References

• Bollig, S., & Kelle, H. (2016). Children as participants in practice. In F. Eßer, M. S. Baader, T. Betz, & B. Hungerland (Eds.), Reconceptualising agency and childhood. New perspectives in childhood studies (pp. 34–47). London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Cameron, N., & McDermott, F. (2007). Social work and the body. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Clark, A., Cameron, C., & Kleipoedszus, S. (2014). Sense of place in children’s residential care homes: Perceptions of home? Scottish Journal of Residential Child Care, 13(2), 1–18.
   Google Scholar
• Crossley, N. (2001). The social body. Habit, identity and desire. London: SAGE.
   Google Scholar
• Crossley, N. (2006). The networked body and the question of reflexivity. In D. Waskul & P. Vannini (Eds.), Body/embodiment. Symbolic interaction and the sociology of the body (pp. 21–33). Hampshire: Ashgate.
   Google Scholar
• Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. I., & Shaw, L. L. (2011). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Eriksson, H., Sandberg, J., Holmgren, J., & Pringle, K. (2013). His helping hands. Adult daughter’s perceptions’ of fathers with caregiving responsibility. European Journal of Social Work, 16(2), 235–248. doi: 10.1080/13691457.2011.618116
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eßer, F. (2013). FamilienkindheitalssozialpädagogischeHerstellungsleistung. EthnographischeBetrachtungenzu ‘familienähnlichen’ Formen der Heimerziehung [ Family childhood as construction by social pedagogy. Ethnographic considerations on ‘family like’ concepts of residential child care]. Diskurs Kindheits- und Jugendforschung, 8(2), 163–176.
   Google Scholar
• Eßer, F. (2016a). Neither ‘thick’ nor ‘thin’. Reconceptualising agency and childhood relationally. In F. Eßer, M. S. Baader, T. Betz, & B. Hungerland (Eds.), Reconceptualising agency and childhood. New perspectives in childhood studies (pp. 48–60). London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Eßer, F. (2016b). Children’s agency and welfare organizations from an intergenerational perspective. In S. Punch, R. Vanderbeck, & T. Skelton (Eds.), Families, Intergenerationality and Peer Group Relations (pp. 1–22). Singapore: Springer Singapore.
   Google Scholar
• Field, T. (2010). Touch for socioemotional and physical well-being. A review. Developmental Review, 30, 367–383. doi: 10.1016/j.dr.2011.01.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flexner, A. (1915, May 12–19). Is social work a profession? In National Conference of Charities and Corrections (Ed.), Proceedings of the National Conference of Charities and Corrections at the forty-second annual session held in Baltimore, MD (pp. 152–165). Chicago, IL: Hildmann.
   Google Scholar
• Garfinkel, H. (1964). A conception of and experiments with, ‘trust’ as a condition of stable concerted actions. In O. J. Harvey (Ed.), Motivation and social interaction. Cognitive determinants (pp. VII, 332 S.). New York, NY: Ronald.
   Google Scholar
• Geertz, C. (1973). Thick description: Toward an interpretive theory of culture. In C. Geertz (Ed.), The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays (pp. 3–30). New York, NY: Basic Books.
   Google Scholar
• Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis. An essay on the organization of experience. New York, NY: Harper.
   Google Scholar
• Held, V. (2006). The ethics of care. Personal, political, and global. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, R. T. (2000). Hands off! The disappearance of touch in the care of children. New York, NY: Lang.
   Google Scholar
• Kalman, H., &Andersson, K. (2014). Framing of intimate care in home care services. European Journal of Social Work, 17(3), 402–414. doi: 10.1080/13691457.2014.885882
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social. An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Law, J. (1994). Organizing modernity. Oxford: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Maiwald, K.-O. (2005). Competence and praxis: Sequential analysis in German sociology. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 6(3) Retrieved from http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/21.
   Google Scholar
• Mol, A., & Law, J. (2004). Embodied action, enacted bodies: The example of hypoglycaemia. Body & Society, 10(2–3), 43–62. doi: 10.1177/1357034X04042932
   Google Scholar
• Mondada, L. (2014). Instructions in the operating room: How the surgeon directs their assistant’s hands. Discourse Studies, 16(2), 131–161. doi: 10.1177/1461445613515325
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moran-Ellis, J. (2013). Children as social actors, agency, and social competence: Sociological reflections for early childhood. Neue Praxis, 43(4), 323–338.
   Google Scholar
• Oswell, D. (2015). Re-aligning children’s agency and re-socialising children in childhood studies. In F. Eßer, M. S. Baader, T. Betz, & B. Hungerland (Eds.), Reconceptualising agency and childhood. New perspectives in childhood studies (pp. 19–33). London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Phillips, C. R. (2014). ‘Seeing the child’ beyond the literal: Considering dance choreography and the body in child welfare and protection. British Journal of Social Work, 44(8), 2254–2271. doi: 10.1093/bjsw/bct070
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Piper, H., & Smith, H. (2003). ‘Touch’ in educational and child care settings. Dilemmas and responses. British Educational Research Journal, 29(6), 879–894. doi: 10.1080/0141192032000137358
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Piper, H., & Stronach, I. (2008). Don’t touch! The educational story of a panic. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Polanyi, M. (1966). The tacit dimension. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
   Google Scholar
• Prout, A. (2000). Childhood bodies. Construction, agency and hybridity. In A. Prout (Ed.), The body, childhood and society (pp. 1–18). Houndmills: Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Richmond, M. E. (1917). Social diagnosis. New York, NY: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Sanjek, R. (Ed.). (1990). Fieldnotes. The makings of anthropology. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schatzki, T. R. (2001). Introduction: Practice theory. In T. R. Schatzki, K. Knorr-Cetina, & E. V. Savigny (Eds.), The practice turn in contemporary theory (pp. 10–23). London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Schatzki, T. R., Knorr-Cetina, K., & Savigny, E. V. (Eds.). (2001). The practice turn in contemporary theory. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Schindler, L. (2011). Kampffertigkeit. EineSoziologiepraktischenWissens [ Martial arts. A sociology of practice knowledge]. Stuttgart: Lucius & Lucius.
   Google Scholar
• Sørensen, E. (2013). Human presence: Towards a posthumanist approach to experience. Subjectivity, 6(1), 112–129. doi: 10.1057/sub.2012.31
   Google Scholar
• Steckley, L. (2012). Touch, physical restraint and therapeutic containment in residential child care. British Journal of Social Work, 42(3), 537–555. doi: 10.1093/bjsw/bcr069
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steckley, L., & Smith, M. (2011). Care ethics in residential child care: A different voice. Ethics and Social Welfare, 5(2), 181–195. doi: 10.1080/17496535.2011.571068
   Google Scholar
• Tronto, J. C. (1993/2009). Moral Boundaries. A political argument for an ethic of care. New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Woodyer, T. (2008). The body as research tool. Embodied practice and children’s geographies. Children’s Geographies, 6(4), 349–362. doi: 10.1080/14733280802338056
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar