (Merleau-Ponty 1962; 1968, 114).

Method

This study adopted sensory ethnography to reveal the corporeal memories embedded in the micro-realities of coach–athlete tactile interactions by focusing on the synaesthetic aspects of multi-sensory information (Pink 2015). As one’s sensory stimulus evokes multi-sensorial responses in another’s body (Allen-Collinson and Owton 2014), researchers can access participants’ embodied experiences through digital technology, capturing their multi-sensory engagement: multisensoriality (Pink 2015).

Participants and selection criteria

Sixteen participants—eight coaches and eight adolescent athletes across four high-performance sports (golf, taekwondo, wrestling, and handball)—were recruited through snowball sampling (Patton 2015) after obtaining ethical approval from the researchers’ institutional review board. We relied on the initial coach participants’ recommendations to recruit information-rich informants (Patton 2015) and utilised three eligibility criteria: (a) players with over three years’ athletic experience in their sport; (b) coaches with more than three years’ coaching experience and a national elite coaching licence acquired through government qualification tests; and (c) coach–athlete relationships of more than a year. This sampling procedure reduced the possibility of (a) novice athletes recognising all movement senses as tacit owing to inexperience (Schindler 2009), (b) coaches’ incompetency in tactile communication, and (c) low rapport between coaches and athletes, which could aggravate tactile miscommunication. Two athletes, training under Coaches 2 and 6, were dropped on account of personal circumstances; consequently, we used data from these coaches without their athletes’ engagement. Table 1 provides the final participants’ details.

Table 1. Participant information.

Name	Sport	Sex	Athletic career (years)	Coaching career (years)	Coach-athlete pairing
Coach 1	Golf	Male	20	14	Athletes 1 and 2
Coach 2	Golf	Male	10	20	-
Coach 3	Taekwondo	Male	10	3	Athletes 3 and 4
Coach 4	Taekwondo	Female	22	8	Athletes 3 and 4
Coach 5	Wrestling	Male	23	12	Athletes 5 and 6
Coach 6	Wrestling	Male	10	6	-
Coach 7	Handball	Male	6	5	Athletes 7 and 8
Coach 8	Handball	Male	23	3	Athletes 7 and 8
Athlete 1	Golf	Male	3	-	Coach 1
Athlete 2	Golf	Female	8	-	Coach 1
Athlete 3	Taekwondo	Female	4	-	Coaches 3 and 4
Athlete 4	Taekwondo	Female	3	-	Coaches 3 and 4
Athlete 5	Wrestling	Male	5	-	Coach 5
Athlete 6	Wrestling	Male	3	-	Coach 5
Athlete 7	Handball	Male	5	-	Coaches 7 and 8
Athlete 8	Handball	Male	3	-	Coaches 7 and 8

Data collection

This study used observational and interview data. Observations with head-mounted camcorders (GoPro7) were conducted up to 10 times from warm-up to wrap-up training (average of 2.5 hours) for each coach–athlete partnership. This wearable device reduces perceptual discrepancies between performers and observers by capturing phenomena from the participants’ first-person perspective. However, when mounted on wearers’ chests (e.g. Andersson and Risberg 2019) or heads (e.g. Mackenzie and Kerr 2012), the camcorder cannot capture their facial expressions and body gestures. To cover these blind spots, we placed third-person perspective cameras at the corner of the research fields and took field notes. After swiftly noting the observed phenomenal structures with abbreviated keywords during on-site observations (Spradley 1980), we added denser and thicker descriptions while watching the video recordings. This allowed us to grasp the subtle ‘texts’ of each PT practice and the overall ‘contexts’ of their tactile interactions (Pink 2015).

Considering multisensoriality (Pink 2015) between researchers and participants, stimulated-recall interviews were conducted in two steps, (a) ‘during’ and (b) ‘after’ sections, where participants recalled their lived experiences and reviewed them from their own perspectives (Mackenzie and Kerr 2012). In the ‘during’ section, our participants viewed, heard, and imitated touch moments with us (visual–auditory–tactile) while watching the video recordings; these interviews were performed up to five times (each 20–30 min). During the interviews, the video was paused and replayed frequently to allow participants to share their viewpoints on certain scenes. In the ‘after’ section, the first author interviewed each participant once or twice (40–60 min each) using semi-structured questions about (a) individuals’ perceptions and attitudes, (b) team atmosphere regarding PT, and (c) effects of PT on sensory teaching-learning. Recorded interviews were transcribed verbatim, and participants’ personal information was anonymised.

