Playwork:
Principles into
Practice
A Play Wales
level 3
CERTIFICATE
Learners handbook
Develop
knowledge of
play theory
Unit 1
Playwork: Principles
into Practice
Level 3 (P3)
?
?
??
?
The benefits
of play
Summary
In this section we
will look at the range
of generally agreed
benefits play has.
In this section we will look at the range
of generally agreed benefits play has. We
adopt the position that play is a universal
and essential adaptation that has evolved
in human beings for the development of
the brain, understanding and emotion. It is
essential for acquiring skills and socialisation,
and these benefits continue into adulthood.
Its affect on development is complex and multi-layered
involving our genes and our social and physical
environment, and each of these components affects
the other. We echo Lester and Russell’s assertion
(2008) that children are ‘active agents’ in their own
development, and should be seen for who they are not
just for who they might become.
1
Challenges and complexities
Play is a complex, ambiguous and
sometimes contradictory phenomenon
that covers a wide range of behaviours.It
often operates through subtle and indirect
processes that are difficult to establish
empirically. What we call play is in fact
many different types of behaviour linked
together ‘by characteristics that may be
superficially similar, but have separate
origins, causes, functions…’ (Burghardt in
Bekoff and Byers 1998: 22).
As playworkers we are fortunate to be
part of a profession that is able to watch
different children play in a whole variety
of ways and situations. We watch them
change, develop and grow and observe
how central play is for their wellbeing.
For most playworkers the impact of play
on children’s lives can seem obvious and
the benefits very clear. However, when
we investigate closer and examine the
research evidence the situation becomes
much more complicated and less clearcut.
A further complication arises because
play may also have additional benefits
that were not originally intended (called
‘effects’ by biologists) when the behaviour
was originally selected for by evolution
(known as its ‘function’). To illustrate,
Powers (2000) gives the example of play
fighting or rough and tumble. Play fighting
may have evolved to better equip players
to evade predators (its ‘function’) but it
also contributes to the player’s physical
fitness and calibrates strength and
agility (its ‘effect’). Proving which sets
of behaviours meet which evolutionary
function becomes impossible; we simply
can’t separate functions and effects.
In one way this isn’t unexpected. Given
the lack of agreement on what play
is, it is unsurprising that there is also
disagreement on what it is for. Opinions
have ranged from ones that consider
play as essentially trivial to those that
view play as having multiple benefits
and ultimately being essential for human
survival. Why should there be so many
different views?
Play is a complex, ambiguous and sometimes contradictory
phenomenon that covers a wide range of behaviours.
2
Benefits – immediate or
delayed?
Yet another difficulty in conclusively
establishing the beneficial effects of play
is that arguably the most powerful method
of research – the experimental approach
– is difficult to carry out. Given the diverse
nature of play it is hard to separate out
specific effects and demonstrate they
result from particular play behaviours.
The players’ backgrounds, histories and
relationships all complicate any analysis of
the play not to mention the effects of any
adult onlookers.
Although most researchers agree there
must be benefits to play it is not clear
whether those benefits are immediate
or delayed, or perhaps both. As most
theories focus on the young of the
species the majority look at how play
might enhance future development and so
deliver benefits for adulthood. In this view,
play fighting, for example, should relate to
improved fighting and hunting skills. This
traditional way of looking at play stresses
its value because it allows children time to
rehearse real world skills. When the skill
is mastered the need for play is removed.
Most child developmental theories of play
(such as Groos, Piaget, and Vygotsky)
take this deferred benefits position and it is
the one taken by much of the educational
literature on play (Lester and Russell
2008).
Much of the research findings on the
benefits of play are correlational rather
than causal. What this means is that the
evidence, while often showing strong links
between play behaviour and a range of
benefits, stops short of actually proving the
benefits are caused by the behaviour. For
example, we might claim that engaging
in social play builds peer relationships.
However, it might be the other way around
- that strong relationships promote play.
Alternatively it may well be that both affect
and foster each other – acting as both
cause and effect.
Despite ‘play as preparation’ being the
dominant way of thinking about play there
are many difficulties with this approach.
As Lester and Russell remind us (2010)
play behaviour feels very different from its
apparently similar ‘real’ world equivalent.
Play has different motivations and is
unpredictable and exaggerated. Play
is deliberately quirky. Play behaviour is
usually more concerned with the means
(the actual behaviour) rather than the ends
(its function). Is this behaviour really about
rehearsing skills for adulthood?
Despite all these difficulties most
researchers have concluded that play
must have some benefits. Play is an everpresent behaviour for humans and many
animals and indulging in play has a cost.
In a study by Australian scientist Robert
Harcourt twenty-two of the twenty-six
seal cubs that were killed by predators
were killed while playing away from their
parents (Brown 2009). Although the
exact costs of play remain contentious
even sceptical writers find it difficult to
deny the likely benefits (Smith 2010).
Writers such as Sutton-Smith, Bekoff,
Byers, and Burghardt have increased
our understanding so that there is
now ‘a higher level of agreement than
ever before, that it is authentic, (free)
immersed, unconscious play behaviour
which is responsible for a whole range of
outcomes including good psychic health
and neural growth and organisation’
(Hughes 2012: 317).
Another problem with the ‘play as
rehearsal’ approach is that humans
continue to play into adulthood - albeit
less often - and so any benefits are more
likely to be immediate (Pellis et al 2010).
Furthermore, natural selection works on
all periods of development, not only at
maturity (Pellegrini 2009).
These and other problems have led some
to suggest that perhaps play exists, in
the first instance, to enable the child to
3
adapt better to the demands of their
environment and ultimately be more likely
to survive (for example, see Prout 2005,
Lester and Russell 2008, Hughes 2012).
What children do is not an imperfect
version of adult behaviour but appropriate
and adaptive to their period of childhood.
In this way play is about supporting a
child to be a happier and healthier child
and not simply becoming a better adult
(Lester and Russell 2010).
in later life. Because play is a basic drive
there still remains a possibility that we
are pre-programmed to play in ways that
prepare us for adulthood (for example
see Sutton-Smith 2008). Currently this
debate is unresolved although these two
approaches are not mutually exclusive.
Immediate adaptive benefits
A characteristic feature of human
development is our extended childhood
and this period provides the opportunity
to develop a range of flexible responses
to our changeable human and physical
environment. When faced with an
uncertain future playing allows us to
develop and practice new behaviours
without excessive risk. This theme of
flexibility is common to the three areas
we examine now:
Play has specific features that allow
children to try out in relative safety new
strategies and solutions to the challenges
of their environment. Key amongst these
features is the flexibility integral in the
play process (Brown 2014). Playing
promotes both physical and emotional
flexibility through the rehearsal of
new and unexpected behaviours and
situations. It allows the child to modify his
or her behaviour to meet the challenges
of their environment and, over time, to
change that environment itself.
• Resilience
• Emotional regulation
Returning to our earlier example of
play fighting, if we adopt the approach
that playing has immediate benefits
then play fighting may now be seen
as a way of maintaining friendships
and developing emotional control
in childhood. Furthermore, later in
adolescence it may act as a means of
assessing strength, and asserting and
maintaining dominance. In this way
playing helps children adapt to their
immediate environment rather than
simply practice skills that may be needed
later as an adult. Of course, these
adaptations may well prove very helpful
• Brain development
Resilience
In their review of the research around
children’s play Lester and Russell (2008)
highlight that a key finding from recent
evidence is that children’s play ‘provides
a primary behaviour for developing
resilience, thereby making a significant
contribution to children’s wellbeing’ (ibid:
47). We summarise their conclusions
here.
When faced with an uncertain future playing allows us to
develop and practice new behaviours without excessive
risk.
4
Resilience can be thought of as the ability
to ‘roll with the punches’ and rise above
adversity and resist serious challenges,
stress and risks. It is a complex and
dynamic concept involving not only
psychological qualities of the child but
also the child’s family, social networks
and neighbourhood. A child may be
resilient in some areas but not others and
showing resilience does not mean they
will be doing well at all times.
Research into resilience has recognised
that there are a number of general
adaptive systems and attributes, which
can combine to offer protection from
stress and anxiety. ‘Given the nature
of play in supporting adaptation to the
unique environment that children inhabit,
we would anticipate a relationship
between play and resilience’ (ibid: 50).
How does playing contribute to
developing resilience? Drawing on the
work of Masten and Obradovic (2006),
Lester and Russell suggest that play
contributes to developing resilience
through a number of interrelated systems
including:
The foundation for resilience is ‘a stock of
good things’ laid down during childhood
although this does not mean a stressfree childhood (Vellacott 2007). Positive
emotional experiences promote optimism,
resilience and wellbeing while negative
emotional experiences have the opposite
effect.
• Emotional regulation
• Pleasure and enjoyment of promotion
of positive feeling
How do children view resilience? A Dutch
study (Van der Hoek 2005) notes that
outwardly challenging situations may not
be equally distressing to the individuals
who are confronted by them. Moreover,
what adults may consider stressful may
not be the same for children. Children
employ a range of coping techniques
across various situations that may be
positive or negative.
