Professional Documents
Culture Documents
University of Gloucestershire
Summary report
Play England aims for all children and young people in England to have
regular access and opportunity for free, inclusive, local play provision
and play space.
The National Children’s Bureau (NCB) promotes the voices, interests and
well-being of all children and young people across every aspect of their lives.
The views expressed in this book are those of the authors and not
necessarily those of the National Children’s Bureau or Play England.
Our thanks go to Play England for initiating and funding the research and to Issy
Cole-Hamilton for support and direction throughout and for close reading of
draft versions; to Anna Kassman-McKerrell and Michael Welsh at the Children’s
Play Information Service for support in accessing the information both within
the play library and the National Children’s Bureau library; to Hilary Smith at
the University of Gloucestershire for administrative and academic support
and comments on early draft reports; to Louise Kennedy at the University of
Gloucestershire for additional research; to members of the advisory group who
read and commented on drafts: Jackie Boldon, Fraser Brown, Steve Chown, Phil
Doyle, Tim Ferguson, Bob Hughes, Haki Kapasi, Julie Mattocks-Cawood, Frank
O’Malley, Robin Sutcliffe, Wendy Usher, Adrian Voce, Ian Wellard.
Stuart Lester
Stuart Lester is Senior Lecturer in Playwork at the University of Gloucestershire
and an independent playwork trainer and adviser. He has worked for over
twenty years as a playwork practitioner, with a particular focus on adventure
playgrounds and outdoor play. Recent publications include Play, naturally, a review
of children’s playful relationship with natural spaces (with Martin Maudsley).
Wendy Russell
2
Wendy Russell started her first adventure playground job in 1975. She has
worked in playwork ever since, in a number of roles, including playworker, play
officer, play researcher and playwork trainer. Currently, she divides her time
between being Senior Lecturer in Playwork at the University of Gloucestershire,
working freelance, and her own research into play and playwork.
This document is a summary of the key findings from the Play for a Change
research review. A more in depth exploration of these complex themes can be
found in the full research review, now available from Play England.
Contents
Strictly speaking, this criticism was perhaps justified. Robust empirical research
on children’s play provision that is of sufficient scope to be conclusive as to its
impact, is thin on the ground. The University of Birmingham’s national evaluation of
the Children’s Fund, for example, while suggesting there were indications that play
provision may help to reduce young offending, also suggested that further, specific
investment in long-term play provision and its evaluation was needed to provide
more evidence.
This lack, as yet, of what is routinely referred to in policy circles as ‘a robust evidence
base’ is presumably a main reason why, until very recently, the only significant national
investment in play provision in England has been from the national lottery.
Yet, as this impressive literature review demonstrates, the evidence of the role
that play has in children’s lives and in human development is substantial and wide-
ranging. It seems clear that the instinct to play is very deep, that it arises from very
4
fundamental impulses. In playing, from the very earliest age, the human child engages
with and learns about the world and about herself, builds crucial relationships with her
carers, peers and siblings, and imagines the world she will partly inherit, partly create.
But the strongest message from this review is that all of these important functions
of play are incidental in the child’s own experience, which has little, if any, cognisance
of ‘outcomes’. Play is evidently simply how children enjoy being alive in the world now.
After basic physical and emotional needs are met, children play. Even when they are
not playing, the impulse to do so remains and can help to heal the effects of abuse
and neglect.
There is an argument that this is all self-evident. Why do we need to research and
validate such a primary form of activity, such an elemental aspect of children’s
behaviour? Is it not obvious, and have children not played happily without anyone
researching it, for millennia?
The answer is both yes and no. Play does appear to be something that has been
with us since our earliest evolutionary steps; indeed research of play in the animal
kingdom shows that we share many play behaviours with fellow mammals. Some
theorists suggest that our evolution itself is steered by the play of our young. And
yet many human cultures, not least our own, have undervalued the significance of
children’s play, curtailing it for the more serious business of family or community
survival which, in the modern world equates to academic attainment as a means to
economic advancement.
If the research is not conclusive, perhaps this is because most of the studies have
been attempts to broaden our understanding of children (and of ourselves) and
their play, rather than to identify the role that it has in other outcomes for them.
Policy-making must rely upon evidence, but, within an outcomes framework that
largely identifies particular indicators of pathology, under-achievement or potential
risk, the evidence that finds favour will tend to be that which can demonstrate an
impact on these.
The case for children’s play provision as an aspect of public policy is, first and
foremost, that it is an established human right, recognised under the United Nations
Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) of 1989. There is indeed an argument
that the right to play is the one that is most distinctly children’s; that it defines,
almost, the right to be a child. The 1913 Declaration of Dependence by the Children
of America in Mines and Factories and Workshops Assembled (McKelway AJ 1913), a
forerunner to the Geneva Declaration of the Rights of the Child in 1924, that itself
eventually led to the UNCRC, asserts as its first resolution ‘that childhood is endowed
with certain inherent and inalienable rights, among which are freedom from toil for
daily bread; the right to play and to dream’.
Much of the current policy framework for children has been developed with a view to
‘balancing rights and responsibilities’ for children. Certainly before the departmental
changes in government in June 2007, this had almost become a mantra to rival
‘education, education, education’. But this very earliest declaration of children’s rights
in modern times implies that children have the right not to be responsible: for the adult
world to be responsible for them. The world of the child, in which they form and rehearse
their range of responses (which is another way of saying they become responsible), is
the world of play. The richly imagined but ethereal landscapes – physical, social, cultural
and emotional – of children at play are, to many of the researchers and theorists
surveyed in this volume, both uniquely the real world of childhood and the training 5
ground for the actual world that they will not simply inherit but create, as adults.
Some of the research reviewed within does suggest strong links between the enjoyment
that children derive from play and its benefits for their all-round health and well-
being now and in the future. But there are problems in producing longitudinal research
that shows clear statistical cause and effect of an activity as elemental, innate and
ubiquitous as children’s play. How is the activity in question to be defined accurately when
children have been shown to be able to play anywhere and with anything, given the space
and permission? How is it to be measured? What price a study group?
Thankfully – for the time-being at least – the argument for investing in children’s play
provision and for seriously tackling the many barriers to their access to it, appears to
have been won. The government, as of December 2007 (after this research review was
complete) has adopted a substantive play policy as part of The Children’s Plan (DCSF
2007), its ten-year strategy to make England the best place in the world to grow up. The
government has now fully embraced the principle that there is a societal responsibility
to enable ‘children to enjoy their childhoods as well being prepared for adult life’.
The Children’s Plan investment of £235m in play areas, adventure playgrounds and
playworkers – within the context of a national play strategy that will attempt to
coordinate planning, traffic, housing, health and children’s services around the
common aim of giving children more freedom to use these spaces – will not on its own
transform the environments where children live and play. But because it is a strategic
programme, designed to inform future policy, it should create the opportunity for that
fuller evidence base.
Much of the research marshalled and elucidated so admirably in this volume has
been instrumental, at least indirectly, in achieving this policy breakthrough. It should
now provide future researchers, including the evaluators of the current and future
government initiatives, with the map and the compass they will need to assess the
real value of play provision. It is a value measurable, first and last, in the extent of
children’s enjoyment.
Play for a Change: Summary report
Chapter 1
comprehensive review of the research. A The model has been used for the purposes
detailed list of sources used in this literature of analysis only, and is not intended to reduce
review can be found in the resources section the complexity of the range of influences on
at the end of the full Play for a Change report. theory, policy or practice.
The authors would like to highlight three key There is an assumption, or at least an
limiting factors to the literature review. Firstly, aspiration, that all three points of the triangle
whilst we both have extensive experience in align, that (recognising that the cycle can
playwork, neither of us is from a natural science begin at any point) evidence informs policy,
background and we acknowledge our limitations which then informs practice, this feeding
in reading and interpreting complex scientific into further evidence and research and so
material, particularly that from neuroscience. on. However, what the review unveiled is that
Secondly, there were, of course, time this framework more accurately represents
constraints, which will inevitably lead to gaps in a ‘tension field’ in which the various points of
the evidence collected and reviewed. Finally, in the triangle may find themselves misaligned,
terms of reviewing the literature on provision or at times taking oppositional positions (Fig
for play, we acknowledge that there is much 1). This is due in no small part to particular
taking place at local level that falls outside of understandings of children and play.
this review: we have reviewed the nationally
published literature rather than local practice. It is worth introducing here a few key
concepts that underpin the literature review
This document is a summary of the key findings
and are integral to understanding the key
from the research review. A fuller exploration
messages. One of the consequences of
of the review’s findings can be found in the full
drawing on such a broad range of academic
Play for a Change report available from Play
8 disciplines is an appreciation of diversity,
England.
not only in what is studied, but also in the
methods of study, the conclusions drawn and,
Play, policy, practice particularly, in the underpinning paradigms
and paradigms: a case each discipline employs. Moss (2007: 243)
for realignment defines a paradigm as ‘an overarching system
of ideas and beliefs by which people see
The three strands of the review identified and organise the world in a coherent way, a
above have formed a triangular framework for mindset for making sense of the world and our
analysis as shown in the figure below. place in it’.
Theory and
Provision for play
research evidence
Social policy
Figure 1.
Chapter 1: Background, scope and key messages
The sources drawn on in this literature review modesty in theorising about play. Many of
offer additional perspectives on the key the key characteristics often cited, such
concepts of play and development that are as freedom of choice, may not always apply
more complex, differentiated and relational. absolutely (in group play, there has to be some
In some ways this is unsettling because it compromise in order for the play to continue;
becomes difficult to make (with any certainty) not every player can do exactly as she or
specific claims for the importance of playing in he chooses if they want to remain with the
the lives of children. For example, to recognise play group) and may also apply to behaviour
the interconnectedness of genes, brains that might not be play (such as exploration,
and bodies, and physical, social and cultural curiosity or excitement-seeking). That said,
environments, opens up infinite and reciprocal the idea of personal choice and control can
possibilities for influence rather than singular be found consistently within lists of defining
cause and effect, as does recognition of characteristics. Lindquist (2001, cited in Meire
children themselves as active agents in their 2007: 11) highlights the importance of feelings
own lives. This makes it almost impossible of power and control within playing, either
to make generalisations or universal claims for the individual or for the group as a whole.
regarding interventions. Other characteristics of children’s play from
the literature are that it is ‘non-literal’ (‘as-if’
Within these alternative paradigms, an behaviour, the opportunity to turn the world
‘instrumental’ or ‘utilitarian’ understanding upside down or rearrange it or behave in
of play becomes questionable, and we can ways that would not normally be acceptable)
begin to look at a more intrinsic (sometimes whilst having some relationship with non-
referred to as ‘autotelic’) value drawn from play behaviours; it is intrinsically motivated
the process of playing for its own sake rather (undertaken for its own sake rather than for
10 than from its content (Hakarrainen 1999) or any external goal or reward); it is accompanied
from its purported role in specific learning or by positive affect (that is, it is pleasurable and
developmental progress. As Burghardt (2005: enjoyable, positively valued); it is flexible and
xiii) says, ‘much of what play entails may not be adaptive (using objects and rules in a variety
as it seems’. of ways). Play can also often be repetitive,
unpredictable, spontaneous, innovative and
Recent studies of the place of children’s play
creative (Burghardt 2005).
within public policy (Santer 2007; Powell and
Wellard 2007) find play to be poorly defined Chapter 3 considers the nature of playing
with no coherent understanding across or in detail and highlights its diversity. At this
among policies. This is not surprising, since stage, given the lack of agreed definition,
play scholars themselves are unable to agree this report draws on the understanding of
a definition (Sutton-Smith 1999; Burghardt play from Getting Serious About Play (DCMS
2005). However, as Burghardt (2005: xii) says, 2004: 9), which is also the definition used by
this does not diminish its importance: the Big Lottery Fund for their Children’s Play
programme, namely:
The problem of defining play and its role
is one of the greatest challenges facing what children and young people do when they
neuroscience, behavioral biology, psychology, follow their own ideas, in their own way and
education and the social sciences generally. for their own reasons.