Data analysis

For analysis, we established a video database with annotated details, such as date, time, core phenomena, and brief interpretations of field notes (Pink 2015), and stored the transcribed interview data in NVivo-12. This enabled participants to vividly recall their corporeal memories (Pink 2015) of tactile interactions and aided researchers in effectively reviewing raw data. Video data were segmented into scenes based on the research question and Merleau-Ponty’s ideas. The scenes were screenshotted and saved (with field notes containing dense descriptions about the pictures) on a password-protected computer.

Employing this database, we conducted tentative analyses whenever keywords related to either the research question or annotated phenomena appeared. After grouping initial codes into gerund form using NVivo-12, we confirmed the data credibility by sharing transcribed interviews, screenshots of the video data, and tentative interpretations with participants (Patton 2015). We then thoroughly assessed the grouped codes using Merleau-Ponty’s concepts to refine themes and reconfirmed the nuanced linkages of the initial codes (scenes), grouped codes (episodes), and concepts (themes) by alternating between inductive fieldwork and deductive framework (Pink 2015). Table 2 shows the results obtained after researchers’ critical crosschecking (Patton 2015).

Table 2. Themes, episodes, and scenes of pedagogical touch.

Themes	Episodes	Scenes
Transferring body schema	(1) Transferring handballers’ normative posture for shooting	a–e
	(2) Transferring taekwondoins’ normative muscle usage for the foot blade	a–b
	(3) Transferring wrestlers’ normative sense of action-reaction	a–b
Exploring the athlete’s inner-sensory conditions through synaesthesia	(4) Prescribing PT based on the comprehension of athletes’ sensory conditions in golf	a–c
Using objects as extended bodies	(5) Using a belt as the extended body in taekwondo	a–d

Data presentation

To outline our participants’ multi-sensory data through the synaesthetic channel (e.g. Allen-Collinson and Owton 2014), we describe their non-verbal gestures (e.g. facial expressions and behaviours observed from interviews and video recordings) in parentheses. In images corresponding to Episodes 1–5, meaningful points are highlighted with red lines or circles to clearly represent our perspectives on the depicted phenomena (Schindler 2009). Each image contains labels identifying participants’ body parts and textual descriptions conveying their dialogues during tactile communication. All visible personal details from videos, such as faces, name tags on uniforms, trophies, and gym banners, were blurred to safeguard the participants’ identities.

Results and discussion

Flesh, an elemental tissue knitting intersecting points (chiasm), opens the inter-world by entangling (sensing and being sensed) the existences of oneself, others, and the world (Merleau-Ponty 1968). Our coach participants employed PT as an entanglement of flesh (Merleau-Ponty 1968) to (a) transfer their sport group’s normative body schema, (b) explore athletes’ inner sensory conditions through synaesthesia, and (c) interact with opposite-sex athletes via extended bodies without skin-to-skin contact. In each section hereafter, we reflect on our participants’ (PT) practices (Tinning 2022) and discuss conducive considerations for coaches to sustain the pedagogical benefits of touch.

Transferring body schema

As a standardised milieu with certain rules, norms, and culture, sport requires participants to cultivate a particular body schema to perform effectively. As individuals cannot fully see or correct their own bodies (Leder 1990), they need to be objectively aware of it through others (Crossley 2006). Similarly, coaches’ PT scaffolds athletes to problematise their existing body schema and attunes them to each sporting group’s normative schema of postures, muscles, and senses.

For example, in handball, a high shooting posture is advantageous for goal-scoring. If a shooter’s elbow is bent, defenders can readily block the ball thrown at a lower point, but Athlete 8 had been unconsciously bending his elbow, and Coach 7 touched the athlete’s right arm to correct his posture.

Episode 1. Transferring handballers’ normative posture for shooting.