• The stress response system and the
ability to respond to uncertainty
• Creativity and the ability to make
novel connections
• Learning
• Attachment to people and place.
5
Play and emotional regulation
emotional lives, and crucially, new types
of behaviour called play (Sutton-Smith
2008).
Our emotions are an ancient brain
mechanism that has evolved as a
motivator to promote change and reaction,
and ultimately to ensure our survival.
For example, sadness can generate the
determination to change one’s situation
while the feeling of joy is pleasurable and
we’re motivated to carry on. Emotions also
act as social bonds as our emotions are
apparent to others.
For Sutton-Smith the emergence of
complex emotional systems and the
emergence of play was not a coincidence.
This led him to propose that play acted as
a kind of mediator for the emotions.
How does this work? The primary
emotions, which are important for our
survival, need to be exercised. However,
these powerful primary emotions threaten
to overwhelm the child so they are held in
check by the newer secondary emotions
that the child brings into the play frame.
Emotions can be categorised into primary
and secondary emotions (Damasio 1994).
The primary emotions (anger, fear, shock,
disgust, sadness and joy) provide speedy
reactions to events and are involved in
the immediate task of survival. They are
associated with the more ancient regions
of the brain, change little over time and
are thought to be innate. In a child’s early
years, they may be unaware of these
emotions.
For example, during play fighting children
may experience anger but it is held in
check by the rituals and rules that identify
and accompany play. During deep play or
games of chance children may experience
fear but it is reconciled by displays of
courage. Feelings of shock may be
provoked by tricks, puns, and teasing but
it is countered by feelings of playfulness
and ridiculousness. Loneliness might
be navigated through having access to
shared spaces and experiences such as
den making, nicknames and friends. In
fact, Sutton-Smith proposes that all of the
primary emotions have accompanying
forms of play.
Secondary emotions (for example,
embarrassment, pride, empathy, shame,
guilt, and envy) are feelings about
the feeling itself and come after the
primary emotion. They are frequently
more complex and are associated with
areas of the brain such as the prefrontal
cortex, which is responsible for abstract
thinking and behaviour regulation
(Damasio 1994). These newer ‘social
emotions’ act to moderate and restrain
the primary emotions (ibid). From an
evolutionary perspective these emotions
are associated with the rise of mammals,
with bigger brains, parental care, complex
In this way the emotions are central to
play, and specific emotions are linked to
the motivation for specific kinds of play.
What are the benefits of this emotional
control for individuals? Sutton-Smith
Sutton-Smith proposes that all of the primary emotions
have accompanying forms of play.
6
suggests ‘that individuals who play more
will be more capable of controlling their
emotional lives in terms of their capacities
for performance strategy, courage,
resilience, imagination, sociability, or
charisma’ (2003: 15).
(Iwaniuk, Nelson and Pellis 2001). But
how does this actually work?
The human brain is thought to contain
around 86 billion neurons. Neurons
are cells that process and transmit
information through electrical and
chemical signals. Initially in a new-born
most of these neurons are not linked
in networks, but during the first few
years the number of synapses increase
substantially. Synapses are the means or
connections through which neurons pass
signals to other cells. Play appears to
influence which synaptic connections are
made stronger (Bergen 2009). Synaptic
connections rapidly increase to around
1,000 trillion during the toddler age range
– twice the density of an adult brain (ibid).
Consequently, the child’s brain has more
‘plasticity’ or flexibility to change and
adapt.
Brain development
In recent years there has been
substantial progress in our understanding
of the brain aided by developments in
scanning technology that allows us to
see brain activity as it occurs. Despite
this progress we should remember that
drawing conclusions from laboratory
research and development in animals
does not correspond to complex
environments inhabited by humans and
we should be cautious in interpreting
information from the brain sciences
(Lester and Russell 2008).
As the child gains new experiences some
synaptic connections are strengthened
while others are lost. Neurons that are
used frequently are strengthened while
little used ones eventually die. This
pruning makes the brain more efficient in
thought although less flexible and active.
What is the link between the brain and
child’s play? Bergen (2009) suggests that
changes in the developing brain serve as
a catalyst for changes in the organisation
and structure of children’s play.
Moreover, changes in children’s play
have a dynamic impact on developmental
changes in the brain. In other words the
connection between brain development
and children’s play is interdependent and
reciprocal.
Sutton-Smith (1997) theorises that this
enormous over capacity and flexibility is
an adaptation to any kind of environment
in which the child is reared. Similarly he
proposes that play’s function is ‘to assist
in the actualisation of brain potential’. In
other words, play provides possibilities
for the brain. It provides novelty, variation
and potential that can be used later or
cast off.
There is good evidence that play
promotes brain growth. Animals whose
young play more and for longer develop
larger brains in proportion to their bodies.
Bergen (2009) suggests that changes in the developing
brain serve as a catalyst for changes in the organisation
and structure of children’s play.
7
Hughes (2006) summarises the ideas
above as follows. Human children
develop a huge over-capacity of neurons
that will die if not used. Playing not
only stimulates the production of these
neurons but also actualises or transforms
them into useable neural material that
can be later used as needed.
Compared to monkeys humans have
considerably more complex and flexible
mirror neurons. The human brain has
several neuron systems ‘that specialise
in carrying out and understanding not just
the actions of others but their intention,
the social meaning of their behaviour and
their emotions’ (Blakeslee 2006). Some
researchers have argued that these form
the basis for emotions such as empathy
(Iacoboni, Gallese and others), and the
social emotions such as guilt, shame,
pride, embarrassment, disgust and lust
(Keysers). Being aware of the emotions
and motivations of others can help
individuals monitor and self-regulate their
own actions.
Panksepp (2007) suggests that abundant
play will facilitate the growth of frontal
lobe functions that regulate children’s
impulsive emotional urges. (The frontal
lobe is an area of the brain located at
the front of each hemisphere and is
associated with the dopamine system
that is linked with reward, attention,
planning and motivation). By regulating
this area of the brain, children’s selfreflection, imagination, empathy and
creativity are enhanced leading to more
flexible behaviour and foresight.
How does this relate to what we know
about play? Mirroring and imitation
are present from birth, and playing
with others, matching their movements
and emotions, leads to developing the
capacity for imagining these situations
(Lester and Russell 2008). Being able
mentally to rehearse or simulate different
situations supports creativity, planning
and imagination (ibid). It provides a way
to deal with real emotions but at one step
removed, through the use of imagination
and an ‘as if’ approach.
In the 1990s research from Italy
on monkeys suggested something
remarkable: the same brain cells that fire
while performing an action also fire while
simply watching the action. Researchers
called these ‘mirror neurons’ because
they mirrored what the animal itself could
perform.
Notes
8
Generally accepted benefits
Given the variety of play behaviours it is not surprising
that writers have proposed several dozen types of general
benefits of play. Brown (2006) summarises the usually
accepted approaches to the value of play into nine
categories and we have used these categories as our
starting point for examining specific developmental benefits.
1 – Emotional equilibrium
A characteristic feature of play is that it provides children
with another space where the experiences of the real world
can be explored and experimented with in relative safety.
The psychologist Jerome L. Singer suggests that a key
feature of make-believe play involves enhancing positive
affect and reducing negative affect ‘by seeking to cut down
the large things around it to manageable proportions’ (1995:
191). Doubt, uncertainty, desires and wishes can all be
played out through play.
Traumatic events can be replayed and children can make
sense of their own and other’s feelings. Fear and anxiety
can be reduced as the child develops strategies for selfcontrol and reducing stress. Russ (2004) points to evidence
that imaginative play can reduce anxiety through the
creation of a safe play frame when negative feelings are
mitigated.
9
Play allows the child to create some
distance from the problem (rather than
avoid it altogether) and consider it from
different perspectives and with more
objectivity. In this way the child increases
their sense of self-assurance (GitlinWeiner 2006).
Research highlighted by Russ (2004)
indicates that imagination and fantasy
play are key factors in reducing fears
and anxiety. Examples include children
who are undergoing medical treatment or
who have suffered loss or bereavement.
By playing out situations in a play frame
children are able to process powerful
emotions in a positive way rather than
simply trying to avoid them. Results
also suggested that children who are
already accomplished players are better
able to use play opportunities to resolve
problems.
Emotional equilibrium is a key component
of empathy and understanding the
emotional states of others. When children
play together they modify their behaviour
to accommodate one another, and
share goals and desires and emotional
expression (Russell and Lester 2008).
They are increasingly able to infer the
intentions and feelings of others and
to adjust their own play behaviours in
response. This includes showing concern
for others, the development of trust in
the play relationship, and the ability to
share ideas with others (Russ 2004).
‘It is through play that children first
come to understand self awareness,
the distinction between appearance and
reality and possibly even the intentions of
others’ (Russell and Lester 2008: 57).
2 – Self-discovery
For some earlier writers play and
socialisation were inseparable (Holme
and Massie 1970) with each affecting the
other. Through play children are able to
imitate and play out the roles of those
around them who are important to them.