Alas, it is rarely recognized as such … In a
very real sense, only when we understand the Such a definition represents a significant field
nature of play will we be able to understand of tension and misalignment in the triangle of
how to better shape the destinies of human evidence, policy and practice. Whilst the idea
societies in a mutually dependent world, the of self direction might be espoused in policy
future of our species, and perhaps even the terms as empowering, or as encouraging
fate of the biosphere itself. autonomy as a developmental milestone, it
is likely to be supported only insofar as the
In his overview of attempts to define play both play behaviour mirrors or simulates socially
in animals and children, Burghardt highlights acceptable behaviour, or is understood (by its
the difficulties of identifying characteristics content) to show a direct relationship with
that apply always and only to playing. Harker instrumental policy objectives. Yet, what the
(2005, cited in Meire 2007: 10) advocates evidence seems to point to, across both natural
Chapter 1: Background, scope and key messages
‘Much of the
evidence from
neuroscience
suggests that
playing is a way
of building and
shaping the emotion,
motivation and
reward regions of
the brain …’
(neuroscience) and social (ethnography) science play signals that define the game being played.
perspectives, is that children deliberately seek These rules, rituals and play signals are driven
out uncertainty (both physical and emotional) in by the more social, secondary emotions 11
their play (for example, Spinka and others 2001; (for example, pride, shame, sympathy). This
Sutton-Smith 2003; Kalliala 2006). Such playing theorising is supported by studies which show
with uncertainty is likely to be manifested in that engagement in play helps to develop
play behaviours that may not appear to be emotion regulation (for example, Panksepp
‘positive’ in any linear or causal way. Examples 2007; Sutton-Smith 2003), peer and place
might include war and superhero play, rough attachment (for example, Gayler and Evans
and tumble play and play fighting, teasing and 2001; Mathur and Berndt 2006; Goodwin 2006;
bullying, jokes and obscenities, thrill seeking play Korpela 2002; Corsaro 2003), emotional health
such as parkour or skateboarding, adolescent through pleasure and enjoyment (for example,
experiments with drugs and sex, as well as Tugade and others 2005; Gervaise and Wilson
behaviour in the public realm that is increasingly 2005: Martin 2007) and physical health (for
understood as dangerous or antisocial. example, Mackett and Paskins 2004).
Much of the evidence from neuroscience A key point highlighted by much of the
suggests that playing is a way of building and research is the importance of understanding
shaping the emotion, motivation and reward these aspects as being interconnected
regions of the brain rather than rehearsing and mutually dependent (Diamond 2007).
specific skills that may be needed later in adult Human development is a lifelong process of
life (Burghardt 2005), and also that playing is experiences that connect the brain, the body
a way of building a range of flexible responses and the environment in a constant, mutually
across a number of adaptive systems that link influencing shaping process (Thompson and
the brain, the body and the social and physical Varela 2001; Edelman 2006). Through their play,
environment. First-hand experiences of the individual children both adapt to and shape
raw, primary emotions of fear, anger, sadness, their environments. Such an understanding
happiness, surprise and disgust (Damasio 2003) allows a breaking down both of the concept
are essential for these processes to take of the universal child developing through
place, and are evident in these kinds of playing. fixed stages towards the goal of adulthood
(Wyness 2006) and also of the fixed and
Sutton-Smith (2003) suggests that play opposite understandings of difference as
provides an excellent safe frame for the understood through adult/child, girl/boy, black/
expression of these primary emotions that white, rich/poor and other binaries (Prout
can be held in check by the rules, rituals and 2005). The dominant paradigm of preventative
Play for a Change: Summary report
policies aimed at children ‘at risk’ of social 1. The well-being of children in England
exclusion has been criticised for focusing too A 2007 Unicef report on the well-being of
much on the individual child and family. Evans children in 21 of the world’s richest countries
and Pinnock (2007) note that this deficit ranked the UK bottom. This sends a strong
model overlooks the importance of children’s message that we need to think again about
relationship within their social and cultural children’s experiences of childhood. There are
networks and with their physical environments. many statistics and many moral panics about
the lives of children in England. Policy-makers
The sense of pleasure and reward derived
need to heed the fact that, when children and
from play generates an appetite or urge
young people themselves are asked about
to seek out further stimuli that afford
what is important in their own lives, playing and
opportunities to play. The expression of this
friends are consistently at the top of the list.
urge is not confined to the times and places
that adults set apart for playing. Ethnographic 2. Play, development and well-being
studies of children’s own experiences of We are now beginning to understand the
playing in their local environments and in interrelationship between genes, the brain,
the school playground show that children the body, behaviour and the physical and
continue to use space and time to play in ways social environment. This has enabled a deeper
that evoke adult nostalgia (challenging the understanding of how play contributes to
perception that children no longer know how children’s physical and emotional well-being
to play), anxiety and recrimination (for example, and to their development. Contrary to the
Percy-Smith 2002; Cloke and Jones 2005; dominant belief that it is a way of learning
Armitage 2004). Children’s ability to engage specific motor, cognitive or social skills, play
playfully with their local environments and to has an impact on the architectural foundations
12 actualise what these spaces afford for play of development such as gene expression and
depends on their ability to move independently physical and chemical development of the
within and across spaces. Restrictions to brain. In turn, these foundations influence the
mobility, a heavy promotion of adult agendas child’s ability to adapt to, survive, thrive in and
and the determination of outcomes from shape their social and physical environments.
play, prohibitions and constraints about the Children’s development and well-being cannot be
use of space and/or dull and featureless understood as separate from their environment.
environments will narrow the potential of
local environments to support children’s 3. Play and resilience
play (Kytta 2004). Gill (2007) suggests that Play can help build resilience – the capacity
there is a need to move from a philosophy of for children to thrive despite adversity and
protection towards a philosophy of resilience. stress in their lives. Emotions have a key role
Understanding children’s play patterns can in playing and play makes a major contribution
help adults to appreciate how to design to developing emotion regulation, building
spaces that support children’s play, or indeed strong attachments and peer friendships,
to acknowledge the existence of such patterns engendering positive feelings, and enabling
and do little other than protect children’s right children to cope with stressful situations
to participate within their local environments through developing creative approaches and
(Blinkert 2004). problem solving skills.
4. Play and social policy
Key messages
The role of play in building children’s
Play for a Change has revealed a resonance resilience and in their health and well-
between the academic research on the being chimes with the emphasis on building
benefits of play for children’s health and resilience in social policy. The evidence is
well-being and the broad aims stated in compelling. However, there is a need to
current policies for children and young people. move away from an instrumental view of
However, policies and practice do not reflect play that Play for a Change has found in
this resonance because of their instrumental much policy and practice, and towards a
understanding of play and the nature of recognition that the benefits of play accrue
childhood. These key messages distil the from its characteristics of unpredictability,
findings of the review. spontaneity, goallessness and personal
Chapter 1: Background, scope and key messages
control, rather than directly from its often find uncomfortable and so seek
content. If policy-makers accept the to suppress. This raises questions, for
evidence for the significance of play for example, about the effectiveness of anti-
children’s well-being and development, then discriminatory practices, approaches to
play provision should be judged on whether challenging behaviour, and if, when and how
it enables children to play rather than on to direct or intervene in play. The evidence
more instrumental outcomes. Because of from ethnographic studies of children’s play
the interrelationship with the environment provides an excellent foundation for building 13
there is no guarantee that playing will deliver an understanding of play through the eyes of
on the five Every Child Matters outcomes; children themselves. Given the significance of
we can, however, be confident that these play in the lives of children, both from their
outcomes are more likely to be realised if own accounts and from the brain sciences, it
children can play. would seem that it should, as a minimum, be
part of the common core of knowledge that
5. Time and space for play every adult needs when working with children.
The pleasure and enjoyment that children
7. Gathering the evidence from practice
gain from playing leads them to seek out
time and space to play. The prevailing The rich source of research about play,
understanding of childhood and play has drawn from a range of academic disciplines,
led to an increase in adult control of provides evidence of the need to ensure that
children’s use of time and space which in children can play. However, this review has
turn constrains the ways in which children shown that there is a dearth of academically
can exploit the opportunities that local rigorous research into how best to make
environments offer for playing. Where sure that children are able to play, either
in the general environment or in children’s
children can range independently, their
spaces. Much of the literature on practice
environment becomes a field of ‘free action’
aims to show instrumental outcomes for play
in which they can follow their own desires and
provision, whether that be motor, cognitive,
create situations of wonder and uncertainty
social or emotional skills, physical activity or
(Kytta 2004). An appreciation of the
crime reduction. There is a need to gather
relationship between the nature of play and
the evidence on what works best in providing
an environmental field of free action is crucial
for play for its own sake.
in designing play friendly neighbourhoods. This
calls for partnership and cross-departmental
working at local and national level.
6. The children’s workforce
Evidence from the brain sciences shows
that benefits accrue in part from the very
characteristics of playing that adults
Play for a Change: Summary report
Chapter 2
Some contemporary literature on childhood (2007) asserts that the dominant paradigm
suggests that childhood is in crisis: 71 per which informs social policy, and early childhood
cent of newspaper stories about children education and care practice in particular,
suggests that childhood and young people in is one that sees children as the future of
one week had a negative tone, with a third of all the nation, with the role of the professional
stories being about violent crime and antisocial being to apply technologies (such as early
disorder (MORI 2004). Other concerns include intervention) that will ensure the desired social
increased diagnoses of mental health and and economic outcomes. The growth of social
behavioural disorders, obesity, consumerism studies in childhood has offered alternative
and the impact of new technology (for example, ways of understanding childhood, particularly
Palmer 2006). However, many of these ‘moral recognising children’s own competence in being
panics’ (Madge 2006; Darbyshire 2007) can children and their capacities as social actors
be countered by an alternative viewpoint: for rather than passive recipients of services and
example, Hough and Roberts (2004) show a fall socialisation processes (Alanen 2001; Prout
in police reported youth crime; Rose (2005) 2002; Moss and Petrie 2002).
and Timimi (2005) query diagnoses of Attention
Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and suggest that Children and young people have been the focus
environmental factors may play a significant of a plethora of social policy initiatives over
part; Livingstone (2003) and Cunningham the last decade (Roberts 2001; Mcneish and Gill
(2006) highlight children’s and young people’s 2006; Brown 2007). The language and focus of
competence and sophistication in their use of these policies reveals confused and conflated
new technologies. constructions of childhood which include
children as innocents in need of protection, as
These concerns reflect a number of conflicting evil and in need of correction and as the hope
ways of conceptualising childhood. Moss for the future (Madge 2006; Hood 2007).
Play for a Change: Summary report
‘Some contemporary
literature asserts that
childhood is in crisis: 71
per cent of newspaper
stories about children
and young people in
one week had a
negative tone.’
Research and campaigning has drawn they should be healthy, stay safe, achieve
government attention to the importance of and enjoy, make a positive contribution and
playing in the lives of children and young people achieve economic well-being (DfES 2004).
(DCMS 2004), culminating in £155 million of There is a focus on early intervention for
Big Lottery Fund money for children’s play in those deemed ‘at risk’ of poor outcomes,
England and the establishment of Play England. in order to reduce the risk factors and
However, the place of play in social policy promote protective factors and resilience
remains both peripheral and confused (Powell (France and Utting 2005). This approach has
16
and Wellard 2007; Santer and others 2007). been criticised for its focus on the individual
There is no single coherent understanding of child, suggesting that more could be done
what is meant by play, and its place in national in building services that take children’s
policy is subsumed within wider policies with wider domains into account (family, school,
no statutory duty attached. Play is valued community and neighbourhood) and so
for its utilitarian and instrumental uses, such tackle the broader, more ecological and
as promoting learning, combating obesity or structural aspects of social exclusion (Evans
reducing crime, or as part of childcare within and Pinnock 2007; Jack 2006), as well as for
economic policy, rather than being recognised the dominant paradigm of technological
for its intrinsic value. Adult-led, structured interventions leading to desired outcomes
and ‘positive’ activities are more commonly (Moss 2007). Research into what helps to
supported than play that is freely chosen and build resilience shows that small things can
personally directed, particularly in statutory make a big difference, and attachments to
documents relating directly to children and others, including adults other than primary
young people. Documents relating to the carers, can help through focusing an interest
environment, public space or neighbourhoods on the child and in providing potential turning
are more likely to recognise play’s intrinsic points (Gilligan 2000).
value (Powell and Wellard 2007). The need to
bring these two separate policy spheres of The policy review on children and young people
children’s services and local regeneration (HM Treasury and DfES 2007), a part of the
together has been highlighted (Lammy 2007). Comprehensive Spending Review, announces a
new emphasis on building resilience. Play can
Current social policy undertakes to be make a significant contribution to building
evidence-based and outcomes-focused. resilience in children and young people,
The five outcomes for children within the although not in any linear or certain fashion, as
Every Child Matters programme are that is shown in Chapter 3.