In Episode 1, (a) after pointing out Athlete 8’s bent elbow, (b) Coach 7 grasps the athlete’s arm and moulds it gently into an upright form like a javelin thrower’s posture, (c) thereafter delicately guiding the athlete’s right hand to pitch the ball at its highest point. The coach then asks the athlete to practise the rectified posture by referring to the sensory information offered by PT. While consciously trying not to revert to his previous schema, (d–e) the athlete continues to hone the new posture under the coach’s observation.

As implied by this episode, recognising one’s body schema is challenging without others’ input (Crossley 2006; Merleau-Ponty 1968). In this context, coaches’ PT is crucial in helping athletes realise their posture schemata; however, since PT dismantles the familiarity of athletes’ bodies, this process made them feel ‘uncomfortable’ (Athletes 1 and 4), ‘awkward’ (Athletes 3 and 7), or even ‘in pain’ (Athlete 2). Nevertheless, most athletes embraced this unfamiliarity, believing PT would provide feedback about their body schema, which they had not questioned previously. Athlete 7 remarked, ‘Initially, I felt very awkward with the adjustment, but after practising it, I realised my mistake; his touch made me feel that’. Athlete 1 added, ‘Despite feeling uncomfortable at the moment, I knew it would eventually help me’.

These reactions reinforce that the positive effects of touch justify its negotiation aspects, convincing learners of its necessity for their development (Caldeborg 2022; Caldeborg, Maivorsdotter, and Öhman 2019). Unfortunately, some of our coach participants engaged in PT without convincing the players of its necessity, making them feel ‘stifled’ (Athlete 3) and ‘frustrated’ (Athlete 2) while modifying their body schema. Given Leder’s (1990) insight that performers perceive their unconscious body when their mundane physical routines are interrupted by painful sensations, our athlete participants’ negative emotions seem unavoidable. Therefore, coaches need to provide athletes with sufficient rationale for the discomfort stemming from (a) dismantling their current body schema and (b) moulding it into the normative one. By doing so in advance, they can handle potential troubles with PT and individualise tactile communication based on each athlete’s needs and preferences (Caldeborg, Maivorsdotter, and Öhman 2019; Milius et al. 2021).

The subsequent episode depicts how PT transmits normative muscle usage to athletes. In taekwondo (poomsae), performance level hinges on the quality of one’s stylistic expression in formalised movement. In particular, proper use of the ‘foot blade’ is vital for obtaining high scores in various kicking moves; however, the normative muscles related to the foot blade were imperceptible to Athlete 4’s body, even though she intellectually understood what the foot blade was.

Episode 2. Transferring taekwondoins’ normative muscle usage for the foot blade.

In Episode 2, (a) Coach 3 sees the awkwardness in Athlete 4’s foot blade and prods her right shin with his thumb, inquiring whether she can feel the pressure in that muscle. Athlete 4 says that she cannot. In a synchronous movement, (b) the coach pushes the athlete’s shin and pulls the front sole to help her feel the nuanced links of the two muscles, asking, ‘Do you feel it here now?’; she replies, ‘I do’. After being touched, Athlete 4 was able to sense the complex relations (contraction–expansion) around the foot and shin muscles that she did not clearly perceive before. Then, the athlete practised how to combine different muscular parts to shape the foot blade properly.

Other athletes also struggled to use the normative muscle despite sufficient self-training: ‘Even after training in front of a mirror by themselves all day, they wouldn’t know whether they are using the right form or muscle’ (Coach 4). According to Merleau-Ponty (1962, 1963), these situations derive from a priori features of the (normative) body schema that are transcendentally present; thus, without entangling with the flesh of others who already embodied it, athletes are less likely to independently acquire the normative schema: ‘Many players say, “I did it”, but they have not, and only after adjusting their feet with my hands do they realise, “This is how it should feel”’ (Coach 3).

The next episode presents how PT empowers wrestlers to exploit the opponent’s action–reaction system using their sensory know-how.

Episode 3. Transferring wrestlers’ normative sense of action-reaction.

In Episode 3, Coach 5 is concerned that Athlete 6’s inexperience in achieving the right timing and power could allow opponents to counterattack. To help the athlete feel the appropriate action–reaction, (a) the coach swiftly pulls the athlete’s neck and right shoulder towards his chest, and in a flash, (b) pushes the athlete backwards. While being dragged by the coach, the athlete moves his hips backwards to avoid falling forward. At this point, the coach shoves the athlete's body away by leveraging the athlete’s reaction of moving his weight-centre backwards, and the athlete loses his balance—to the extent that the front sole is lifted. Finally, the coach instructs all players to ‘Keep doing this [practice] and feel what it’s like when you attack or are attacked’.

This episode implies that Coach 5’s PT relied on the duality of flesh—sensing and being sensed (Merleau-Ponty 1968)—to help athletes refine their sensory know-how by touching (and being touched by) their partners, as attackers and defenders in the entanglement of flesh. Coach 6 justified it by stating: ‘When I tug opponents towards me, they strive to keep balance. I then overwhelm them by counterattacking their efforts not to be pulled. If I touch my players to make them feel this [sensory knowledge], they understand why it’s better’. Other participants also underscored the inevitability of PT (as the entanglement of flesh) in expressing one’s sensory knowledge beyond the threshold of language (Merleau-Ponty 1968): ‘I think it [touch] says more than words’ (Coach 4) and ‘When my coach held me, I could feel the sensation physically, so I didn’t need to understand it with my head’ (Athlete 7). These comments echo that PT conveys non-verbal messages, including neuromuscular information between instructors and learners (Thuma and Miranda 2020).

Exploring athletes’ inner-sensory conditions through synaesthesia

Synaesthesia—wherein stimulation in one sensory realm provokes responses in others—is the foundation of inter-physicality (Merleau-Ponty 1962, 1968). Through the intersection of tactile, visual, and audio sensory areas (see the entanglement of circles with the letter ‘a’ in Episode 4), coaches attempt to explore athletes’ internal sensory conditions across physical boundaries and prescribe PT accordingly. The following episode shows how synaesthesia empowers coaches to access athletes’ tactile sensations.

Episode 4. Prescribing PT based on the comprehension of athletes’ sensory conditions in golf.

In Episode 4, (a) Coach 1 evaluates Athlete 1’s tactile sense by observing his swing motion before the impact (tactile–visual part: a3). (b) After the athlete’s club strikes the ball, the colliding sound, ‘ping’, awakens the coach’s corporeal memories, helping him recall the tactile sense corresponding to the athlete’s practice (tactile–auditory part: a1). Afterwards, (c) the coach claps to praise the athlete’s practice (the auditory–visual part: a2) and prescribes PT based on the evaluation. Though the tactile information is only accessible to the performer, Coach 1 could explore the athlete’s sensations while striking the ball, by relying on synaesthesia.

Interviewer: Isn’t good tactile sense something only the athlete can feel physically? How do you assess their sensations from the outside?

Coach 1: I know it’s weird (smiles), but I could feel his tactile sensation by hearing the club hitting the ball and looking at his swing and the ball’s trajectory.

Coach 1’s response corroborates that synaesthesia allows perceptual transfer from one sense to another through the reversible structure of flesh—by sensing and being sensed (Merleau-Ponty 1968). Moreover, before prescribing PT, (c) Coach 1 asked Athlete 1 a question (‘how did it [the tactile sensation while striking] feel just now?’) to help him connect (a–b) what he sensed in the previous action with (c) what the coach judged as ‘good’: ‘Honestly, I was surprised when he [Coach 1] suddenly asked me this [question] because I was doing it without thinking (smiles). But because of his question, I felt more certain. As he said, it’s the process of finding the good feeling’ (Athlete 1). This statement fortifies the argument that recapturing their memories to answer questions helps learners retain information longer (e.g. Binks 2018; Lyle and Crawford 2011; Richland, Kornell, and Kao 2009) and that language plays a crucial role in discovering novel aspects of our senses (Platoni 2015). One cannot interpret a new sensory signal without the appropriate language to define a particular sensation (Platoni 2015). Likewise, (c) Coach 1’s language signals (‘good’) and question (‘how did it just feel?’) assisted Athlete 1 in finding the normatively ‘good’ tactile sensitivity among golfers by recalling the corporeal memories of his practice and escorting him to the context of learning (O’Connor et al. 2022).