They are able to discover the social
arrangements, norms and values that
shape their culture and their role within
it. In this way children’s social play offers
preparation for future adult roles.
Psychoanalysts have long considered
that playing is essential for emotional
wellbeing. Freud (1856-1939) noted
that through play children express their
thoughts and feelings and if they are
denied they are likely to become neurotic
and overwhelmed. Klein (1882-1960)
regarded play as the primary means of
children’s emotional communication.
Later psychoanalysts such as Virginia
Axline (1911-1988) believed that children
could solve their own problems through
play.
When children play with others they
must deal with issues about fairness
– Am I allowed to play? Who gets to
say what the rules are? It also involves
taking turns and resolving conflicts.
‘Considerable self-exploration and social
comparison goes on during play, as does
the discussion of feelings’ (Powers 2000:
294).
Emotional equilibrium is a key component of empathy
and understanding the emotional states of others.
10
10
Lester and Russell (2008) claim that
there is a strong link between resilience
and positive emotions, and children who
experience a lack of positive emotions
are more likely to be depressed, exhibit
aggressive behaviour and suffer rejection
from their peers. Positive affect is related
to how children deal with anxiety and
recover from stressful experiences.
Brown (2006) summarises that during
play there are a number of clear
indications that development of the self is
occurring that may include:
• Being able to move easily between
different roles – real and imagined.
Children who are adept at taking
different perspectives are more likely
to express empathy and compassion,
and find solutions to social problems
(Frost, Wortham, Reifel 2008)
Why should the positive emotions
generated by play be important
adaptations? Fredrickson (2006) states
that positive emotions evolved as
adaptations that increased our ancestors’
chances of survival and reproduction.
Unlike negative emotions that narrow
down possible feelings and actions,
positive emotions widen our thoughts and
encourage flexible behaviour. This broad
flexible behaviour allowed our ancestors
to deal with threats and develop coping
strategies and strong social networks.
• Increased exploration and learning
about cause and effect relationships.
‘While playing with dolls, searching
through a toy box, or banging blocks
together in a seemingly haphazard
manner, children are actually
engaging in a quite rational process
of making hypotheses, evaluating
statistical data, and dismissing prior
beliefs when presented with stronger
evidence’ (Kushnir n.d.)
• Exercising autonomy
A central feature of most descriptions
of play is that play is fun and deeply
satisfying. Although it can be serious
on occasions, fun is how most children
describe their play particularly if it
involves friends. The fun children
experience when playing is a great
motivator and ‘playing is only really
experienced as play when it is absorbing’
(Meire 2007: 44).
But why should playing be fun? Meire
(2007) suggests three possible reasons.
First playing offers children a feeling
of control. This can be felt individually
but also as part of a group. This control
can be over oneself (‘Yes, I can do a
cartwheel’), over another person (‘I got
you back!’) or over the environment
(‘Look at our amazing den!’). For more
competent players this sense of control
can be heightened by paradoxically
temporarily losing control by introducing
uncertainty and risk into their play.
Playing, like humour, often involves
a sense of surprise, exaggeration or
incongruity whereby normal rules and
expectations can be disrupted. They both
require the ability to temporarily dispense
with reality and act ‘as-if’.
Although fun and enjoyment are
crucial to any description of play it
is only comparatively recently that
researchers have begun to investigate
the link between positive emotions and
behaviour. Reviewing a range of sources
Second, sharing playful experiences
with others is highly enjoyable. Being
engaged together allows children jointly
to establish the play frame. Having a
sense of humour is linked with social
acceptance and competence.
• Recapitulating children’s social and
cultural history
• Development of values and outlook.
3 – Fun
11
Lester and Russell (2008) citing research
from Shiota and others suggest that
humour is effective in a number of ways
in building relationships:
• Identifying potential partners
• Developing and maintaining key
relationships
• Working together to achieve goals.
Third, much play behaviour is physical
and the feeling of testing one’s limits
against others or the world enhances
our emotions. The enjoyment of bodily
sensations creates a feeling of being
absorbed in the game. Laughter
generates positive feelings in others
and us, and can powerfully reinforce (or
disparage) behaviour in others (Martin
2007).
stimulation. Ellis (1973) suggests that
children’s play provides a number of
different ways to generate stimulation.
Children’s drive to create novelty and
uncertainty creates apprehension, which
is then reduced through play.
When children are asked why they
play, they frequently respond that
playing just feels good. In recent years
neurobiological research is beginning to
shed some light on why this might be so.
In particular it has revealed how play is
involved with the neural reward systems
involved in food and drugs (Trezza et al
2010). These include the transmission
of brain chemicals that modulate and
reward behaviour (ibid). This diverse
group of brain chemicals have many
functions but include:
For example, a game of peek-a-boo
introduces and then resolves the
tension of a disappearing care-giver.
Having resolved the uncertainty in a
situation, children will create new ones
so continuing the cycle of creation and
reduction of uncertainty. ‘The processes
of generating fun are the processes of
generating and reducing uncertainty’
(ibid: 100). Laughter and humour are
prime examples of behaviour created by
characteristics such as novelty, surprise,
incongruity, ambiguity and complexity,
all of which possess arousal potential
(Berlyne 1968).
• providing us with a sense of wellbeing
• affecting our mood, heart rate and
attention levels
4 – Physical benefits
• providing feelings of enjoyment and
reinforcement to motivate particular
behaviour.
The presence of play in children has
long been associated with health and
wellbeing. The doctor and psychiatrist
Stuart Brown reports that early in his
career as a medical student in Houston,
Texas he worked with seriously sick
children. Sometimes a previously
unresponsive child would greet him with
Another possible approach to thinking
about the benefits of play was advanced
by theorists who proposed that humans
try to maintain an optimum level of
12
a playful smile. Encouraged Brown would
check the child’s lab test but they showed
no change. However, the following day’s
tests did show signs of improvement.
‘The first thing to come back to normal
was not his blood sugar, heart rate,
blood pressure, blood electrolytes, cell
counts, or any of the other twenty-five
“objective” signs. What came back first
was his smile. This was not just relief
from discomfort, but a play signal’ (Brown
2009: 25).
Climbing develops strength, co-ordination
and balance while jumping contributes
towards bone density. When children
repeat an action as part of their play they
are often in the process of calibrating –
learning to manage growing bodies – as
well as developing agility, co-ordination
and confidence.
Summarising a range of recent evidence
from the UK and Scandinavia, Lester
and Russell (2008) report that the actual
amount of playing, particularly active
outdoor play, has been shown to be a
protective factor in childhood against
coronary heart disease risk factors
Play involves active behaviour that
contributes towards building healthy
bodies. Physical activity in early
childhood prevents obesity (Milteer and
Ginsburg 2011). With around one in
four young teenagers considered obese
the British Medical Journal reported
in 2001 that the main solution should
be to ‘reduce television viewing and
promote playing’ and that ‘opportunities
for spontaneous play may be the only
requirement that young children need
to increase their physical activity’ (Dietz
2001).
Increasingly there is a deeper realisation
that our physical and mental health
are vitally linked and interdependent.
Good mental health is not merely the
absence of a problem but the ability to
form satisfying relationships, cope with
problems and live life to the full (BMA
2006). The Mental Health Foundation
(2005) suggests that physical activity
can help lift mood and reduce anxiety.
This is echoed by Norwegian research
suggesting that exercise has a positive
effect on children and young people’s
self-esteem (Ekeland et al 2005).
Playing contributes to children’s health
by providing prolonged and wide-ranging
exercise that develops stamina. This
might include activities such as informal
games, chase, climbing and building.
Regular informal play provides more
physical exercise than a weekly sports
activity (Mackett et al 2007). ‘Active play
is more important than fitness as it leads
to the permanent development of a wide
variety of motor skills’ (Matthews et al
2011).
In an extensive review of the evidence
for the role of play in children’s health
for the University of Gloucester in
2011, the authors conclude that ‘play
has an important role in improving and
enhancing physical, mental, social and
psychological health of children and
young people’ (Matthews et al 2011).
Playing contributes to children’s health by providing
prolonged and wide-ranging exercise that develops
stamina.
13
Recognising that play is essential for
children and young people’s health has
been recognised by governments. In
Wales the national physical activity action
plan, Creating an Active Wales (Welsh
Government 2009), includes access to high
quality physically active play as one of its
priorities for children and young people.
5 – Social interaction and
socialisation
Children are motivated to play and will
seek out play partners. Children want to
be involved and be part of a group – to
be friends. While playing with others
children cooperate, compete, conflict and
communicate and find out about their
similarities and differences. This provides
opportunities for negotiation and the
development of perspective. Social play is
the key driver of children’s socialisation.
‘Children do not become socially competent
by having adults telling them how to
behave. Rather they learn those skills
through meaningful interactions with their
peers where they learn what is acceptable
and what is not’ (Brown and Patte 2013:
24).
Children actively absorb and transform
information from the adult world so
producing their own culture.
Initiating and suggesting ways of playing
is one of the ways children establish social
contacts. Children who negotiated more
during pretend play were more popular
with their peers (Powers 2000: 283).
Peer relationships have been suggested
as essential for the development of
compromise, empathy and altruism (Coplan
et al 2006). Social play also allows children
to experience different roles including
leadership and follower roles, and different
family or gender roles.
While playing with others children cooperate, compete,
conflict and communicate and find out about their
similarities and differences.
14
6 – Flexibility
Playing with others builds and maintains
friendships. Positive relationships have
been found to have a protective effect
against stress and anxiety and help build
resilience (Lester and Russell 2010).
Sylva, citing Bruner and others, claims
that ‘the essence of play lies in …
combinatorial flexibility’ (1977: 60).
This refers to the idea that play trains
the individual to join bits of behaviour
together to form novel solutions to
problems. While playing children have
the opportunity to try out combinations
of behaviour that normally would remain
untried. Through these new permutations
they learn about their environment and
develop a more flexible and creative
approach to solving problems.
Children are integrated into their peer
groups through the mechanism of social
play. Social play enables children to
cooperate and take turns, and see the
world through another’s eyes; to realise
that there are other roles, perspectives
and feelings.
During play children will use language to
further their play but they will also play
with language itself, including its sound,
meaning, form and purpose (Davidson
2006). Jokes, rhymes and storytelling
all contribute towards children becoming
increasingly sophisticated in their use of
language.
‘What is acquired through play is not
specific information but a general set
towards solving problems’ (ibid).
Hughes (2012) explains the idea as a
process whereby the child immerses
itself into a problem and then by rapidly
exploring its memory for information
pieces together clues that in combination
might be helpful. The implication of this
is that children who play in rich and
stimulating environments will be open to
more combinations and so better able to
solve the challenges and problems they
meet.
Although adults may set the framework it
is through engaging with their peers that
children come to understand the rules of
their society (Goodwin 2006),
Social play is significant throughout
child development. For young children
social play may facilitate attachment or
the emotional bond that usually forms
between the carer – usually the parent –
and the child. While play may not actually
cause attachment, a parent’s willingness
to play is correlated with the closeness of
the attachment (Hughes 2010).
Stephen Jay Gould the eminent
evolutionary biologist noted that in the
animal kingdom the most highly adapted
creatures were not those finely tuned to
perform a specific function in a definite
way but those creatures characterised
by ‘sloppiness, broad potential,
quirkiness, unpredictability and massive
redundancy’ (1996: 44) (or duplication of
Social play enables children to cooperate and take turns,
and see the world through another’s eyes; to realise that
there are other roles, perspectives and feelings.
15
biological functions and systems). The
key for adaptation is flexibility. For the
distinguished play scholar Sutton-Smith
(1997) this quirky, sloppy, broad potential
is not just about adaptation but play itself.
Variability is the key to play and it is
characterised by quirkiness redundancy
and flexibility.
7 – Creativity
A related approach is the ‘training for
the unexpected’ hypothesis described by
Spinka, Newberry and Bekoff (2001). This
idea states that playing allows animals to
develop flexible physical and emotional
responses to unexpected events where
control is suddenly lost. To acquire this
training animals deliberately seek out
and create unexpected situations through
play and before attempting to regain
equilibrium. Examples might include selfhandicapping in rough and tumble play,
dizzy play, or walking on the top of a wall
rather than the adjacent pavement.
When we talk about creativity what
exactly is involved? Russ (2004)
highlights several key processes
including:
Like play the term creativity is not easy to
define and the two share many noticeable
features. Creativity is marked by intrinsic
motivation, intentionality, adaptability and
originality. It has been described as a
‘way of operating’ (Cleese 1991).
• Divergent thinking (how many uses
can I think of for this banana?)
• The ability to break out of old ways
of thinking and see the world in new
ways
• Being sensitive to seeing problems
• Persistence in problem solving
Brown (2000) offers another approach to
the development of flexibility in the child
with his idea of compound flexibility. In
it he suggests that there is a complex
interactive process between the degree
of flexibility in the play environment and
the level of flexibility displayed by the
child. The relationship can be viewed as
a cycle.
• Insight and the ability to integrate new
types of information
• Evaluation.
What evidence is there for linking
play with creativity? For the English
psychoanalyst Donald Winnicott, ‘(It
is) in playing, and perhaps only in
playing, (that) the child or adult is free
to be creative’ (Winnicott 1971: 53).
Similarly for Eric Erikson the influential
developmental psychologist, ‘young
children have enormous creativity and
whatever’s in them rises to the surface in
free play’ (as cited in Russ 2004).
The degree of flexibility in the play
environment has a direct effect on the
child’s experiences and level of control.
Where a child has the freedom to
experiment they are likely to develop
increased self-confidence and problem
solving abilities. This increasingly flexible
approach makes the child better able
to use the full potential of the play
environment and so on (Brown 2003). At
the heart of this idea is the recognition
that flexibility implies children must have
control of their own play environment.
Many studies show that there is a
positive connection between imaginative
play and divergent thinking or how we
generate creative ideas by exploring
different possibilities (Johnson 2007).
Singer and Singer (1976) conclude that
imaginative play is related to divergent
thinking and verbal fluency while Sherrod
16
and Singer (1979) highlight how fantasy
play facilitates understanding.
common in the winners of the MacArthur
Fellows Program (or Genius Grant) given
annually to highly gifted and creative
individuals from all fields in the US (RootBernstein and Root-Bernstein 2006.
Creative play is important because
it stimulates curiosity, flexibility and
problem solving behaviour and this link
between creativity and play has long
been understood by those in the creative
industries. Google famously allows its
workers one day a week to pursue their
own projects and creates colourful,
playroom-like environments.
However, not just cognitive processes are
involved in the link between creativity and
play. Greek research (Trevlas et al 2003)
suggests that children develop motor
creativity through play. Children are able
to express their thoughts and feelings
and communicate using their body. In
early childhood this expressiveness is
more prevalent than speech.
Play has also been linked to children’s
problem solving ability. Smith and
Dutton’s (1979) research indicated
that play is superior to direct training in
problem-solving tasks requiring flexible,
innovative solutions, albeit Smith (2010)
himself has subsequently thrown some
doubt on the validity of those findings.
Bergen (2002) reports on research
showing a reciprocal relationship
between problem solving and pretend
play, with social play having a more
general influence on problem solving
and thematic play having a more specific
influence.
Given how diverse it appears, is it
possible to measure creativity? One
approach devised in the 1960s, is the
Torrance Tests of creative thinking,
considered one of the most reliable
methods of measuring creativity. The
test has been taken by millions of people
worldwide and the scores have been
steadily rising, until the 1990s. Since
then researchers in the US have noticed
a consistent decline in the scores and
this is most pronounced in children aged
five to 12. What could be causing such
a decline? Although there is no definitive
evidence many researchers note that
there has been a corresponding drop in
children’s freedom and active outdoor
play (Britannica Editors 2010).
In middle childhood children often
create detailed imaginary worlds (known
as paracosms) and these have been
linked with high creativity. A Michigan
State University study found that these
imaginary worlds were particularly
17
8 – Cognitive development
The importance of play to the learning process has
a long history and is central to the traditional way of
thinking about the benefit of play.
Cognitive processes are closely linked to creativity.
Singer and Singer (1990) suggest that pretend play can
help the child in a number of ways including:
• Expanding vocabulary
• Understanding that the mother is a separate
individual and has a separate identity (known as
object constancy)
• Forming mental models about themselves, other
people and the world around them (known as Theory
of Mind)
• The ability to explore many possible solutions
(known as divergent thinking)
• Developing flexibility when moving between different
types of thinking (such as between logical thought
and storytelling).
As well as these areas other studies have linked play to
children’s social competence, mathematical readiness
and academic skills development (Bergen 2002).
Playing allows children to take turns, to negotiate, to
jointly plan, and to represent real and imagined objects
and situations. It allows children to act out their own and
other’s emotions and feelings in a range of situations.
Brown (2009) citing Schulz and Bonwitz (2007) notes
that children use play to test out ideas and deal
with problems in their environment. When they are
introduced to a new toy the first thing they do without
adult intervention is to explore and figure out how the
figure works.
A startling example of this occurred in 2001 when
Sugata Mitra, head of research and development at a
training and software company, installed a computer in
the wall in the slums of Delhi. Children with little or no
English or computer knowledge were initially intrigued
and then without any adult assistance discovered how
to use the computer. How long did this take? Within
18
9 – Freedom to act
independently
eight minutes they were surfing the net,
within days they could cut, paste and copy,
and drag and drop and create folders. By
the second month they were downloading
mp3’s and games.
Bergen (2002) notes that there ‘is a
growing body of evidence supporting the
many connections between cognitive
competence and high quality pretend play.
If children lack opportunities to experience
such play, their long-term capacities related
to metacognition, problem solving, and
social cognition, as well as to academic
areas such as literacy, mathematics, and
science, may be diminished’.
From early childhood most children
engage in considerable play with language
including its sound, form and meaning.
Nonsense, jokes, and rhymes all contribute
to a deepening understanding of language.
There are several observational studies
that link language development with sociodramatic play although they are far from
conclusive (Christie and Johnson 1983).
Although there is a considerable body
of evidence suggesting a link between
play and learning, other writers (such as
Burghardt 2005 and Russ 2004) emphasise
the underlying emotional processes and
suggest that these account for the link
between play and learning. This perspective
suggests that learning may result not
so much from the content of playing but
the emotional experience the process of
playing affords (Lester and Russell 2008).
Freedom is a crucial element in many
children’s definition of play. It has also
become a central belief for playworkers
in the UK (see Playwork Principle 2). As
playworkers we should remind ourselves
that ‘free choice and minimal adult
intervention also tend to go hand-in-hand.
These conditions seem to be prerequisites
for individuals being intrinsically motivated’
(Pellegrini 2009: 18).
As we have seen, play offers the child a
space where they are able to experiment
and try out combinations that in the ‘real’
world might be too risky. The play frame
offers children the opportunity to explore,
manipulate, discover, plan and practice, all
of which include opportunities for controlling
their world. ‘During free-flow play we use
the technical prowess and competency
we have previously developed, and so we
can be in control’ (Bruce 1991: 70). The
sense of control that children can exhibit
through play impacts on their self-esteem,
confidence and motivation.
The benefits of play –
conclusions
There is a huge amount of data on
children’s play from many different fields
of study including the applied, behavioural,
cognitive, formal, and natural sciences. This
very diversity makes it difficult adequately
to summarise the evidence – some of it
is suggestive and some of it conclusive of
specific adaptive and developmental
Play offers the child a space where they are able to
experiment and try out combinations that in the ‘real’ world
might be too risky.
19
Play is also implicated with brain growth
and neural plasticity. ‘Play opens
up possibilities in the brain that may
be picked up later or discarded; the
important feature is that the potential is
kept alive, more so than if play never
occurred in the first place’ (Lester and
Russell 2008: 44).
Play is also a key mechanism for
developing resilience and dealing with
stress and anxiety. It provides effective
strategies for dealing with uncertainty and
contributes to good physical and mental
health.
Play is central to how children regulate
and manage their emotions. It underpins
their sense of wellbeing and their
capacity for friendships and effective
social behaviour.
As well as these broad adaptive
behaviours we have seen clear evidence
of the developmental benefits of play in
specific areas (Brown 2006) including:
benefits. Taken together however, they
form convincing evidence of the multiple
benefits of play and proof of its central
role in our evolutionary development and
survival.
• Fun and enjoyment and children
seeking stimulation
We have seen clear evidence that
play is central to children’s behavioural
flexibility. It enables children to change
and adapt to the pressures of their
environment through the development of
new patterns of behaviour and emotions
while avoiding harmful stress. ‘Play
operates as a calibrating or mediating
mechanism for emotions, motor systems,
stress response and attachment systems’
(Lester and Russell 2010: 13).
• Self-discovery and the development
of self-identity
• Cognitive development and learning
• Physical activity and motor skills
• Creativity and problem solving
• Flexibility and novel behaviours
• Social interaction and socialisation
Play is a key mechanism for developing resilience and
dealing with stress and anxiety.
20
• Emotional equilibrium and growth
• Freedom to act independently and in control.
The benefits of play for children are substantial and wide
ranging and its effects are felt far into adulthood.
Ultimately, if playing is beneficial then depriving the
young of a species of opportunities to play should have
harmful effects (Bateson 2005). As we will see later in
these materials this is indeed the case in both humans
and animals. Play truly is a deep biological process that
is at the heart of how we adapt and survive. It acts on
multiple levels and has attracted multiple perspectives
and explanations. Citing the Nobel prize winning
ethologist Konrad Lorenz, Hughes notes that because
we play we are ‘good at lots of things rather than expert
at just a few’ (2012: 80).
‘Individuals are active agents in their own development,
seeking out and acquiring experiences that will change
their future behaviour. Young animals and humans are
equipped with developmental mechanisms that seem to
have been designed specifically for the role. Collectively
the behaviour is called play’. (Bateson and Martin 2000).
Learners into
practice
Reflection on childhood
Take some time to reflect on your own childhood and in
particular your experiences of play. Looking back do you
feel that those play experiences were beneficial to you
then, as a child, and now, as an adult? What kinds of
benefits do you feel they provided you with?
Assessing potential benefits
How do you assess any potential benefits of particular
types of play behaviour or opportunities? (for example,
when you carry out a risk-benefit assessment). On what
kinds of factors might any benefits depend?
Observing children for benefits
Observe children playing in your workplace over some
time. What benefits do you feel they gained? Are there
benefits that weren’t evidenced? Why might this be?
Lost benefits?
Not every child has regular opportunities to play freely.
Some children are denied normal play opportunities
and many are constrained or limited in some way. What
benefits might be lost? What are the implications for you
as a practitioner?
21
?
?
??
?
Play deprivation
Summary
In this section we will
look at the definition
of play deprivation,
the causes of severe
deprivation and
the implications for
playworkers.
Play has crucial adaptive benefits for humans
and many animals. We have seen convincing
evidence of benefits across multiple areas
including motor skills, socialisation, children’s
sense of self, creativity, problem solving,
flexibility, resilience, emotional regulation,
wellbeing and brain growth. Given these
benefits it follows that depriving children of
play could have serious consequences for
their wellbeing and development.
This realisation is becoming critically important because
of the increasing pressure on children’s time and space
to play in many countries. As Gill (2007) illustrates,
opportunities to play freely are being constrained and
children’s play spaces have been and continue to be
colonised by adults. Despite having the right to play
enshrined by the United Nations Convention of the
Rights of the Child (UNICEF 1991) and agreed by
22
nearly all the world’s governments, the
freedom to play is under threat. A climate
of fear and a culture of risk aversion have
left many children trying to acquire a
comprehensive play experience in their
back yards or in their bedrooms (Hughes
2006).
the effect of excluding the child from
some parts of the total play experience.
In other words play experiences are
skewed or limited in some way (Hughes
2003a).
What is play deprivation?
Between 1959 and 1972 the American
psychologist Harry Harlow conducted a
number of experiments with monkeys
that explored attachment theory and the
effects of sensory and social deprivation.
Harlow raised monkeys in a number
of ways including removing them from
their mothers at birth and denying
them play with their peers. Many of
these shocking experiments would be
considered unethical today but as Brown
and Patte (2013) note, that doesn’t
mean we should ignore his findings.
What did Harlow find? Unsurprisingly,
monkeys reared in isolation become very
disturbed, antisocial, socially incompetent
and sometimes violent. However, in
experiments where young monkeys
were able to play with others for a short
time each day they grew into healthy
well-adjusted adults. From this Harlow
and his collaborator Suomi were able to
state that play was critically important
in the development of normal healthy
individuals. Moreover, play appeared to
enable monkeys damaged by isolation
to recover. Suomi and Harlow conclude
poignantly, ‘Pity the monkeys who are
not permitted to play, and pray that all
children will always be allowed to play’
(1971: 495).
Research from animal studies
Play deprivation is usually thought of
as the absence of play opportunities or
more precisely ‘a chronic lack of sensory
interaction with the world; a form of
sensory deprivation’ (Hughes 2003a). The
impact of not being able to play results
in ‘those affected being both biologically
and socially disabled’ (Hughes 2003b).
For Hughes (2006) children’s wellbeing
is dependant on them experiencing all
of the play types. Children who do not
regularly engage in each of them will
show signs of being unwell. Furthermore
he speculates that engaging in different
play types may lead to the construction of
neural tissue in specific locations of the
brain according to the specific play type.
Of course the severity of play deprivation
in individuals can vary. As Brown and
Patte (2013) remind us the absence of
play opportunities may take many forms
ranging from the extreme deprivations of
neglected children in state institutions, to
children simply not being allowed out to
play.
Allied to the notion of play deprivation is
the concept of play bias (Hughes 2012).
This refers to ‘a loading of play in one
area of experience or another’ that has
‘Pity the monkeys who are not permitted to play, and pray
that all children will always be allowed to play.’
(Suomi and Harlow 1971: 495)
23
Research with rats shows a similar picture.
Juvenile rats deprived of play fighting
experience display a range of cognitive,
sexual, and social deficits (Pellis and Pellis
2009). However, simply allowing these
socially isolated rats access to a peer for
one hour a day, with whom they play fight,
means they grow into competent adults.
Even just watching other rats play fighting
is beneficial for their developing brains
against the ill effects of being raised in
isolation (ibid). Play experience is vital for
rats to calibrate their emotional responses
including levels of stress and anxiety and
‘may fine-tune the coping skills needed for
dealing with different and unexpected social
situations’ (ibid: 80).
Finally, the famous anthropologist and
primatologist Jane Goodall, in response to
an enquiry about the murder-cannibalism
by female chimpanzees Passion and
Pom, noted that both were ineffectively
mothered and had their early play and later
socialisation patterns constricted (Brown
1998).