Chapter 2: National and local socio-political context
17
Chapter 3
While other behaviours can influence adaptive that for the time of playing, life is worth living,
systems, the unique design features of play and that motivates children to play more,
offer the best way forward in developing flexible creating further opportunities for these
responses to the challenges faced by children benefits to accrue.
in adapting to their complex physical and
social environments (Bateson 2005; Pellegrini Play and resilience
and others 2007). Play enables individuals to
sample their environments and to try out a Resilience may be described as the ability to
range of behaviours in a relatively low risk withstand or recover from environmental
fashion. In play, children deliberately seek to challenges and stress, to spring back from
place themselves in uncertain situations where and successfully adapt to adversity (Rutter
they can improvise responses, drawing on 2006). Studies note that this ability is a
conventional movements alongside novel actions common phenomenon, or ‘ordinary magic’
in order to regain control and re-establish a (Masten 2001), associated with the operation
sense of balance (Spinka and others 2001). This of basic adaptive systems. Where these
‘training for the unexpected’ also applies to systems are in good working order and
developing emotional flexibility through playing protected, development is likely to be robust.
with the emotional aspect of being surprised However, if they are subject to prolonged
or temporarily disorientated or unbalanced. and severe environmental stress, the risk of
Playing, because it is understood as behaviour developmental problems is increased (Masten
that is not ‘for real’, provides a relatively safe 2001; Masten and Obradovic 2006). The
context in which emotions can be expressed, evidence presented in the literature review
exercised and modulated without incurring suggests that play, as a unique behaviour,
serious loss of control (Spinka and others 2001; supports and enhances the development of
20 this ‘ordinary magic’ through its operation
Sutton-Smith 2003). Play appropriates stimuli,
experiences, or objects, and distances them across interrelated adaptive systems:
from their original meanings, creating a play • Emotion regulation Play enhances the
frame (‘as if’ behaviour) that allows for greater development of flexible and adaptive
freedom, interactivity, and creative possibilities emotions. The design features of play –
(Gordon and Esbjorn-Hargens 2007). The benefit uncertainty, flexibility and ‘as if’ frames –
of play, relative to other strategies, is that the enable children to develop repertoires for
behaviours generated through playing can be avoiding emotional over-reaction through
more innovative and allow for further practice a range of play strategies such as courage,
of newly developed behaviours (Pellegrini and bravery, resilience, and sociability (Sutton-
others 2007). Smith 2003; Spinka and others 2001; Gayler
The novelty and uncertainty generated and Evans 2001; Panksepp 2007).
in play has influence through a series of • Pleasure and enjoyment and the promotion
complex and reciprocal feedback loops that of positive feelings Play, as an enjoyable
operate on the ‘embodied mind embedded experience, promotes positive affect, which
in the world’. Research suggests that the in turn encourages further exploration,
experience of playing stimulates novel neural novelty and creativity (Panksepp 2007;
and chemical reactions and interactions that Burghardt 2005; Meire 2007; Martin 2007).
enhance brain plasticity (Sutton-Smith 1997),
develops links between motivation, emotion • Stress response systems Play offers
and reward systems, supports the vertical the opportunity to create and resolve
integration of brain regions, and refines uncertainty, not so much when placing
coordination between perceptual, motor and oneself in jeopardy, but more in relation
thinking systems (Burghardt 2005; Spinka to feelings of excitement, courage and
and others 2001). Thus, play may be a way of resilience in the face of imagined disaster
shaping the brain, maintaining plasticity and (Spinka and others 2007; Sutton-Smith
potential, and developing a positive emotional 2003). The moderate level of arousal or
orientation and disposition that will enable anxiety created in play may be beneficial by
more complex and flexible playful interaction enabling enhancement of stress response
with the environment. As Sutton-Smith (2003) systems and developing repertoires
suggests, what play does is to create a sense to respond in appropriate ways to
Chapter 3: The importance of play
threats and stressors, play behaviours will 2006). Physical activity supports children’s
be reduced or terminated (Burghardt 2005; health in a number of ways, including the
Pellegrini and others 2007; Siviy and others development of motor skills and increased
2003). Where this is profound and prolonged, energy expenditure (Alton and others
there will inevitably be an impact on adaptive 2007; Ekeland and others 2005; Saakslahti
systems (Masten 2001). Animal based research and others 2004 ), and regular physical
suggests that play/environmental deprivation activity can help prevent chronic diseases
results in increased fear and over-vigilance (Warburton and others 2006). Physical
to novel situations and decreased ability to activity relieves depression and anxiety by
respond effectively to stressful situations providing opportunities for social interaction,
(Pellis and Pellis 2007; Cui and others 2006). increased feelings of self-mastery, self-
Long-term experience of stress will shape the esteem and self-efficacy, and stress relief.
mind/body to develop inappropriate reactions Active and free play is a particularly effective
to social situations and, as such, early stress form of physical activity (Batch 2005; Poulsen
may have a cumulative influence on and Ziviani 2004).
playfulness throughout development (Arnold
Research suggests that the unique design
and Siviy 2002).
features of play act across a range of health
Equally, animal research indicates that variables: play comprises short, intense
environmental enrichment (the provision
of attractive stimuli in an environment) will
increase play behaviours and thus enhance
brain plasticity, reduce anxiety-like behaviour,
promote physical activity and enhance immune
22 systems (Cui and others 2006; Benaroya-
Milshtein and others 2004). While the
environments for children are highly complex,
attention needs to be given to providing
sufficient quality and quantity of ‘good things’
to support play and build resilience to stress
and adversity (Vellacott 2007).
periods of activity which involve novel approaches fail to recognise the inherent
movements, thoughts and behaviours; play with nature of play and thus diminish the potential
uncertainty promotes moderate stress, which that this form of behaviour may offer to
in turn supports high variable heart rates and support learning (Lofdahl 2005; Howard
the development of healthy stress response and others 2006). Several studies have
systems; and as a pleasurable experience, play questioned the limitations of adopting a
becomes self-rewarding and builds motivation narrow instrumental approach and highlight
for more play experiences (Burdette and the importance of teachers being ‘play literate’
Whitaker 2005; Poulsen and Ziviani 2004). in order to optimise this process fully in the
classroom (Targeton 2005; Lofdahl 2005).
Social capital
Social capital is a somewhat elusive and Summary
multifaceted concept that has become A key theme that emerges from the review
increasingly influential in framing social policy of research is that play is an emotional
(Leonard 2005; Barnes and Prior 2007). A endeavour, and it is this that shapes the
fundamental feature of social capital is the architecture of the brain. The unique design
importance of social networks and trust in features of play (for example, control,
promoting a sense of belonging and well-being uncertainty, flexibility, novelty, routine,
(Putnam 1995; Halpern 2005). The diverse adaptiveness, non-productivity) provide
research presented in this review suggests motivation and reward in a continuous cycle
that play represents a biological, social of mind/body engagement with the social
and environmental resource that operates and physical environment. The research
across basic adaptive systems and through suggests that this process enhances a
this provides children with an opportunity to range of basic adaptive systems necessary
acquire valued ‘social capital’ and associated for developing resilience and well-being. 23
well-being. However, a number of studies From this perspective, we can see how play
express concerns over the ways this process can make a significant contribution in broad,
is understood (and largely ignored) by adults principled terms to the five outcomes of
(Fattore and others 2007; Leonard 2005;
the Every Child Matters agenda: be healthy,
Morrow 2004).
stay safe, achieve and enjoy, make a positive
Children’s ability to actualise or ‘mobilise’ contribution and achieve economic well-
social capital through play is subject to highly being (DfES 2004). However, this will not be
complex and interrelated factors (Bassani through a linear cause-effect relationship,
2007). Studies into children’s social capital and the ‘outcomes’ of playing cannot be
indicate that there is a range of practical, externally determined and measured. Indeed
environmental and economic constraints that attempts to do so will inevitably frustrate
impact on children’s ability to develop their the very qualities inherent in children’s
social networks through playing out in their play. Such an understanding of play allows
immediate neighbourhoods (Morrow 2004; those responsible for creating places for
Offer and Schneider 2007), an issue which is play to move beyond a focus on the content
explored in more detail in Chapter 4. of playing, as an indication of skills to be
rehearsed for future adult life, towards an
Learning understanding of a more fundamental and
While there is an assumption that play has a emotional purpose for play.
functional relationship to learning, a deeper
and broader appreciation of the nature The diagram and associated text on the
of play is often not fully explored (Lofdahl following pages is an attempt to pull
2005). The interest of the educational field together key aspects of the research
in the relationship between play and learning reviewed to show how the emotional
lies within a narrow instrumental approach experience of the process of playing can
through the design and management of contribute to the five Every Child Matters
playing experiences to meet clearly defined outcomes. The relationship between playing
educational goals, often expressed through and the five outcomes is depicted as a
such phrases as learning-centred play and spider’s web in order to emphasise the
play-based learning (Farne 2005; Pramling interrelationship between genes, brain, body
Samuelsson and Johansson 2006). Such and environment.
Play for a Change: Summary report
Ch
ild
re St
hy
ns
1
ee ay
alt ink
ed
Ex kn
sa
he
l ov
er p re elt fe
int to
Be e ss y, d
ar il ity io no ise
h b qu
e alt sa l
fs
tr ilib
lh lop 3 ica Mi on riu
ta ve sÕ ys ld ge m
me
n
y de che ph 5, 6 st mo an
d l a n f re du
an fp ep
u t o se ss tio nc
al y o th en ea 4 Pla s tr ns er
y sic ilit ith o ym t dis ss yi en in
as ta
Ph t
b
a ll w e
j
n ins t re st gt
he af
int
yi
ed
ic Ôro d
an s ag
a ds ra
ini ns ef np
pr ol t an ng re ra lay
Un tr tec a ts fo sil me 8
n re Ch r ien
co ro
2,
th th ce 10
y, yp ith
2 ild
re eu ,1
1,
iet tivit ion
4, 12
r w nc ne 13,
Va ac p e u lat an xp
ec
14
,1
co
5
eg as te
to nr se d
l ity tio ss 4,
Ab
i
Em
o PLAY AND r isk
9 ,1
7
16
RESILIENCE
e
Hum
d
iv
y an
tect
of
Play
emo
is
ou
deve y gives
Play
vert
ent
e; th
l pro
mec develo
elem 40
acts
denc 37
tion ked to c
eing
a
rity
Play
Pla
¥ Creativity
ic po
lopin
nd la
is
inde cused
han
cia
li
s, d
39
reat prospe
as a
n
¥ Emotion regulation
hoso yc 38
is
ate laying
m
g fle ise to fe
u
n
ell-b
iv
a
h an overty
g
-fo
m
e
h
:
p
b
ivity
s fo ffective
rgen ativity, c
ter
Enjo
eco
xib
econ r adult
r
o er pport p
ps e
ffer
ked onomic
r lea
il
deve
p
re
it
t
ic W
omic
s h ren in
y, op ngs of
t
again
y
h
o
rnin
to c
adic
inkin gnition
lop s
ec
u
¥ Place attachment
e
and
timis
e he hould s
r
eli
lt
an a for child
m
g 25
st p
Play future
a
g 23, 24
¥ Learning
oc
e
u
ono
o
f
le
m an sitive a
ia
o
n
t
is
ac
t
o
li
l
s
s
ct a
r
c
is
e
, 26,
lp
li
omp
po
healt
Child outcom
d
s
e ec
hiev
Attachment to place develops
ndsh factor
27
r
,
a
e
environmental awareness 34, 35, 36
eten
h
s
r
h 1, 7, 19
ilien ct,
n
a
c
e
v
e
s
Child
ce 20
e
ip
ce 18, 2
ChildrenÕs friendships build social
ff
i
, 22,
e
Ach
1, 27
r frie
Resilience and social policy social and emotional skills and the five
The policy review on children and young people outcomes, linking these to the resilience
(HM Treasury and DfES 2007), a part of the factors adapted from Masten and Obradovic
Comprehensive Spending Review, announces a (2006). Attempts at fitting the wide-ranging
new emphasis on building resilience, with a focus evidence generated from this review into
on three protective factors: high educational discrete outcome boxes runs the risk
attainment, good social and emotional skills of reducing this highly complex form of
and positive parenting. The section on social behaviour to simplistic linear and causal
and emotional skills highlights self-awareness, relationships, exactly the thing that current
the ability to manage feelings, motivation and studies into the nature of resilience warn
empathy. The evidence presented in Play for
against (Rutter 2006). The key benefits of
a Change shows how play is a highly effective
playing given here serve as an illustration of
mechanism for achieving this.
the complexity and interconnectivity of the
The spider’s web diagram above shows the relationship between play, well-being and the
interrelationship between play, resilience, Every Child Matters outcomes.