However, we also identified un-educational attitudes regarding PT in some coaches. For example, when athletes struggled to apply their PT instructions in action, some coaches expressed anger by remarking, ‘How can you not understand this?’ (Coach 3) or ‘Why can’t you do that?’ (Coach 8). These reactions concerning tactile communication indicate the need for coaches to reflect on whether they are approaching the evaluation and prescription of PT as educators (e.g. Jones 2006) who try to see the problem from their athletes’ perspectives, or as authoritarians using their asymmetrical power to demand acceptance (Cope et al. 2016; Groom, Cushion, and Nelson 2012).

Using objects as extended bodies

Notwithstanding the recent socio-cultural and institutional pressures around touch, our coach participants attempted to touch opposite-sex athletes via objects that served as extended bodies (Merleau-Ponty 1968). Thereby, they protected themselves from (sexual) abuse allegations while securing the benefits of PT in sensory interactions. The following episode demonstrates how coaches engage in object-mediated touch.

Episode 5. Using a belt as the extended body in taekwondo.

In Episode 5, Coach 3 notices Athlete 3’s weak momentum during forward movements. (a) Instead of touching the athlete’s sensitive body parts, he grabs her belt and (b) commands, ‘Lower your body and kick forward, keeping the balance’. As the athlete tries to move forward, the coach’s pull-strength gradually increases to support the athlete in feeling the spectrum of power. (c) The coach also exclaims, ‘More, more!’ while pulling her belt strongly—to the extent that he lifts slightly from his chair—to counter the athlete’s maximum forward momentum. With the intent to convey an appropriately strong momentum to the athlete’s body, (d) Coach 3 unleashes the belt at the peak of the tension (the two opposing forces formed a tight and dynamic equilibrium), and the athlete’s body is potently catapulted forwards. Owing to the loss of counteracting strength, Athlete 3 could sense the required momentum. Similarly, other coaches utilised various objects (e.g. rubber bands, bamboo swords, golf clubs, wooden or iron sticks) as an ‘extension of [their own] arms or fingers’ (Coaches 1, 2, and 4) to engage in tactile interactions without skin-to-skin contact:

Verbal explanation alone can’t convey the sensations of the movement, so we [coaches] can’t train them [the athletes] without touching. Unlike earlier, it [touch] has become a sensitive issue today. So, I usually use tools like rubber bands or sticks to ensure my job security (Coach 3).

Given Merleau-Ponty’s (1962, 1968) insight that artificial objects can restrict or expand human sensory boundaries, our coach participants’ object-mediated touch can be considered an alternative practice for safe tactile communication. However, despite the timely demand for (object-mediated) PT, especially in this #MeToo era (Thuma and Miranda 2020), most coaches did not apply this alternative to same-sex players. This tendency can be interpreted through sexual schema, which determines what is sexual (Merleau-Ponty 1962). As our coach participants’ sexual schema responded only to opposite-sex athletes, they unconsciously excluded same-sex players. Coach 4 remarked, ‘Nowadays, it’s pretty clear that only female coaches should touch women and vice versa’; Coach 2 added, ‘I can touch or even kick male athletes jokingly (smiles), but I never touch female players under any circumstance’.

These reactions indicate that our participants’ selective object-mediated touch is rooted in stereotypical sexuality; hence, their alternative PT practices still accompany the risk of sexually harassing same-sex and minority (LGBTQ+) athletes (e.g. Johansson 2018; Rivers 2010). As Casey, Goodyear, and Armour (2016, 7) stressed in the PE context, coaches should seek better alternatives by ‘maximising the latent potential of technologies (including tools and devices) to accelerate learning in meaningful ways that meet the individual needs of diverse learners’. Following Lupton’s (2013) analysis that the technology incorporated into the (extended) body has the power to provide users with new ways of feeling, thinking, and being, coaches are required to carefully discern the drawbacks and benefits of ‘digitised pedagogy’ (e.g. Lupton 2022) in tactile interactions with their athletes.