Human studies
Given the moral and ethical difficulties
involved there are far fewer studies
involving children and play deprivation.
Moreover, it is difficult to isolate play
as a single feature of the deprivation.
Nevertheless there are studies available,
particularly those resulting from the fall
of the Ceausescu regime in Romania
in 1989, which revealed thousands of
children locked away in state institutions.
As Brown and Patte note (2013), for many
children this meant horrendous neglect and
enduring institutional abuse. ‘This was play
deprivation on a grand scale’ (ibid: 104).
In 1999 a study by Jana Kreppner and
others (cited in Tarullo and Gunnar 2005)
explored the impact of extreme early
physical and psychological deprivation on a
group of Romanian children who had been
adopted into UK families from institutions.
The research revealed that deprivation
had a significant effect on these children’s
pretend and social play as well as their
social relationships.
24
The effects of severe play
deprivation
In a review of the available evidence
Tarullo and Gunnar (2005) conclude that
early social deprivation acts on the brain
and that these neurobiological effects
are not easily reversible and have far
reaching consequences on social and
emotional functioning.
The research by Brown and Webb (2005)
found significant similarities between
the effects of play deprivation on their
Romanian children and the effects Suomi
and Harlow had recorded more than 30
years previously. The parallels included:
Research by Brown and Webb (2005)
described a playwork intervention with
abandoned children living in a Romanian
paediatric hospital. The children aged one
to ten suffered chronic neglect and abuse
having spent most of their lives tied to
the same cot in the hospital ward. During
the research period the only change in
their lives was the playwork project yet
‘these chronically abused and neglected
children made the progress that many
experts assumed would be impossible’
(Brown and Webb: 155). The children
no longer sat rocking staring into space
but became ‘fully engaged active human
beings’ (ibid: 140).
• Avoidance of social exchanges and
close contact with peers
• Little communication
• Little understanding of social rules
and hierarchies
• Bewilderment, vacancy, and fixation
on own activities
• Stereotypical behaviour such as
rocking back and forth
What had caused this remarkable
change? Brown and Patte note (2013)
‘the most fundamental causal factor
was undoubtedly the fact that these
children now had play-mates – that,
and the example provided by the White
Rose Initiative playworkers who were
encouraged to treat the children with love
and respect at all times’. Fortunately,
the children’s conditions improved
dramatically after a year and a half
but the project continues, albeit in a
more preventative mode. The research
nevertheless stands as a testament to the
healing transformative power of play.
• Avoidance of eye contact
• Poorly developed fine and motor skills
• Extreme anxiety with even the
slightest disturbance.
Perhaps strangely, in contrast to the
physical and social/emotional damage,
both studies found that the isolation had
little effect on intellectual capacities.
Brown and Patte (2013) suggest that
this might be because certain cognitive
aspects of the brain are not fully switched
on until around the age of six or seven.
Given the moral and ethical difficulties involved there are
far fewer studies involving children and play deprivation.
25
Also, perhaps the cognitive processes
of the brain weren’t seriously impaired
because they were never substantially
engaged to begin with.
What might be the effects of severe play
deprivation later into adulthood? One
chilling example occurred in 1966 when
Charles Whitman a 25-year-old engineering
student gunned down and killed 17 people
and wounded more than 30 more at the
University of Texas. Stuart Brown, then a
newly appointed professor of psychiatry,
was part of the multidisciplinary team
charged to investigate the murderer. On the
surface Whitman appeared to be a normal
citizen but closer examination revealed his
upbringing to be dominated by an abusive
controlling father who systematically denied
him any play opportunities throughout his
life. The investigating team concluded that
lack of play was a significant factor in his
homicidal actions and that it’s absence
denied him the opportunity to develop the
skills, flexibility and strength to cope with
stressful situations without violence (The
National Institute for Play 2009).
Stuart Brown has continued to study play
and has conducted interviews with over
8,000 people about the role of play in their
childhood and adulthood.
‘On one end of the spectrum, I studied
murderers in Texas prisons and found that
the absence of play in their childhood was
as important as any other single factor in
predicting their crimes. On the other end,
I also documented abused kids at risk for
antisocial behaviour whose predilection
for violence was diminished through play’
(2009: 26).
We should remember, as Brown and
Patte (2013) warn us, that these studies
are of very disturbed individuals and they
shouldn’t be interpreted as suggesting
children with restricted play opportunities
will always become adult mass murderers.
‘Nevertheless, these studies should
definitely encourage us to think deeply
about the potential impact of play
deprivation on individuals, and on wider
society’ (ibid).
Deprivation and the brain
There is evidence to suggest the
environment is a significant factor in
neuronal development and that imbalances
in the brain’s neurochemistry play a key
role in violent and antisocial behaviour
(Hughes 2003a). Evidence summarised
by Hughes highlights the links made by
scientists between behaviour, environment,
brain growth and aggression. It implies
that species raised in stimulating spaces
have bigger brains, are able to process
information more effectively, and are
less aggressive and moody than their
counterparts who have been raised in dull
and monotonous conditions (ibid: 72). Put
directly, ‘children who grow up and play in
stimulus deprived … conditions experience
emotional and other (sometimes severe)
neuropsychological disadvantages as a
result’ (ibid: 73).
Negative experiences such as stress and
trauma can leave lasting effects on the
brain’s physiology. Studies by Chugani et
al (2001) showed that early deprivation
endured by children in Romanian
orphanages altered the development of a
Stuart Brown has continued to study play and has
conducted interviews with over 8,000 people about the role
of play in their childhood and adulthood.
26
In 2010 the Welsh Government instigated
a very significant break from this type
of thinking by introducing the Children
and Families (Wales) Measure. This
legislation introduces a duty on local
authorities to assess and then secure
sufficient play opportunities for all
children. The Measure is underpinned
by a commitment to The Untied Nations
Convention of the Rights of the Child
(1991) and in particular, Article 31
(leisure, play and culture), Article 15
(freedom of association) and Article 12
(respect for the views of the child). It
also recognises that play is a critical
factor in supporting children’s wellbeing,
development and resilience.
number of regions in the brain’s limbic
area that are known to be activated and
damaged by stress.
Although there is still much to be
discovered about how exactly play
experiences influence the brain, evidence
is mounting that ‘points to the capacity of
play to foster greater adaptive capacities,
not seen in the play deprived’ (Brown
2013).
Play deprivation and poverty
Historically, play provision has most often
been seen as a means of tackling social
problems including poor health, poverty,
crime and antisocial behaviour, and the
negative effects of urbanisation. Under
this thinking play deprivation is equated
with social and economic deprivation
with the result that investment in play
has frequently been focused in areas of
financial and social need. Government
initiatives in the UK have seldom been
solely about play and consequently
playworkers seeking funding have
become adept at appealing to other adult
agendas.
The Play Sufficiency Duty comes as part
of the Welsh Government’s anti-poverty
agenda, which recognises that children
can have a poverty of experience,
opportunity and aspiration, and that
this kind of poverty can affect children
from all social, cultural and economic
backgrounds across Wales.
All children need access to stimulating
play opportunities – not just poor
children. A study by Brown (2013) with
27
the Roma children of Transylvania,
who are amongst the poorest, most
disadvantaged in Europe, revealed that
they had rich and happy play lives full of
freedom and creativity. This, the author
claims, throws considerable doubt on
the straightforward linking of (economic)
poverty and play deprivation.
awareness (Brown 2008), and working to
the Playwork Principles (PPSG 2005).
No particular group of children are
immune from play deprivation including
those of more affluent parents and
carers, some of whom try to excessively
overprotect and isolate their children
from the slightest danger through overscheduled organised activities while
applying considerable pressure on them
to achieve at school (Hughes 2003b).
Although these children may be at
risk of low to moderate levels of play
deprivation, it is children who experience
‘chronic violence and bullying, neglect/
abuse, domestic imprisonment, warfare,
institutional neglect and/or materials
cultural poverty who are most at risk’
(ibid).
Tackling play deprivation means we need
continually to assess our provision for its
suitability and effectiveness in meeting
needs and counteracting the play deficits
of the children who attend.
The implications for
playworkers
But what are the effects of milder play
deprivation? There is some evidence.
Swiss research indicates that children
who don’t play out by the age of five tend
to be emotionally and socially repressed,
find it difficult to socialise and are at much
greater risk of obesity (Huttenmoser and
Zimmermann 1995). Notwithstanding
this, it isn’t clear what the exact effects
will be of widespread play deprivation or
play bias. Hughes suggests that chronic
play deprivation dehumanises children
who later become disturbed, aggressive
and violent adults (2003b). ‘Without play,
without a daily, hands on, optimistic
experience of a sensory reality, children
soon become lost, unable to make any
sense of the emotions and involuntary
attachment yearnings they feel’. (Hughes
2012: 185).
Specifically – we should assess and meet
local needs and deficits, for example,
children may not be allowed to play with
fire or climb trees, or direct their own play
free from adult intervention.