Play for a Change: Summary report
1. Mental and physical health are interlinked. 13. Mild stress is beneficial in terms of creating
a variable heart rate (Yun and others 2005)
2. Play provides a way of experiencing the and developing resilience (Rutter 2006).
primary emotions (anger, fear, sadness,
happiness, disgust and shock) that are 14. Beneficial mild stress strengthens
necessary for survival, at the same time integration between emotional and executive
keeping them in check through the rules functions in the brain (Panksepp 2001).
and rituals of playing (Sutton-Smith 2003),
thus helping to develop emotion regulation. 15. Play allows us to ‘roll with the punches’
associated with daily social interactions
3. The unpredictability of play helps develop (Siviy 1998).
neural capacity to ‘roll with the punches’ of
everyday social interactions (Siviy 1998). 16. Children are capable of assessing risk
(Levin and Hart 2003).
4. Those who have not had exposure to
novelty or the unexpected through play 17. There is evidence that parents have
may pay more attention to potential become increasingly restrictive when
threats and become more stressed by it comes to unsupervised play and
these threats (Fox and others 2007). independent mobility. There is growing
concern that there might be long-term
5. The enjoyment, challenge and self- costs to a generation of children that have
direction of playing, as well as the range had less opportunity to experience the
of motor actions, are more effective than world, make mistakes and learn from these
externally directed exercise regimes that experiences (CAPT 2002).
may be boring or stressful (Poulsen and
Ziviani 2004). 18. The enjoyment of playing leads to ‘positive
26 affect’ (feeling good) and this has benefits
6. Regular physical playing helps prevent for flexible thinking and problem solving,
chronic diseases (Alton and others 2007) mastery and optimism and enhances
and relieves depression and anxiety (Garcia performance (Isen and Reeve 2006;
and Baltodano 2005). Pressman and Cohen 2005).
7. Enriched natural environments, strong 19. Positive emotions can be a buffer against
social networks and enjoyment create maladaptive health outcomes (Tugade and
the best opportunity for play and physical others 2004).
health (Burdette and Whitaker 2005).
20. Humour and laughter help develop social
8. Children seek novelty, disequilibrium and competence (Loizou 2005).
risk in their play (Spinka and others 2001;
Kalliala 2006). 21. The enjoyment of playing promotes flexible
thinking and facilitates the acquisition of
9. Play is ‘training for the unexpected’, personal resources that can be drawn on
both physical and emotional (Spinka and in times of need (Frederickson 2006).
others 2001).
22. Positive emotions generate psychological
10. Play allows for the expression and resources by promoting resilience,
experience of strong emotions within the endurance and optimism (Salovey and
safe frame (Sutton-Smith 2003). others 2000).
11. Rough and tumble play is ‘a sane and safe 23. Young children who are successful at
way of putting our vulnerabilities on the playing with peers also show greater
line’ (Sheets-Johnstone 2003). cognitive, social and physical abilities
than those who are less skilled at playing
12. Risk-taking in play offers a way of being (Fantuzzo and others 2004).
‘in control of being out of control and so
enjoy a sense of both risk and mastery 24. There is a positive relationship between
simultaneously’ (Gordon and Esbjorn- cognitive skills and high quality play
Hargens 2007). (Gmitrova and Gmitrov 2004).
Chapter 3: The importance of play
25. Play helps to develop effective mechanisms 34. Children’s outdoor play helps to build
for learning rather than specific learning attachments to place; playing in the
(Burghardt 2005). natural environment helps develop
environmental awareness (Lester and
26. Pretend play engages many areas of Maudsley 2006).
the brain because it involves emotion,
cognition, language and sensorimotor 35. Children and young people can make
actions (Bergen 2002). a positive contribution to the design,
building and maintenance of public spaces
27. Play, particularly pretend play, is linked (CABE Space 2004; Brothwell 2006).
to creativity in the sense that it involves
divergent thinking, symbol substitution, 36. Children’s play within their local
positive affect, problem solving skills and communities enables children and young
emotion regulation (Russ 2004). people to develop relationships with
adults who are beyond the family and
28. Positive attachments are a key element in live in their neighbourhood. These forms
developing resilience, and begin with the of neighbourhood relations establish a
primary carer but also develop through strong sense of community and less fear
wider social networks as children grow of crime and, in turn, these later variables
(Hofer 2006). consequently reduce feelings of loneliness
during adolescence (Prezza and Pacilli 2007).
29. Positive peer friendships may compensate
for poor early attachment (Booth-Laforce 37. As children have little economic
and others 2005). independence, this outcome relates either
to the current drive to eradicate child 27
30. Children’s friendships build social capital poverty, or to children’s potential place in
for both children and adults (Weller 2007). the employment market as adults.
31. Pretend play, role play and rough and 38. Children’s peer friendships can act as
tumble play enable children to develop health and psychosocial protection factors
sophisticated attachments with peers for children living in poverty (Attree 2004).
(Andresen 2005; Freeman and Brown 2004;
Reed 2005). 39. The growth in out of school childcare is a
key element of the government’s drive to
32. Through peer play children make positive eradicate child poverty; however, children’s
contributions to their own social networks ability to engage in free play varies across
and to the development of play cultures provision (Barker and others 2003).
(Corsaro 2003).
40. Creativity is seen as an important element
33. Play culture can be cruel (Hughes 2006) of education for future economic prosperity
and can also evoke adult disapproval (NACCCE 1999); play is an important
(Kalliala 2006; Ross 2004). contributor to creativity (Russ 2004).
Play for a Change: Summary report
Chapter 4
‘Understanding
children’s play
patterns can
help adults
appreciate
how best to
design spaces
and support
children’s play …’
Chapter 4: Children’s play patterns
The temporal regulation of children’s lives While current social policy is targeted
and children’s lessening ability to have a towards the reduction of child poverty, this
say over their use of time is a matter of may not be sufficient to remove children from
concern for children. ‘Everyday’ time for the poverty of not being able to access their
children is busy, and children’s own use of immediate local environments and actualise
time is threatened by the many plans and the affordances that these spaces offer
commitments made on their behalf by others (Woolley 2006). Children place great emphasis
(Christensen 2002). Studies from the US on their ability to play out with their friends in
question the impact of ‘over-scheduling’ on their immediate local neighbourhoods; failure
children and young people’s well-being, noting to support this will impact on children’s
that the greater the amount of time that subjective assessment of well-being.
students reported participating in activities,
the higher the self-reported levels of anxiety The evidence presented at this stage of
(Melman and others 2007). the review clearly suggests the need for a
paradigm shift in the design of children-
Conflicting space use friendly spaces, from a narrow development
Several studies discuss the conflict between of purpose-built places for children (usually
children’s and adults’ value of space, noting single purpose) to a much wider appreciation
that adults’ desire for safety, order and of children as members of a local community
visibility contrasts with children’s desire for and a recognition of their needs for a wide
disorder, cover, loose materials and so on range of spaces; from ‘lightly structured
(Rasmussen 2004; Thompson and Philo 2004; space for children’s outdoor, unsupervised
Ross 2004). This also extends into the design play, to the more structured institutions
of children’s play spaces, and a number of encountered by children in their daily lives’
studies highlight the mismatch between an (Moss and Petrie 2002: 177). 33
adult construct of children’s play spaces
and what children value and prefer to do in
their own time (Rasmussen 2004; Hart 2002;
Warpole 2003; Armitage 2004; Frost 2006).
School playgrounds
It is generally acknowledged that the school
playground offers a valuable space and time
for children’s play (Pellegrini and others 2004).
However, there are increasing concerns
over the reduction of time allocated to play
within the school day and increasing adult
prescriptions about children’s use of these
spaces (Armitage 2005; Thompson 2005;
Rasmussen 2004).
Summary
Children’s subjective expressions of happiness
and well-being include feelings that they
have strong and valued roles within the
local community, a sense of connectedness,
space to play and meet with friends, and an
interesting and vibrant street life (Chawla
2002). These social advantages appear to
outweigh standard economic indicators
(although children’s ability to achieve their
desired states of well-being will be influenced
by socio-economic forces). Currently, children
are often restricted or excluded from public
space and placed in ‘caretaking’ spaces of
home and ‘professional’ institutions.
Play for a Change: Summary report
Chapter 5
shows that children and young people are literature: our tendency to try to apply adult
often positive about their local environments rationality as the benchmark of assessing
and have strong views about how to improve competence (Archard 2004); our desire to
them (CABE Space 2004; Camina 2004; maintain our power as adults (Badham 2004);
Elsley 2004; Armstrong and other 2005). the confusion of a civic engagement agenda
More places to play, both supervised and with one of authentic participation (Badham
unsupervised, and feeling safe to play in their 2004; Jans 2004); our lack of understanding
neighbourhoods, were consistent requests. of what children are saying because we are
However, such requests often took low priority hearing it through adult ears (Skivenes and
in regeneration schemes (Camina 2004). Strandbu 2006).
Participation and consultation A number of playful and child-centred ways
The principle of children and young people’s of facilitating children’s participation through
participation is embedded in social policy understanding the child’s perspective have
(United Nations Convention on the Rights of been developed including games, model-making,
the Child 1989; Children and Young People’s and visual representations of environments
Unit 2001; Wade and Badham 2001; Kirby and using photographs, pictures and maps (Clark
others 2003; DfES 2005a). Authentic and and Moss 2004; Burke 2005; Wood and
effective participation can bring a number of Korndorfer 2005). However, adults, especially
benefits, including developing self-confidence playworkers, still need to guard against
and a sense of citizenship and inclusion for ‘adulterating’ children’s play with adult agendas
children and young people, building positive of fixed outputs, targets and timescales
intergenerational relationships and challenging (MacIntyre 2007).
of stereotypes (Kirby and others 2003;
36 Davies 2006). However, research also shows Providing opportunities
that children and young people’s requests
for improved places to play and things to do
for play
often take a low priority, resulting in delays in Children play anywhere and everywhere, and
changes (DTGR 2002; Chawla and Malone 2003; public provision for children to play ranges
Camina 2004; Elsley 2004). Adult attitudes from removing barriers to playing in public
towards children play a part in this: adults spaces, to supporting play in children’s
often do not consider children as competent services such as schools and hospitals,
to make useful contributions, seeing them through to unsupervised and supervised
as dependent on adults to make the best dedicated play settings.
decisions about their lives (Jans 2004;
Cockburn 2005). (Largely) unsupervised places for play
The street used to be the main place where
Participation is often interpreted as playing
children played, and although children do still
a part in democratic processes such as
play in the street, this has declined due to the
children’s committees, schools councils and
increase in traffic, parked cars and adult fears.
youth parliaments. There is a tendency for
Home zones, developed from a Dutch model,
these to be tokenistic and unrepresentative
aim to return priority to social use rather
(Badham 2004; Cockburn 2005; Clark and
than cars through the design of streetspace.