Conclusion

This study emphasises the fundamental necessity of PT within four high-performance sports by examining the micro-realities of coach–athlete sensory interactions from Merleau-Ponty’s perspective. Our empirical investigation revealed the purpose, mechanism, and alternatives of PT. Based on these, we discussed the conducive considerations for coaches to ensure the pedagogical benefits of touch: (a) educational persuasion; (b) appropriate questions; and (c) inclusive application of object-mediated touch.

First, PT’s principal purpose was to transfer each sport’s normative body schema, including postures, muscles, and senses. As PT de/reconstructs athletes’ existing body schema during the rectification process, coaches should consider providing educational persuasion instead of using authority to force athletes’ compliance (e.g. Cope et al. 2016; Jones et al. 2011; Purdy, Potrac, and Jones 2008). Preparing athletes for PT’s potential discomfort can reduce the risks originating from the negotiation aspects of touch between instructors and learners (e.g. Andersson, Öhman, and Garrison 2018; Caldeborg 2022; Caldeborg, Maivorsdotter, and Öhman 2019).

Second, synaesthesia served as a PT mechanism for accessing athletes’ internal sensory conditions and instructing them accordingly. This highlights the significance of coaches’ pedagogical questions (Cope et al. 2016; O’Connor et al. 2022) in exploring athletes’ sensory conditions and contextualising them in learning situations, which helps athletes acquire the normatively ‘good’ sensations in each sporting group. Moreover, a successful PT practice requires a safe and supportive communication environment that fosters athletes’ autonomy (d’Arripe-Longueville et al. 2001; Milius et al. 2021), allowing them to share detailed descriptions of internal sensations with their coaches so PT prescriptions can be individualised. By contrast, coaches who use their power to control and constrain players’ opinions during interactions could trigger relational conflicts and inhibit the athletes’ best efforts (e.g. Groom, Cushion, and Nelson 2012; Purdy, Potrac, and Jones 2008).

Third, the coaches utilised objects as extended bodies to touch opposite-sex athletes while protecting themselves from sexual allegations and maintaining the pedagogical value of touch. However, their stereotypical perceptions of sexuality resulted in applying this alternative PT only to opposite-sex athletes, bypassing concerns about sexual harassment for same-sex or minority athletes. As Tinning (2022) argues, coaches’ mindless practice (of PT) could harm their athletes’ interests; hence, they should critically reflect on their work by developing sensitivity regarding how, when, why, and under which circumstances their (PT) practice influences athletes (Nichol et al. 2021; Tinning 2022).

Considering this study’s results, the authors suggest that sports agencies broaden their attention towards supporting coaches to be professionally prepared for potential touch-related problems rather than continuing with the current no-touch discourse (less touch, less problem). It could be useful to provide coaches with opportunities to cultivate their ethical and pedagogical sensibilities (e.g. Van Manen 2007, 2013) about intergenerational touch through education on actual un/professional PT cases. In doing so, coaches, who confront dilemmas about tactile communication without alternative pedagogies (Piper, Garratt, and Taylor 2013b, 2015; Ryou and Lee 2020), can ruminate on their own practice compared to others’ PT cases while building didactic contracts with their athletes and handling problematic circumstances. Therefore, when optimising education in each sporting context, the relevant sport agencies could draw from this study’s findings about PT’s micro-realities and the considerations that maintain or intensify the pedagogical benefits of touch.

Based on our empirical investigation, future studies could thoroughly compare the differences in the culture and modes of tactile communication across various countries, sports, and gender relationships (e.g. homogenous and heterogeneous) between coaches and athletes. Such exploration would offer practical insights for sporting agencies to optimise education on the proper ways of tactile interaction in each group’s context.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 Body schema (schema corporel) has been subject to terminological issues. Some English translations of Merleau-Ponty’s works render it as body image, which is quite a different concept. This has triggered conceptual confusion, methodological problems, and inconsistent experimental results (Gallagher 2005). To prevent this erroneous use, this study relied on Gallagher’s (2005, 20) analysis: Merleau-Ponty’s body schema ‘operates as the system of dynamic motor equivalents that belong to the realm of habit rather than conscious choice’.