Conclusions
There is clear evidence that children
who are denied all play suffer deep
physical, emotional and neurological
harm. However, more positively there is
also evidence of the healing capacity of
play and the ability of children to adapt
and thrive given the right support and
care. Play deprivation is not necessarily
irreversible.
Given the pressures on children’s play
in many modern societies it seems
likely there will be increasing numbers
of children suffering some form of play
deprivation attending any existing play
provision. As playworkers how should
we react? Hughes recommends (2003a)
that playworkers address both local and
general needs.
Generally – we must ensure that our
provision operates under sound playwork
principles; offering an enriched and
flexible environment where playworkers
suspend their prejudices and work
to the child’s agenda, responding
sensitively and empathically, supporting
relationships, building children’s self
esteem, developing their own cultural
Given what we have seen of the
devastating effects of extreme play
28
deprivation it seems reasonable to agree, as Brown and
Patte suggest, that ‘milder forms of play deprivation will
nevertheless have a negative impact on the general
social psyche of Western Societies’ (2013: 113).
Further reading
Information about play deprivation can be found on the
Play Wales website:
www.playwales.org.uk/eng/playdeprivation
Professor Fraser Brown has produced an information
sheet for Play Wales (2013) that provides a definition of
play deprivation, explores its impact and the implications
for society. Drawing on his own research and
experiences the author also explores the consequences
of complete deprivation of play and the potential of
playwork. The Play deprivation: impact, consequences
and the potential of playwork information sheet is
available to download at:
www.playwales.org.uk/eng/informationsheets
Learners into
practice
Reflections
Do you think that previous generations had more
opportunities to play freely? Is this really true or just a
case of looking back with rose-coloured glasses?
Do you think these extreme examples and ones from
animal studies are relevant to your own experiences as
a playworker facilitating children’s play?
Do you see any effects of play deprivation in the
children you regularly have contact with?
Are there particular children who are more at risk of play
deprivation? If so, what are the implications for us as
playworkers?
Are the play experiences of the children attending your
provision biased or skewed towards particular types of
behaviour? What causes this bias?
29
?
?
??
?
Barriers to play
Summary
In this section we will
look at the range of
barriers that prevent
and discourage
children’s play as well
as what we can do
about it.
While children will play anywhere, the
environment in many developed nations
is increasingly antagonistic to children’s
right to play. This perception has led many
parents and carers to restrict their children’s
opportunities to roam and play freely. The
freedom and independence provided by
outdoor play is being replaced by adultcontrolled activities. We have seen a shift
from public outdoor play to private extra
curricula activities in which children rely on
parents to ferry them from one activity to
another (Valentine 2004).
30
In this section we will look at the range
of barriers that prevent and discourage
children’s play as well as what we can do
about it. While there are common trends
and issues that impact on children’s
lives we should remember that their lives
and the environments they live in are
complex and diverse with considerable
variation in the extent and range of their
play behaviours. Some children have
considerable freedom to play out in rich
environments while others enjoy almost
no play opportunities outside of their
home. Individual children will always play
in ways that do not fit the norms of their
society and we should be vigilant against
assuming that all children share common
play opportunities and experiences.
streets are for the car’s almost exclusive
use. Until recently transport policy has
encouraged dependence on cars and
UK road traffic rose by an average of
25 percent between 1993 and 2007.
While London has seen marginally
reduced levels other areas such as North
Yorkshire, Oxfordshire and Lincolnshire
have seen rises up to and exceeding
50 percent. Although recent levels are
stabilising, the Department for Transport
predicts a near 50 percent rise by 2035
(2012b).
As well as the number of cars, improving
modern car performance means drivers
are able to accelerate quickly and easily.
A Department for Transport survey
indicates that nearly half of all drivers
exceed the limit on 30mph roads (2011).
Although child casualties from road
accidents are falling in the UK, 2,272
children were tragically killed and 17,251
seriously injured in 2012 (Department for
Transport 2012a).
Traffic
In many towns and cities informal street
play has largely been replaced by the
car. In the popular view even residential
In many towns and cities informal street play has largely
been replaced by the car.
31
Globally the situation is much worse and
road traffic deaths are now the biggest
killer of children over the age of 10.
Road deaths have fallen significantly in
the UK because fewer children are playing
outside. The streets have not become
safer; they have become abandoned.
‘There is a danger that steps to reduce
accidents will result in initiatives to keep
people off the streets and out of the way of
traffic rather than traffic out of the way of
people’ (Play England 2009).
As traffic has increased residential streets
have become depopulated and less
attractive places to play. Children who
do play out unaccompanied are seen as
‘at risk’ or antisocial. In 2010 police from
Greater Manchester warned two boys
that playing football in their cul-de-sac
was illegal. In 2012 the same police force
warned an eight year old about antisocial
behaviour for playing football in his front
garden. In 2013 Kent police warned a
10-year-old girl she risked being arrested
for criminal damage for chalking on the
pavement and playing hopscotch outside
her home.
Traffic along with fear of strangers
provides arguably the biggest barrier to
children’s freedom to play out. In 2013 a
One Poll survey for Playday 53 percent
of parents said traffic stops their children
from playing out. What effect does all
this have on children? Fewer and fewer
children playing out means that for those
children who still can and want to play out
the chance of finding someone to play with
is reduced. As Mike Lanza, the US Silicon
Valley Internet entrepreneur turned play
campaigner notes, even if the chance of a
child finding another to play with outside
is say 20 percent it might as well be zero.
That’s because your alternatives – a video
game, a DVD, or TV – offer a 100 percent
chance of success. A child might try the
neighbourhood option once or twice but
given the odds they will fail.
Consequently the habit of playing out
will be lost and it will no longer feature
on a mental list of places to play. The
same thing will likely happen for the other
children in the neighbourhood. The effect
is ‘all or nothing’ (Lanza 2012).
The colonisation of playable
spaces and the retreat from
the street
Repeated studies have shown that far
from being the sedentary slaves of modern
technology and indoor entertainments
most children prefer to play outside (Lester
and Maudsley 2007). This space includes
not just adult designed play spaces but
open green spaces, the street, gardens,
the area immediately outside children’s
houses, and shops (Wheway and Millward
1997). Given the opportunity children will
play anywhere and everywhere although
they prefer places that are local.
Despite the recognition that children use a
wide variety of spaces, public playgrounds
still attract a disproportionately large
amount of attention and financial means,
while play opportunities in children’s most
important and most preferred play space,
their own neighbourhood, are neglected
(Armitage 2004).
Playable spaces are being colonised
by adults throughout the developed
economies of the world. The message
justifying this is framed in various ways.
‘Understandings of young children at risk
of crime; and older children as a threat
to the moral order of public space, both
lead to public space being produced as an
adult space where children do not properly
belong’ (Valentine 2004: 102). So whether
children and young people are deemed ‘at
risk’ or are considered ‘a risk’ the outcome
is the same: the seizing of playable spaces
by adults and the retreat of children from
public spaces.
32
The amount of public space and
children’s play areas in Britain is a ninth
of what it was 25 years ago. ‘For every
acre of land occupied by playgrounds in
England there are more than 80 acres
taken up by golf courses’ (Voce 2006).
The dominance of the car is the obvious
reason for children’s retreat from the
street but there is a range of other factors
including:
• Increases in two income families
mean less adult support for children
playing in their local areas
The Children’s Play Council (Play
England’s predecessor) estimated that
there is an average of 2.3 square metres
of public play space for each child under
12. That’s about the size of a large
kitchen table (ibid).
• Increases in after school care
• Greater use of home entertainment
including the Internet
The loss of playable spaces is a problem
not just for urban areas; rural children
too have fewer opportunities to play out.
Isolation means children have fewer
friends available to play with and land
is increasingly privatised and farming
methods mechanised. Ward (1990)
suggests that the loss of hedgerows,
ponds, streams and access to woods
has had as significant an impact on rural
children as it has on wildlife.
• Children being more likely to be taken
(driven) to organised activities. This
both produces an increase in the
level of motorised traffic and leads
to a reduction in the number of local
children and adults present in the
street as pedestrians (Tranter and
Doyle 1996).
Over the past few generations there has
been a dramatic reduction in the freedom
given to children to get about without
adult supervision. A comparative study
spanning 40 years shows that in 1971
86 percent of children were allowed to
travel home from school alone (Shaw et
al 2013). By 1990 this figure had dropped
to 35 percent and by 2010 it was just 25
percent.
In the US the reduction in outdoor
play has been dramatic. A Harris poll
of parents of two to twelve year olds
showed that 92 percent say their children
spend less time playing outside than
they did when they were growing up. 41
percent of parents said their youngsters
did not have a community playground
and nearly a quarter did not live within a
five-minute walk of an outdoor play space
(2009).
On journeys outside of school 62 percent
of children in 2010 were accompanied
by adults, compared with 41 percent
in 1971. These earlier children also
engaged in at least twice as many
unaccompanied weekend journeys
compared with either 1990 or 2010 (ibid).
It is not just parks and playgrounds where
children are an increasingly rare sight.