Percy-Smith 2006). Despite this, those involved
Generally, research shows that the benefits of
feel they are worthwhile but more attention
home zones include stronger communities and
needs to be given to the processes of
increased social activity, more children playing,
participation and the level of involvement from
more satisfaction with the local neighbourhood
children and young people (Middleton 2006).
and greater safety. However, they are very
Rather than seeing participation as replicating expensive, take a very long time to develop, and
adult democratic systems, alternatives could do not suit all people (Biddulph 2001; DfT 2005;
be to differentiate between child participation Gill 2007a). Cheaper and simpler alternatives
and child perspectives (Skivenes and Strandbu are being explored through Sustrans’ DIY
2006); or for children to participate in playful Streets initiative. Children from poorer families
and meaning-making ways (Jans 2004). When are four times more likely to be injured or killed
consulting children about play, a number of on the roads than their better-off peers;
potential obstacles can be drawn from the those from more well-off families tend to
Chapter 5: From policy and theory into practice
travel more in cars and be more cut off from Those responsible for public provision for play
and fearful of their neighbourhoods (Grayling need to recognise children’s desire and need
and others 2002; Appleyard 2005; Alton to play anywhere and with everything and
and others 2007; DfT 2007). Cutting traffic think beyond ‘places for children’ to ‘children’s
speeds reduces child pedestrian accidents places’ (Rasmussen 2004).
by 70 per cent (Grayling and others 2002)
Supervised play and playwork
and encourages children to play out more,
giving them naturally arising opportunities for Some 132,730 people are employed in the
physical activity (Wheway 2007). playwork sector in the UK. The role of the
playworker is generally accepted as facilitating
Much of the evaluation literature on play play for children and young people aged
areas is concerned with the process of four to 16 years in their out of school time
making improvements through neighbourhood (SkillsActive 2006a). What this means in
initiatives. There is little follow-up on the practice is the subject of some debate. The
use of areas following improvements. underpinning principle is that play that is freely
Neighbourhood projects such as New Deal chosen, intrinsically motivated and personally
for Communities and the Neighbourhood Play directed is essential to children’s well-being
Toolkit (Children’s Play Council 2006), have and healthy development. Given this, the role
helped to bring needed improvements to local of the playworker is one of creating a physical
play areas. Participation does not necessarily and social/emotional environment where
lead to a greater sense of ownership, although children can play freely rather than organising
in some projects there was a reported sense and directing activities aimed at particular
of greater community cohesion (Barraclough ends. This creates a number of tensions
for playworkers, who may be pulled towards
and others 2004; Kapasi 2006). Involving young
direction, control and intervention, either to 37
people in the design of youth spaces and
meet specific instrumental policy or funding
parks was found to have a number of benefits,
aims or because of their own emotional
including engagement, shared creativity,
responses to children’s play. Playwork itself is
greater understanding between generations,
fundamentally an intervention (Conway 2003),
more effective design of space, plus increased
and has been justified as compensatory:
confidence and other transferable skills (CABE
opportunities for free play in the general
Space 2004; Brothwell 2006). environment are so restricted as to present
There is a growth in projects that support a threat to children’s health, well-being and
children’s play in the natural environment, development, and sensitive playwork can help
and evaluations of these show benefits for compensate for this lack (Hughes 2001; Brown
children in terms of personal development, 2003).
well-being and connection to the environment. There is a growing body of literature on
Projects vary in their aims and their approach, theories of playwork, including:
with some having a focus on environmental
education, some offering structured • Brown’s (2003) concept of compound
activities and others supporting more free flexibility, in which the flexibility of the
play. A number of national environmental play environment enables play and
organisations support projects and research experimentation, which increases the
aimed at encouraging children to use the possibilities of the play environment, and so
natural environment (Milligan and Bingley 2004; on in a developmental spiral.
Maudsley 2005; Murray and O’Brien 2005; Gill • Hughes’ (2001) evolutionary playwork
2006; Ward Thompson and others 2006). approach, which emphasises the evolutionary
and biological bases for playing and argues
There is also a growth in detached playwork
that playwork should work to support
projects such as play rangers, where teams of
children’s freely chosen and personally
playworkers run play sessions in parks and other
directed play rather than imposing
public spaces. Children have said that they are
socialisation or other adult agendas.
not allowed to play in parks or that they are
worried about bullying; play rangers can help • Sturrock and Else’s (1998; 2005) therapeutic
make public space safer and more attractive for playwork, which draws on psychoanalysis
playing (Follett 2007; Rees-Jones 2007). to suggest that playing can itself be a
Play for a Change: Summary report
healing process and that playworkers Children themselves have said that the
should therefore support children’s own play most important factors in a play setting are
expressions and be alert to the emotional ‘freedom, choice and control over what they
impact this has on them as playworkers. chose to do, space to do their own thing and
access to the outdoors, a variety of toys,
To date, little of this has been used to develop
an evidence base for playwork; although equipment, trips and things to do, friendships
small-scale personal accounts are beginning with other children and their relationships
to emerge (Head 2001; Russell 2006; Smith with staff’ (Manwaring 2006: 6).
and Willans 2007), there is a need for more Out of school childcare
rigorous research into playwork practice
and its relationship to theory. Evaluations of The unprecedented growth in out of school
the lottery-funded Better Play programme childcare over the last 15 years (Barker and
(Creegan and others 2004; Youlden and others 2003) has taken place alongside a
Harrison 2006) sought to evaluate projects reduction in open access play provision (Head
against the seven objectives outlined in Best and Melville 2001; Hallsworth and Sutton
Play (NPFA and others 2000), and although 2004; Play England 2006). A recent survey
projects were broadly deemed to have met of the playwork workforce found that most
these objectives, there was some variation respondents worked in settings ‘either based
in interpretation. For example, not all the on school premises or connected with schools
projects worked to a definition of play as in some way’ (SkillsActive 2006b: 12). The
being freely chosen, personally directed and nature of the relationship between the school
intrinsically motivated; in some projects and the out of school club determines how far
freedom of choice was understood as choice the club reflects the ethos and norms of the
38 between activities rather than self direction. school or how far a more playwork-oriented
In the projects where activities were mainly approach can be implemented. Generally
adult-led, the children enjoyed themselves, but speaking, children’s use of time and space is
in the projects where children’s play was freely determined by staff, although children found
chosen, the children were more effectively
ways of contesting this and creating spaces
supported in developing independence and the
where they could determine their own play
children themselves felt respected and valued.
(Smith and Barker 2000; Barker and others
In an evaluation of adventure playgrounds
2003). The research on children’s own views
in south London, playworkers described
their role as ‘making sure they created a on out of school care consistently shows
safe environment with stimulating activities’ that they value being able to socialise with
(Franklin 2002: 32). Yet the meanings of the friends and having control and direction over
words ‘safe’ and ‘activity’ are contextually their own playing, they want to be able to
specific here, and there is recognition that play outside, they want staff that are caring,
activities can include ‘hanging out’ and friendly, helpful and playful, and they want
spontaneous play, and safety is constructed to be treated with respect and to have a
as the need to balance the importance of say about how the club is run (Mooney and
risk-taking and preventing serious harm. Blackburn 2003).
interactions that children’s play is valued, children’s own competence in navigating them
having the confidence to let play develop, and through their social relations as children.
recognising that children are competent to do Failure to recognise these factors may
this (Abbott and Nutbrown 2001; Howards and mean that interventions intended to reduce
others 2002; David 2003; Pramling Samuelsson the negative aspects of discrimination and
and Johanssen 2006). stereotyping may indeed serve to further
entrench attitudes and identities (Bhavnani
The evaluation of the quality of early learning,
2005; Morrow and Connolly 2006).
play and childcare services in Sure Start
local programmes notes that ‘early childhood The full literature review report looks at
services are dominated by professional, white, a number of categories of groups and
middle class constructs of play’. Parents’ circumstances, namely: social exclusion;
play with their children reflects the norms inclusion and disabled children and young
of the home culture, and some parents view people; ethnicity and racism; Gypsy and
playing as recreational and may not subscribe Traveller children; refugees and asylum
to the educational value of play. This raises seeking children; homeless children; gender;
particular issues for working with parents children in public care; play in hospitals; play
within Sure Start local programmes, and there in prisons; and children and trauma. The
is a paucity of previous research into these quantity and focus of the literature varies
interrelationships which might inform any a great deal for each of these headings and
evaluation (Anning and others 2005). for many there is a distinct lack of nationally
published data. The detail is not reproduced
Play provision for all here; rather this summary considers general
The National Evaluation of the Children’s Fund of the literature reviewed here shows that
(a government programme aimed at tackling children from different cultural groups, or
social exclusion for children aged between disabled and non-disabled children, often play
5 and 13 years and their families) lists clubs, ‘in parallel’ and that this is a cause for concern
playschemes and play provision amongst the (for example, Kapasi 2002). It may be, given the
most numerous of services delivered under lack of agreement on the benefits of being
the programme. The analysis of the benefits encouraged to play together, and the research
of these services focused on the value of showing the importance of children’s own peer
safe space, with staff highlighting the need friendships (Booth-Laforce and others 2005;
to be flexible and responsive and parents Qualter and Munn 2005), that further research
highlighting the value of children being away in this area is warranted. In some cases, the
from undesirable influences, developing skills culture of settings served to perpetuate
and broadening horizons, whereas children saw stereotypes and entrench attitudes (Smith
them as places to have fun and make friends and Barker 2001; Holland 2003; Brooker 2006;
across age ranges. Whilst play provision Connolly 2006).
features frequently in the services discussed
in the report, there is little discussion on how As the literature reviewed in Chapter 3
playing itself could contribute to developing suggests, self- and peer-led playing can
resilience within these services (Edwards and be cruel, yet it is the creativity, flexibility,
others 2006). uncertainty, sense of control and ‘as if’
nature of play that are understood to aid
The nationally published literature on play development of such capacities as emotion
provision for particular groups of children regulation and empathy. In addition, the
and those in particular circumstances shows research on resilience, risk and stress (Rutter
a growing distance between the assumptions 2006) shows that experience of mild stress 41
underpinning practice and the findings or adversity has beneficial consequences
from the geographies of childhood and the for brain architecture and neurochemistry,
brain science research into play and peer helping to develop coping strategies; the
friendships outlined in Chapters 3 and 4. The removal of mild stressors and the decrease
practice evaluation research shows a focus in variety of environmental cues may have
on access to provision, with less attention in a negative impact on resistance to disease
the literature paid to supporting play (with a (Yun and others 2005). Such research calls
few exceptions), and with the beginnings of into question a ‘zero tolerance’ approach to
questioning over traditional approaches to teasing and conflict in children’s play, as does
anti-discriminatory practice. research showing that children tend to argue
more with close friends than with others
The starting point is the importance of outside their friendship groups (Qualter and
recognising that all children need to play and Munn 2005). If adults who work with children at
that some children face greater barriers than play interrupt these forms of playing with the
others in accessing opportunities to play. well-intentioned aim of encouraging pro-social
Often, for children in extreme circumstances, behaviour and preventing discrimination, could
immediate survival needs are a priority and this be as counterproductive as it has been
play can sometimes be forgotten; where suggested that attitudes towards play fighting
opportunities are created, benefits are (Smith and others 2002) and war play (Holland
tangible (for example, Cuninghame and others 2003) may be?
2001; Tamminen and Bailey 2001; Shatwell 2003;
Chambers 2004; Andrews 2005; Beirens and Yet there is also a tendency to idealise play’s
others 2006; Walker 2006). There is a debate intrinsic motivations and freedoms (Sutton-
as to whether separate or inclusive provision Smith 1997; Henricks 2006). The individualistic
is preferable. The importance of community- notion of personal control and freedom cannot
led provision for particular cultural or religious relate absolutely to playing in groups since
groups is acknowledged (Maan 2005); at the there has to be a level of negotiation and
same time there is an assertion that playing cooperation in order to agree how the play
together reduces ignorance and prejudice and frame will progress: ‘play … exhibits social
therefore aids community cohesion (Cantle structures only somewhat dissimilar from
2001; Bruegel 2006), although this remains those found in other parts of life’ (Henricks
contested (Bhavnani and others 2005). Much 2006: 8). Power structures are played out
Play for a Change: Summary report
within play frames and more powerful children or someone who can usefully extend play,
decide the roles within the play and who can children see adults as often interfering, and
or cannot join in (Lofdahl and Hagglund 2006). useful in certain contexts only. The research
In some cases the challenges and stresses concludes that ‘teachers should be sensitive,
for the children with lesser status may be observant and engaged, but should not
beneficial (Rutter 2006); for others, persistent control, decide or interrupt play’ (Sandberg
or extreme exclusion may indeed be harmful. 2002: 21).
These are challenging questions yet there is a Given the evidence outlined in Chapters
need to address them through research.
3 and 4 of this review, it should be clear
that children’s own control of their playing
Adult-child relations and (in groups as well as individually) is part of
adult involvement in play its essence, as are its characteristics of
flexibility, unpredictability, spontaneity and
The workforce in early years and school-age
imagination. It is these characteristics
childcare services is of central importance
that make play so effective in its role in
… How good the services are depends on the
people working in them. The workforce – how it brain architecture and chemistry, with the
is organised, how it is trained, its pay and other attendant benefits of resilience, emotion
employment conditions, how gendered it is, how regulation and enjoyment as well as in the
the work is understood – goes to the heart of foundations for social competence and
policy… The workforce … has been neglected cognitive functioning. Given such a pedigree,
for decades. There has been little new thinking it should be beyond doubt that adults who
and no major reforms to produce a workforce work with children at play should do their
42 for the 21st century. (Moss 2003: 1) utmost to support this process.
This statement focuses on the gendered Behaviour
nature of the early years and childcare ‘Problem behaviour’ is attracting increased
workforce. However, the sentiment can be attention in the media and in public
extended to the quality of the work itself:
policy. Policies are becoming increasingly
there is a gap between the more recent
interventionist and punitive; at the same
theories about play, childhood, gender and
time interventions are targeted at younger
ethnicity and the literature on practice.
children. What constitutes problem
Structure, direction and intervention behaviour, particularly in the institutions
As we have seen throughout this report, where adults work with children, comes to
evidence of the benefits of play, and be constructed within this discourse and
particularly of play provision, is clouded by within the institution’s expectations of
two areas of confusion: firstly, the lack of a behaviour. If these institutions curtail the
consistent understanding of what is meant expression of playing, through control of
by play, and secondly, directly following on time and space, then children’s attempts to
from this, the level of direction and control play in their own way may well be understood
by adults involved in such provision. The as problematic (Brown 2007). A more
debates on the level and appropriateness informed understanding of the nature of
of interventions are dependent upon the
play, which includes the recognition that play
particular understanding of the purpose
is not always ‘nice’, may lead to a response
and function of play in any given setting,
that supports and values play rather
which range from those who claim that
intervention restricts children’s ability to than a confrontational, controlling one.
explore, take risks or engage in free play, to Observations have shown that where this
those who assert that participation shows can happen, the play develops more playfully
adult acceptance of play, builds relationships rather than aggressively (Holland 2003;
and extends learning (Sandberg 2002). Russell 2006). Supporting the development
Research shows that children’s perception of pretend play with children on the autistic
of teachers’ involvement in play differs spectrum disorder was also found to be
from adults’ own perceptions: rather than effective in reducing displays of challenging
the adult being a facilitator or playmate, behaviour (Thornton and Cox 2005).
Chapter 5: From policy and theory into practice
Research into children’s views of playworkers Furedi (2005) suggests that the Criminal
found that relationships with staff varied Records Bureau checking procedure for adults
from child to child. Some liked the playworkers who work with children alters the relationship
to join in; for others playworkers were between staff, children and parents, as it is
insignificant to their play. Children valued based on an assumption that adults in general
the informality of their relationships with are not to be trusted and are a potential
playworkers and the fact that they allowed threat to children. Such a level of suspicion
them freedom to play in their own way. Key is problematic for adult-child relations.
themes emerging from the discussions showed Nevertheless, Gilligan’s (2000) research into the
that children wanted their playworkers to be: importance of everyday caring relationships
can provide a counter perspective, as given in
• nice, kind, caring and friendly the quotation above. Much of the literature
examined in this chapter has, either explicitly
• good cooks (food was important to many)
or implicitly, been about the role of adults
• joining in (although children often wanted in supporting children’s play. A play-centred 43
to be free from adult interruptions, they (ludocentric) relationship with children has
also at times wanted the playworkers to play the potential to be highly beneficial for both
with them) children and adults.
Concluding remarks
Concluding remarks
The evidence also suggests that it is the and contesting adult authority and power in
very characteristics of personal direction, direct and subtle ways. They have also shown
unpredictability, flexibility and so on that make that children have not forgotten how to play,
play so special. So any public provision for play rather that we as adults may have forgotten
must recognise these characteristics and be how to see how they are playing, or remember
planned, implemented and evaluated with this what it feels like. Such an understanding of
in mind. If the evidence for the significance of children has a number of challenges for our
play for children’s well-being and development relationships with them, especially if we are
is accepted, then provision should be judged on seeking to support their play.
the outcome of whether children can play, not
on any more instrumental outcome or direct The evidence presented here suggests that
link to any of the five Every Child Matters there is a need to rethink the knowledge
outcomes. There is no guarantee that play that adults take with them into their work
provides all these benefits; we can, however, be with children. The evidence from practice
confident that these benefits are more likely raises questions about, for example, the
to accrue than if children cannot play. effectiveness of anti-discriminatory
practices and approaches to challenging
Such an understanding of play also relies on behaviour, as well as if, when and how to
the other disciplines from which we have drawn intervene in play. The scope and timing of the
evidence in this review, namely the sociologies review has not allowed for any consideration
and geographies of childhood. These studies of the current education and training
have been amassing evidence that have landscape; however, the issue of training
challenged our understanding of childhood has been raised in a number of the sources
as a period of socialisation and preparation reviewed. Given the significance of play in
for adulthood during which children are the lives of children, both from their own
weak and dependent. They have shown that accounts and from the brain sciences, it
children are competent social actors capable would seem that it should as a minimum be a
of negotiating complex social landscapes, part of the common core of knowledge that
building relationships through play, testing every adult needs when working with children.
Play for a Change: Summary report
References
References
Abbott, L and Nutbrown, C (eds) (2001) Armitage, M (2004) ‘Hide and seek – where do
Experiencing Reggio Emilia. Buckingham: Open children spend their time after school?’ A paper
University Press. for the Child in the City Conference, London.
Bixler, R, Floyd, M and Hammitt, W (2002) Bruegel, I (2006) Social Capital, Diversity and
‘Environmental socialization: quantitative tests Education Policy. London: Families and Social
of the childhood play hypothesis’, Environment Capital ESRC Research Group, London South
and Behaviour. 34(6): 795-818. Bank University.
References
Clements, R (2004) ‘An investigation of the state Darbyshire, P (2007) ‘“Childhood”: are reports
of outdoor play’, Contemporary Issues in Early of its death greatly exaggerated? Journal of
Childhood, 5(1): 68-80. Child Health Care, 11 (2): 85-97.
Cloke, P and Jones, O (2005) ‘“Unclaimed Damasio, A (2003) Looking for Spinoza. London:
territory”: childhood and disordered space(s)’, Heinemann.
Social and Cultural Geography, 6 (3): 311-323.
David, T (2003) What Do We Know about
Cockburn, T (2005) ‘Children’s Participation in Teaching Young Children? A professional
Social Policy: Inclusion, Chimera or Authenticity?’ user review of research based on the BERA
Social Policy and Society, 4(2): 109–119. academic review ‘Early Years Research:
Pedagogy, curriculum, adult roles, training and
Cole-Hamilton, I and Gill, T (2002) Making the professionalism (2003). Macclesfield: BERA.
Case for Play: Building policies and strategies
for school-aged children. London: National DCSF (2007) The Children’s Plan: Building
Children’s Bureau. brighter futures. London: Department for
Children, Schools and Families.
Connolly, P (2006) ‘The masculine habitus as
“distributed cognition”: a case study of 5- to Davies, B (2006) ‘Getting involved: the pay off
6-year-old boys in an English inner-city, multi-ethnic for young people and adults’, in Groundwork
primary school,’ Children and Society, 20: 140-152. UK Play, Participation and Potential. Putting
young people at the heart of communities.
Conway, M (2003) ‘Professional Playwork
Birmingham: Groundwork UK.
Practice’, in Brown, F (ed) Playwork Theory and
Practice. Buckingham: Open University Press.
De Castro, L (2004) ‘Otherness in me, otherness
50 in others’, Childhood, 11(4) pp 469-493.
Cornell, E, Hadley, D, Sterling, T, Chan, M and
Boechler, P (2001) ‘Adventure as a stimulus for
Decety, J and Jackson, P (2006) ‘A social-
cognitive development’, Journal of Environmental
neuroscience perspective on empathy’,
Psychology, 21: 219-231.
Current Directions in Psychological Science,
Corsaro, WA (2003) We’re Friends Right? Inside 15(2): 54-58.
kids’ cultures. Washington DC: Joseph Henry
Department for Children, Schools and Families
Press.
(2007) The Children’s Plan: Building brighter
Creegan, C, Ludvigsen, A and Scott, S (2004) futures. London: DCSF.
Evaluation of the Tower Hamlets Community Play
Programme. Ilford: Barnardo’s. Department for Children, Schools and Families
(2008) Fair Play – A consultation on the play
Crowe, N and Bradford, S (2006) ‘“Hanging out strategy. London: DCSF.
in Runescape”: identity, work and leisure in the
virtual playground’, Children’s Geographies, 4(3): Department for Culture, Media and Sport
331–346. (2004) Getting Serious about Play: A review of
children’s play. London: DCMS.
Cui, M, Yangb, Y, Yang, J, Zhang, J, Hanb, H, Mab,
W, Li, H, Maob, R, Xua, L, Haoa, W and Caob, Department for Education and Skills (2004)
J (2006) ‘Enriched environment experience Every Child Matters: Change for children.
overcomes the memory deficits and depressive- London: DfES.
like behavior induced by early life stress’,
Neuroscience Letters, 404: 208–212. Department for Education and Skills (2005a)
Guidance on the Children and Young People’s
Cuninghame, C, Hyder, T and Kesler, D (2001) ECD Plan. Nottingham: DfES.
Guidelines for Emergencies: The Balkans. London:
Save the Children. Department for Education and Skills (2005b)
Extended Schools: Access to opportunities and
Cunningham, H (2006) The Invention of services for all: A prospectus.
Childhood. London: BBC Books. Nottingham: DfES.
References
Department for Education and Skills (2006a) Epstein, D, Kehily, M, Mac an Ghaill, M and
Learning Outside the Classroom Manifesto. Redman, P (2001) ‘Boys and Girls Come Out to
Nottingham: DfES; Play’, Men and Masculinities, 4(2): 158-172.
Department for Education and Skills (2006b) Evans, G (2004) ‘The environment of childhood
Primary Playground Development. London: DfES. poverty’, American Psychologist, 59(2): 77-92.
Department for Education and Skills (2006c) Evans, R and Pinnock, K (2007) ‘Promoting
Schools for the Future, Designing School Resilience and Protective Factors in the
Grounds. London: The Stationery Office. Children’s Fund: Supporting children’s and
young people’s pathways towards social
Department for Transport (2005) Home Zones: inclusion?’ Journal of Children and Poverty,
Challenging the future of our streets. 13(1): 21-36.
London: DfT.
Factor, J (2004) ‘Tree stumps, manhole covers
Department for Transport (2007) DfT Child
and rubbish tins: the invisible play-lines of a
Road Safety Strategy. London: DfT.
primary school playground’, Childhood, 22(2):
Department for Transport, Local Government 142-154.
and the Regions (2002) Green Spaces, Better
Fantuzzo, J, Sekino, Y and Cohen, H (2004)
Places: Final report of the urban green spaces
‘An examination of the contributions of
taskforce. London: DTLR.
interactive peer play to salient classroom
Derr, T (2002) ‘Children’s sense of place competencies for urban head start children’,
in northern New Mexico’, Journal of Psychology in the Schools, 41(3): 323-336.
Environmental Psychology, 22: 125 – 137. 51
Farne, R (2005) ‘Pedagogy of Play’, Topoi, 24:
Derr, T (2006) ‘“Sometimes birds sound 169-181.
like fish”: Perspectives on children’s place
experiences’, in Spencer, C and Blades, M (eds) Fattore, T, Mason, J and Watson, E (2007)
Children and Their Environments. Cambridge: ‘Children’s conceptualisations of their well-
Cambridge University Press. being’, Social Indicators Research, 80: 5-29.
Diamond, A (2007) ‘Interrelated and Fjortoft, I (2004) ‘Landscape and play: the
interdependent’, Developmental Science, effects of natural environments on children’s
10(1): 152-158. play and motor development’, Children, Youth
and Environments, 14(2): 21-44.
Edelman, G (2006) Second Nature: Brain
science and human knowledge. New Haven: Yale Flinn, M (2006) ‘Evolution and ontogeny of
University Press. stress response to social challenges in
the human child’, Developmental Review, 26:
Edwards, A, Barnes, M, Plewis, I and Morris, 138-174.
K, and others (2006) Working to Prevent the
Social Exclusion of Children and Young People: Follett, M (2007) ‘The Emergence of the Play
Final lessons from the National Evaluation Ranger’, Play Today, 57, April 2007. London: Play
of the Children’s Fund, Research Report 734. England.
London: DfES.
Fox, N, Hane, A and Pine, D (2007) ‘Plasticity for
Ekeland, E, Heian, F and Hagen, K (2005) ‘Can affective neurocircuitry: how the environment
exercise improve self esteem in children affects gene expression’, Current Directions
and young people? A systematic review of in Psychological Science, 16(1): 1-5.
randomised controlled trials’, British Journal of
Sports Medicine, 39: 792–798. France, A and Utting, D (2005) ‘The paradigm
of “risk and protection-focused prevention”
Elsley, S (2004) ‘Children’s experience of public and its impact on services for children and
space’, Children and Society, 18: 155-164. families’, Children and Society, 19: 77-90.
Play for a Change: Summary report
Franklin, A (2002) Accidents, risk and play in Gill, T (2007a) Can I Play Out…? Lessons from
adventure playgrounds in Lambeth, Southwark London Play’s Home Zones Project. London:
and Lewisham: findings from research carried London Play.
out by the National Children’s Bureau (NCB) on
behalf of Lambeth Lifelong Learning Service. Gill, T (2007b) No Fear: Growing Up in a Risk-
London: National Children’s Bureau. averse Society. London: Calouste-Gulbenkian
Foundation.
Frederickson, B (2006) ‘Unpacking positive
emotions: Investigating the seeds of human Gilligan, R (2000) ‘Adversity, resilience and
flourishing’, The Journal of Positive Psychology, young people: the protective value of positive
1 (2): 57-59. school and spare time experiences’, Children
and Society, 14: 37-47: 45.
Freeman, N and Brown, B (2004)
‘Reconceptualizing Rough and Tumble Play’, Gmitrova, V and Gmitrov, J (2004) ‘The primacy
Advances in Early Education and Day Care, 13: of child-directed pretend play on cognitive
219-234. competence in a mixed-age environment:
possible interpretations’, Early Child
Frost, J (2006) ‘The dissolution of outdoor play: Development and Care, 174(3): 267–279.
cause and consequences’, Conference paper
delivered at The Value of Play: A forum on risk, Goodwin, MH (2006) The Hidden Life of Girls:
recreation and children’s health. Washington, DC. Games of stance, status and exclusion. Oxford:
Blackwell Publishing.
Furedi, F (2005) ‘Cultivating Suspicion’, in
Waiton, S and Baird, S Cotton Wool Kids? Gordon, G and Esbjorn-Hargens, S (2007)
52 Making Sense of ‘child safety’. Glasgow: ‘Are we having fun yet? An exploration of the
Generation Youth Issues, papers from a one transformative power of play’, Journal of
day conference on 20 September 2005. Humanistic Psychology, 47: 198-222.
Gayler, K and Evans, I (2001) ‘Pretend play and Greenberg, N (2004) ‘The beast at play: the
the development of emotion regulation in neuroethology of creativity’, in Clements, R and
preschool children’, Early Child Development Fiorentino, L (eds) The Child’s Right to Play: A
and Care, 166: 93-108. Global Approach. Westport: Praeger.
Harden, J (2000) ‘There’s no place like home’, Hubbs-Tait, L, Nation, J, Krebs, N and Bellinger,
Childhood, 7(1): 43-59. D (2006) ‘Neurotoxicants, micronutrients, and
social environments: individual and combined
Hart, R (2002) ‘Containing children: some effects on children’s development’, Psychological
lessons on planning for play from New York City’, Science in the Public Interest, 6(1): 57-121.
Environment and Urbanization, 14(2): 135-149.
Huffaker, D and Calvert, S (2005) ‘Gender,
Head, T (2001) Making Sense: Playwork in identity, and language use in teenage blogs’,
practice. London: PLAYLINK. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication,
10(2): Article 1.
Head, T and Melville, S (2001) Wonderful Places
to Play. London: PLAYLINK. Hughes, B (2001) Evolutionary Playwork
and Reflective Analytical Practice. London:
Henricks, TS (2006) Play Reconsidered: Routledge.
Sociological perspectives on human
expression. Urbana and Chicago: University of Hughes, B (2006) PlayTypes: Speculations
Illinois Press. and Possibilities. London: London Centre for
Playwork Education and Training.
Hillman, M (2006) ‘Children’s rights and adults’
wrongs’, Children’s Geographies, 4(1): 61-67. Isen, A and Reeve, J (2006) ‘The influence
of positive affect on intrinsic and extrinsic
HM Treasury and the DfES (2007) Aiming High motivation: facilitating enjoyment of play,
for Children: Supporting families. London: The responsible work behaviour and self-control’,
Stationery Office. Motivation and Emotion, 29(4): 297-325.
Hofer, M (2006) ‘Psychobiological roots of 53
Jack, G (2006) ‘The area and community
early attachment’, Current Directions in components of children’s well-being’, Children
Psychological Science, 15(2): 84-88. and Society, 20: 334-347.
Holland, P (2003) We Don’t Play with Guns Here: Jans, M (2004) ‘Children as Citizens: Towards
War, weapon and superhero play in the early a contemporary notion of child participation’,
years. Maidenhead: Open University Press. Childhood, 11 (1): 27-44.
Holmes, R and Geiger, C (2002) ‘The relationship Jarvis, P (2007) ‘Monsters, magic and Mr Psycho:
between creativity and cognitive abilities in a biocultural approach to rough and tumble play
preschoolers’, in Rooparine, J (ed) Conceptual in the early years of primary school’, Early Years,
Social-Cognitive, and Contextual Issues in 27 (92): 171-188.
the Fields of Play. Play and Culture Studies, 4.
Westport: Ablex. Jenkins, N (2006) ‘“You can’t wrap them up in
cotton wool!” Constructing risk in young people’s
Hood, S (2007) ‘Reporting on children’s well- access to outdoor play’, Health, Risk and Society,
being: The State of London’s Children report’, 8(4): 379-393.
Social Indicators Research 80: 249-264.
Jordan, A, Hersey, J, McDivitt, J and Heitzler, C
Hough, M and Roberts, JV (2004) Youth crime (2006) ‘Reducing children’s television-viewing
and youth justice: Public opinion in England and time: a qualitative study of parents and their
Wales. Bristol: Policy Press. children’, Pediatrics, 118(5): 1303-1310.
Howard, J, Bellin, W and Rees, V (2002) ‘Eliciting Kalliala, M (2006) Play Culture in a Changing
children’s perceptions of play and exploiting World. Berkshire: Open University Press.
playfulness to maximise learning in the early
years classroom’. Paper presented to BERA Kapasi, H (2002) Playing in Parallel: A study of
Annual Conference, 2002. access to play provision by Black and minority
children in London. London: London Play.
Howard, J, Jenvey, V and Hill, C (2006) ‘Children’s
categorization of play and learning based on Kapasi, H (2006) Neighbourhood Play and
social context’, Early Child Development and Community Action. York: Joseph Rowntree
Care, 176(3-4): 379-393. Foundation and National Children’s Bureau.
Play for a Change: Summary report
Mathur, R and Berndt, T (2006) ‘Relations of Melville, S (2004) Places for Play. London:
friends’ activities to friendship quality’, Journal PLAYLINK.
of Early Adolescence, 26(3): 365-388.
Middleton, E (2006) ‘Youth participation in the
Matthews, H and Tucker, F (2006) ‘On the other UK: bureaucratic disaster or triumph of child
side of the tracks: the psychogeographies and rights?’ Children, Youth and Environments,
everyday lives of rural teenagers in the UK’ in 16(2): 180-190.
Spencer, C and Blades, M (2006) Children and
Their Environments. Cambridge: Cambridge Milligan, C and Bingley, A (2004) Climbing
University Press. Trees and Building Dens: Mental health and
wellbeing in young adults and the long-
Maudsley, M (ed) (2005) Playing on the Wildside. term effects of childhood play experience.
Cheltenham: Playwork Partnerships. Lancaster: Lancaster University Institute for
Health Research.
Mayall, B (2005) ‘Values and assumptions
underpinning policy for children and young people Mitchell, C and Reid-Walsh, J (2002)
in England’, Children’s Geographies, Researching Children’s Popular Culture.
4(1): 9-17. London: Routledge.
Mayall, B and Hood, S (2001) ‘Breaking barriers Mooney, A and Blackburn, T (2003) Children’s
– provision and participation in an out of school Views on Childcare Quality. Nottingham: DfES.
centre’, Children and Society, 15: 70-81.
MORI (2004) Media Image of Young People.
Mayhew, E, Uprichard, E, Beresford, B, Ridge, T [online] Available from http://www.ipsos-mori.
and Bradshaw, J (2004) ‘Children and childhood in com/polls/2004/young-people-now.shtml
55
the United Kingdom’, in An-Magritt Jensen, Asher (Accessed 5 March 2008).
Ben-Arieh, Cinzia Conti, Dagmar Kutsar, Máire
Morrow, V (2004) ‘Children’s “social capital”:
Nic Ghiolla Phádraig and Hanne Warming Nielsen
implications for health and well-being’, Health
(eds) Children’s Welfare in Ageing Europe. Volume
Education, 104(4): 211-225.
1, Trondheim: Norway Centre for Child Research.
Morrow, V (2006) ‘Understanding gender
McEwen, B (2007) ‘Physiology and neurobiology of
differences in context: implications for young
stress and adaptation: central role of the brain’,
children’s everyday lives’, Children and Society,
Physiological Review, 87: 873-904.
20(2): 92-104.
McKelway, A.J (1913) Declaration of Dependence
Morrow, V and Connolly, P (2006) ‘Gender and
by the Children of America in Mines and
ethnicity in children’s everyday lives’, Children
Factories and Workshops Assembled. Location: and Society, 20(2): 87-91.
publisher unknown. Available online at: www.uwgb.
edu/teachingushistory/images/pdfs/2004_ Moss, P (2003) ‘Beyond Caring: The case
lessons/3_cent_child_labor_declaration.pdf for reforming the childcare and early years
(date accessed June 2008). workforce’, Facing the Future Policy Paper 5,
London: Daycare Trust.
McNeish, D and Gill, T (2006) ‘Editorial: UK
policy on children: key themes and implications’, Moss, P (2007) ‘Meetings across the
Children’s Geographies, 4(1): 1-7. paradigmatic divide’, Educational Philosophy
and Theory, 39 (3): 229-245.
Meire, J (2007) Qualitative Research on Children’s
Play: A review of recent literature. Belgium: Moss, P and Petrie, P (2002) From Children’s
Childhood and Society Research Centre. Services to Children’s Spaces: Public
policy, children and childhood. London:
Melman, S, Little, S and Akin-Little, K (2007) RoutledgeFalmer.
‘Adolescent overscheduling: the relationship
between levels of participation in scheduled Murray, R and O’Brien, L (2005) Such
activities and self-reported clinical Enthusiasm – a Joy to See: An evaluation of
symptomology’, The High School Journal, Feb/ Forest School in England. Surrey: Forest
March: 18-30. Research and New Economics Foundation.
Play for a Change: Summary report
Nilsen, RD and Rogers, B (2005) ‘“That’s not Pellis, S and Pellis, V (2007) ‘Rough-and-
a good idea, mom”: Negotiating children’s tumble play and the development of
subjectivity while constructing “home” as a the social brain’, Current Directions in
research site’, Children’s Geographies, 3(3): Psychological Science, 16(2): 95-98,
345 – 362.
Percy-Smith, B (2002) ‘Contested worlds.
NPFA, Children’s Play Council and PLAYLINK Constraints and opportunities in city
(2000) Best Play: What play provision should and suburban environments in an English
do for children. London: National Playing Fields Midlands city’, in Chawla, L (ed) Growing Up in
Association. an Urbanising World. London: Earthscan.
O’Brien, M, Jones, D and Rustin, M (2000) Phillips, J (2006) PPG17: ‘A view from a parkie’,
‘Children’s independent spatial mobility in the Leisure Manager, April 2006: 21-22.
public realm’, Childhood, 7(3) 257 – 277.
PlayBoard (2007) Giving Priority to Play.
Offer, S and Schneider, B (2007) ‘Children’s role Belfast: PlayBoard.
in generating social capital’, Social Forces, 85
Play England (2006) The Good Childhood
(3): 1125-1142.
Inquiry: Evidence submitted by Play England.
Ofsted (2006) Extended services in schools London: Play England. Available online at www.
and children’s centres. London: Ofsted. playengland.org.uk (accessed June 2008).
Palmer, S (2006) Toxic Childhood: How the PlayToday (2007) ‘Play features in local area
modern world is damaging our children and agreements’, PlayToday, No 57, April 2007.
56 what we can do about it. London: Orion Books.
PLAYLINK (2002) Play as Culture:
Panksepp, J (2001) ‘The long term Incorporating play in cultural strategies.
psychobiological consequences of infant London: PLAYLINK.
emotions: prescriptions for the twenty-first
PLAYLINK (2007) Comments on Play England’s
century’, Infant Mental Health Journal, 22(1-2):
draft Play Indicators Quality Assessment
132-173. Tool. [online] London: PLAYLINK. Available from
http://www.playlink.org.uk/articles/?p=19
Panksepp, J (2007) ‘Neuroevolutionary sources
(accessed 5 March 2008).
of laughter and social joy: Modeling primal
human laughter in laboratory rats’, Behavioural Poulsen, A and Ziviani, J (2004) ‘Health
Brain Research (in press). enhancing physical activity: factors
influencing engagement patterns in children’,
Payne, L, Renton, Z and McNeish, D (2006) Play
Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 51:
and informal recreation in Children and Young
69–79.
People’s Plans. London: National Children’s
Bureau/Play England. Powell, S and Wellard, I (2007) Policies and
play: The impact of national policies on
Pellegrini, A, Blatchford, P, Kato, K and Baines, children’s opportunities for play. London:
E (2004) ‘A short-term longitudinal study of National Children’s Bureau/Play England.
children’s playground games in primary school:
implications for adjustment to school and Pramling Samuelsson, I and Johansson,
social adjustment in the USA and the UK. Social E (2006) ‘Play and learning – inseparable
Development, 13(1) 107-123. dimensions in preschool learning’, Early Child
Development and Care, 176(1): 47-65.
Pellegrini, AD and Bohn, C (2005) ‘The role of
recess in children’s cognitive performance Pressman, S and Cohen, S (2005)
and school adjustment’, Research News and ‘Does positive affect influence health?’
Comment, AERA, Jan/Feb 2005: 13-19. Psychological Bulletin, 131(6): 925–971.
Pellegrini, A, Dupuis, D and Smith, P (2007) Prezza, M and Pacilli, G (2007) ‘Current fear
‘Play in evolution and development’, of crime, sense of community, and loneliness
Developmental Review, 27: 261-276. in Italian adolescents: the role of autonomous
References
mobility and play during childhood’, Journal of Play Research Network Meeting, 27 January
Community Psychology, 35(2): 151-170. 2007, London.
Rasmussen, K (2004) ‘Places for children – Ross, N (2004) ‘“That tree used to be
children’s places’, Childhood, 11(2): 155-173. everything to us”: The importance of natural
and unkempt environments to children’, paper
Rasmussen, K and Smidt, S (2003) presented to Open Space, People Space
‘The Neighbourhood in the children’, in Conference.
Christensen, P and O’Brien, M (eds) Children
in the City. London: RoutledgeFalmer. Russ, S (2004) Play in Child Development and
Psychotherapy. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum
Reed, T (2005) ‘A qualitative approach to Associates.
boys’ rough and tumble play: there is more
than what meets the eye’, in McMahon, F, Russell, W (2006) Reframing Playwork,
Lytle, D and Sutton-Smith, B (eds) Play: Reframing Challenging Behaviour. Nottingham:
An Interdisciplinary Synthesis. Maryland: Nottingham City Council.
University Press of America.
Rutter, M (2006) ‘Implications of resilience
Rees-Jones, D (ed) (2007) The Play Ranger concepts for scientific understanding’, Annals of
Guide. Radstock: Wansdyke Play Association. the New York Academy of Science, 1094: 1-12.
Ridgers, ND, Stratton, G, Curley, J and White, Saakslahti, A, Numminen P, Varstala V, Helenius
G (2005) ‘Liverpool Sporting Playgrounds H, Tammi A, Viikari J and Valimaki I (2004)
Project’, Education and Health, 23(4): 50-52. ‘Physical activity as a preventive measure for
coronary heart disease risk factors in early
Ridgers, ND, Stratton, G and Fairclough, SJ childhood’, Scandinavian Journal of Medicine
(2005) ‘Assessing physical activity during and Science in Sports, 14(3): 143-149.
recess using accelerometry’, Preventative
Medicine, 41: 102-107. Salovey, P, Rothman, A, Detweiler, J and
Steward, W (2000) ‘Emotional states and
Ridgers, ND (2007) ‘Playtime research in physical health’, American Psychologist, 55:
Liverpool – update’, presentation given to 110-121.
Play for a Change: Summary report
Sandberg, A (2002) ‘Children’s concepts of Smith, PK (1988) ‘Children’s play and its role
teachers’ ways of relating to play’, Australian in early development: a re-evaluation of the
Journal of Early Childhood, 27(4): 18-23. “play ethos”’, in AD Pellegrini (ed) Psychological
Bases for Early Education. Chichester: Wiley.
Santer, J and Griffiths, C, with Goodall, D
(2007) Free Play in Early Childhood: A literature Smith, PK (2005) ‘Social and pretend play in
review. London: National Children’s Bureau/ children’, in AD Pellegrini and PK Smith (eds)
Play England. The Nature of Play: Great Apes and Humans.
London: The Guildford Press.
Schore, A (2001) ‘Minds in the making:
attachment, the self-organising brain and Smith, F and Barker, J (2000) ‘“Out of School”,
developmentally orientated psychoanalytic in school’, in Holloway, S and Valentine, G (2000)
psychotherapy’, British Journal of Children’s Geographies: Playing, living, learning.
Psychotherapy, 17(3): 299-328. London: Routledge.
Scott, E and Panksepp, J (2003) ‘Rough-and- Smith, PK, Smees, R, Pellegrini, AD and Menesini, E
tumble play in human children’, Aggressive (2002) ‘Comparing pupil and teacher perceptions
Behaviour, 29: 539-551. for playful fighting, serious fighting and positive
peer interaction’, in Roopnarine, JL (ed) Conceptual,
Shatwell, S (2003) We’re Just Like Other Kids: Social-cognitive and Contextual Issues in
A report into the needs of homeless children the Fields of Play, Play and Culture Studies, 4.
and families in Leeds. Leeds: Homeless Westport, Connecticut: Ablex Publishing.
Families Project.
Smith, S and Willans, B (2007) ‘There’s no place
58 Sheets-Johnstone, M (2003) ‘Child’s play: a like the play space: an appreciation of disability
multi-disciplinary perspective’, Human Studies, and playwork’, in Russell, W, Handscomb, B
26(4): 409-430. and Fitzpatrick, J (eds) Playwork Voices:
In celebration of Bob Hughes and Gordon
Schott, G and Hodgetts, D (2006) ‘Health and Sturrock. London: London Centre for Playwork
digital gaming. The benefits of a community of Education and Training.
practice’, Journal of Health Psychology, 11(2):
309-316. Sorensen, B, Danielsen, O and Neilsen, J (2007)
‘Children’s informal learning in the context of
Siviy, S (1998) ‘Neurobiologiocal substrates schools of the knowledge society’, Education
of play behaviour’, in Bekoff, M and Byers, J and Information Technologies, 12(1): 17-27.
(1998) Animal Play: Evolutionary, Comparative
and Ecological Perspectives. Cambridge: Spencer, C and Blades, M (eds) (2006) Children
Cambridge University Press. and Their Environments. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Siviy, S, Love, N, DeCicco, B, Giordano, S and
Seifert, T (2003), The relative playfulness of Spilsbury, J (2005) ‘“We don’t really get to
juvenile Lewis and Fischer-344 rats’, Physiology go out in the front yard’”– Children’s home
and Behaviour, 80: 385-394. range and neighbourhood violence’, Children’s
Geographies, 3(1): 79-99.
SkillsActive (2006a) Key Facts and Figures.
Available online from www.skillsactive.com/ Spinka, M, Newberry, R and Bekoff, M (2001)
playwork (Accessed 17/5/07). ‘Mammalian play: training for the unexpected’,
The Quarterly Review of Biology, 76(2): 141-168.
SkillsActive (2006b) Playwork People 2:
research into the characteristics of the Street, C (2001) ‘The value of children’s play
playwork workforce. London: SkillsActive. and play provision’, in Cole-Hamilton, I, Harrop, A
and Street, C (2002) Making the Case for Play:
Skivenes, M and Strandbu, A (2006) ‘A child Gathering the evidence. London: Children’s
perspective and children’s participation’, Play Council, New Policy Institute and National
Children, Youth and Environments, 16(2): 10-27. Children’s Bureau.
References
Sturrock, G and Else, P (1998) The Playground Thornton, K and Cox, E (2005) ‘Play and the
as Therapeutic Space: Playwork as healing. ‘The reduction of challenging behaviour in children
Colorado Paper’. Sheffield: Ludemos Associates. with ASD and learning disabilities’, Good
Autism Practice, 6(2): 75-80.
Sutton-Smith, B (1997) The Ambiguity of Play,
Cambridge, Ma: Harvard University Press. Tillberg Mattsson, K (2002) ‘Children’s (in)
dependent mobility and parents chauffering
Sutton-Smith, B (1999) ‘Evolving a consilience in the town and countryside’, Tijdschrift voor
of play definitions: playfully’, Play and Culture Economische en Sociale Geograffe, 93(4):
Studies, 2: 239-256. 443 – 453.
Sutton-Smith, B (2003) ‘Play as a parody of Timimi, S (2006) ‘Children’s mental health: the
emotional vulnerability’, in JL Roopnarine (ed) role of culture, markets and prescribed drugs’,
Play and Educational Theory and Practice, Public Policy Research, 13(1): 35-42.
Play and Culture Studies 5. Westport,
Connecticut: Praeger. Tugade, M, Frederickson, B and Barrett, L
(2004) ‘Psychological resilience and positive
Tamminen, B, and Bailey, LF (2001) Establishing emotional granularity: examining the benefits
and operating a playwork facility for children of positive emotions on coping and health’,
visiting prisons. Leeds: Leeds Metropolitan Journal of Personality, 72(6): 1161-1190.
University.
UK Government (2007) The Consolidated
Targeton, A (2005) ‘Play in lower primary 3rd and 4th Report to the United Nations
schools in Norway’, in McMahon, F, Lytle, D and Committee on the Rights of the Child.
Sutton-Smith, B (eds) Play: An Interdisciplinary
Unicef (2007) ‘Child poverty in perspective: an 59
Synthesis. Maryland: University Press of America.
overview of child well-being in rich countries’,
Taylor, D and Balloch, S (eds) (2005) The Innocenti Report Card 7. Florence: Unicef
Politics of Evaluation: Participation and policy Innocenti Research Centre.
implementation. Bristol: The Policy Press.
Valentine, G (2004) Public Space and the
The Children’s Society (2006) The Good Culture of Childhood. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Childhood: A national inquiry launch report.
London: The Children’s Society. Valkenburg, P, Schouten, A and Peter, J
(2005) ‘Adolescents’ identity experiments on
Thomas, J (2004) ‘Child poets and the poetry of the internet’, New Media and Society, 7(3):
the playground’, Children’s Literature, 32: 152-177. 383-402.
Thomas, G and Hocking, G (2003) Other Vanderbeck, R and Dunkley, C (2003) ‘Young
People’s Children: Why their quality of life is our people’s narratives of rural-urban difference’,
concern. London: Demos. Children’s Geographies, 1(2): 241-259.
Thompson, E and Varela, F (2001) ‘Radical Veitch, J, Bagley, S, Ball, K and Salmon, J (2006)
embodiment: neural dynamics and ‘Where do children usually play? A qualitative
consciousness’, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5 study of parents’ perceptions of influences on
(10): 418-425. children’s active free-play’, Health and Place,
12: 383-393.
Thompson, J and Philo, C (2004) ‘Playful
spaces? A social geography of children’s play in Vellacott, J (2007) ‘Resilience: a
Livingston, Scotland’, Children’s Geographies, psychoanalytical exploration’, British Journal
2(1): 111–130. of Psychotherapy, 23(2): 163-170.
Wade, H and Badham, B (2001) Hear by Right: Wyness, M (2006) Children and Society: An
standards for the active involvement of introduction to the sociology of childhood.
children and young people. Leicester and Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
London: National Youth Agency and Local
Government Association. Youlden, P and Harrison, S (2006) The Better
Play Programme 2000-2005: An evaluation.
Walker, J (2006) Play for Health: Delivering London: Children’s Play Council and Barnardo’s.
and auditing quality in hospital play Services.
London: National Association of Hospital Yun, A, Bazar, K, Gerber, A, Lee, P and
Play Staff. Daniel, S (2005) ‘The dynamic range of
biological functions and variations of many
Walsh, G, Sproule, L, McGuiness, C, Trew, environmental cues may be declining in the
K, Rafferty, H and Sheehy, N (2006) ‘An modern age: implications for diseases and
appropriate curriculum for 4-5-year-old therapeutics’, Medical Hypotheses, 65: 173-178.
children in Northern Ireland: comparing play-
based and formal approaches’, Early Years, Zeiher, H (2003) ‘Shaping daily life in urban
26(2): 210-221. environments’, in Christensen, P and
O’Brien, M (eds) Children in the City. London:
Warburton, D, Nicol, C and Bredin, S (2006) RoutledgeFalmer.
‘Health benefits of physical activity: the
evidence’, Canadian Medical Association
Journal, 174(6): 801-809.
September 2008
Play England is part of the National Children’s Bureau and is supported by the Big Lottery Fund.
Play England
8 Wakley Street
London EC1V 7QE
Tel +44 (0)20 7843 6300
Email playengland@ncb.org.uk
www.playengland.org.uk