Many residential streets have become
hostile environments for children and
young people.
Over the past few generations there has been a dramatic
reduction in the freedom given to children to get about
without adult supervision.
33
Stranger danger
Overall there has been a large reduction
in children’s mobility although more
recently there are some signs that this
trend has slowed. Research also shows
that gender is now much less significant
in affecting the amount of independent
movement compared to 1990 (ibid).
Some say ‘you can’t be too careful’, ‘you
can’t trust anybody today’, and ‘it’s best
to be on the safe side’. We imagine the
worst and fuelled by lurid sensationalist
accounts of extremely rare crimes we
come to believe that there are dangerous
adults everywhere. These are messages
that are repeated and reinforced regularly
throughout the media. In particular events
that are dramatic or disturbing are given
far more attention while events that
are routine and mundane but far more
common are ignored.
In their study of 7 to 15 year olds
in England and Germany, Hillman,
Adams and Whitelegg (1990)
compared children’s freedom to travel
independently. In 1971 80 percent of
children were allowed to travel to school
on their own, in 1990 this figure was nine
percent. Similarly there were falls of over
50 percent in the numbers of children
allowed to go places outside of school.
The global reach of international media
means it is now possible to select
and broadcast a continuous stream of
disturbing and dramatic events from
around the world. These highly charged
negative images lead us to believe these
very rare events are normal and routine
and that the risks from them are high.
There is overwhelming evidence
that children have never been more
chaperoned and given less freedom of
movement in their own communities.
It is ironic that while children explore
and navigate shrinking amounts of real
space they can explore and navigate
infinite amounts of virtual space often
with little or no supervision as many
parents struggle to keep pace with new
technology (Byron 2008).
While there clearly are a number of
dangerous adults in society who would
harm children they are a tiny minority.
In the UK in 2012 eleven children
were murdered and 61 were killed on
the roads. There were 247 attempted
abductions by a stranger, three-quarters
34
(186) of which did not result in the child
being taken (Newiss and Traynor 2013).
However, these provide only a partial
account, as accurate total figures in the
UK are difficult to estimate because of
differences in reporting.
taken away can leave all who advocate
for children to play out more freely utterly
defensive and at a loss. We need, as Tim
Gill has suggested, to be able to respond
to the question, ‘How would you feel if it
were your child?’ (2012). Gill suggests
that this powerful emotional response is
an understandable plea for sympathy. But
it is not at all helpful in deciding what it
best for children.
The fear of strangers is corrosive and
plays on the very worst fears of parents
and children. ‘It reinforces the norm of
parenting that equates being a good
parent with being a controlling parent, and
that see the granting of independence
as a sign of indifference if not outright
neglect, even though the benefits of giving
children a degree of freedom to play,
especially outside, are increasingly well
documented’ (Gill 2007: 53).
‘The plea to adopt the point of view of
those who have suffered devastating
loss cannot help but lead to excessively
risk averse responses to tragedy. Such a
plea is quite different from an appeal for
sympathy. It is a request that we adopt
the inevitably revised value system of the
victim. And it is a request that, however
understandable, we need to resist. The
truth is, if we were always required to see
the world through the eyes of the most
unlucky, then we would always choose
zero risk’ (ibid).
Research from Playday (One Poll 2012)
highlighted the fact that over half of all
parents stop their children from playing
out because of fear of strangers. Yet
the sad truth is that the children are
considerably more likely to be abducted or
abused by their family and other relatives
than strangers. ‘Mothers and fathers
regard their children to be most at risk
from strangers in public places, despite
the fact that statistically children are more
at risk in private space from people known
to them’ (Valentine 2004: 99).
The risk averse society and
the climate of fear
As a society we are becoming increasingly
obsessed with risk – both real and
theoretical – to the extent where one
commentator can claim ‘safety has
become the fundamental value of our
times’ (Furedi 2002). We are bombarded
with messages about the dangers of
almost every aspect of life from the
mundane to the exotic and of all these
warnings arguably the most powerful are
Despite all the assurances that the risks
from dangerous strangers are tiny there
is still a nagging doubt – a ‘what if’ feeling
that is difficult to ignore. The statistics
leave us nonplussed but the image of a
child missing or dead fills us with fear and
dread. The awful tragedy of a young life
Children are considerably more likely to be abducted or
abused by their family and other relatives than strangers.
35
the ones concerning children. Children
are portrayed as perpetually ‘at risk’ in
a way that goes far beyond a normal
concern for their safety and wellbeing.
This pervading sense of fear and anxiety
strongly influences our perception of
danger so that how we perceive risks
and the actual risks are two very different
things.
risks, and unlikely remote threats. This
situation is compounded by the vast
weight of often conflicting advice directed
at parents warning them of dangers
lurking in every area of life. When these
voices speculate endlessly on what could
go wrong and remind us of the very
worst that could happen at every step
they do the very opposite of their stated
intention. When dealing with children’s
experiences there is a striking difference
between asking ‘what can go wrong?’
and assuming that things will go wrong
(Furedi 2001). For parents ‘it is difficult
to retain a sense of perspective when
the safety of children has become a
permanent item of news’ (ibid: 10).
How safe does the evidence say children
are in the UK today? On the roads
12,458 children aged 0 – 15 years died or
were seriously injured in 1979; by 2012,
that figure was 2,272 (Department for
Transport 2012a). The child homicide rate
is declining and fewer children are dying
because of assault or suicide in England,
Wales and Scotland (Harker et al 2013).
There is also some decline in physical
and sexual abuse in recent decades in
the UK and the US (ibid). Overall, taking
all causes into account, according to the
Office for National Statistics data, the risk
of a child dying in 2010 was 64 percent
lower than it was in 1980 (2012).
A direct consequence of this increased
climate of fear is the breakdown of
relations between adults and children. A
report by the Scottish Commissioner for
Children and Young People into adults’
attitudes towards contact with children
(2007) found that the main barrier was
fear of accusations of harming children.
This belief was particularly strong for
men, many of whom said they would
think twice about approaching a lost child
to help them.
Of course this dramatic reduction in child
mortality does not mean that serious
harm to children has been eliminated
nor should we be complacent. Terrible,
violent events do occur. One child a
week dies because of maltreatment and
there are still worrying levels of abuse
and neglect (Harker et al 2013). Children
have the right to be protected from all
forms of violence and exploitation.
The decline of community
cohesion
The decline of community cohesion has
been well documented (National Statistics
2003) and although the precise causes
are debated a consequence of this
decline is the breakdown of trust amongst
No, what is being lost is the sense
of scale so that it becomes harder to
differentiate between real, immediate
A direct consequence of this increased climate of fear is the
breakdown of relations between adults and children.
36
members of the community. When
parents do not trust their neighbours
they are likely to restrict their children’s
free access to play out and instead
favour indoor and supervised activities.
Conversely, the more social networks
parents have in their neighbourhood the
more confidence they have in its safety.
Moreover, these social networks are most
likely to be established through their own
children (Weller and Bruegel 2007).
children’s lives means that children’s time
for their own play is reduced; yet it is
this very feature that is significant about
children’s play’ (Lester and Russell 2008:
148).
It has become normal for many parents
and carers to spend large amounts of
time ferrying their children to and from
school, to their children’s friends’ houses,
as well as to parks, after school clubs,
and sports clubs. One survey reported
in the Telegraph newspaper found that
parents typically drive 5000 miles each
year on these accompanying journeys
(Marston 2005).
Institutionalising children’s
play
Widespread fears for children’s safety
have eroded children’s independent
movement so that public spaces have
increasingly become off limits to children
and young people. As play becomes
more centred on the home and therefore
supervised by adults, Valentine and
McKendrick (1997) suggest that children
are being compensated for the decline
in their independent activities by the
substitution of adult controlled institutional
activities (such as music lessons, sports
clubs and homework clubs). ‘This
increasingly structured pattern to some
This pattern is replicated in the US and
much of Europe with extra-curricular
activities being considered more
constructive and safer than outdoor
play by many parents (Childress 2004).
The child psychiatrist Alvin Rosenfeld
observes ‘overscheduling our children is
not only a widespread phenomenon; it’s
how we parent today. Parents feel remiss
that they’re not being good parents if their
kids aren’t in all kinds of activities’ (as
cited in Elkins 2003).
37
Time
A survey for the children’s charity
Barnardo’s revealed that almost half
of UK adults who were asked thought
children were beginning to behave like
animals and becoming feral (ICM 2011).
Similar amounts thought children were
angry, violent and abusive. A quarter
thought children who were disruptive
were beyond help after 10 years of age.
These deeply depressing findings are
supported by regular press reports on the
assault of children’s right to play freely.
Research from the US indicates that
between 1997 and 2003 children had
nine hours less free time per week
and that that diminishing free time is
increasingly spent on structured activities
rather than free play (Hofferth and
Sandberg 2001). Figures from the UK
are unclear but a review of research for
Playday in 2009 (Gleave) indicates that
British children’s play has become more
supervised and associated with learning,
more institutionalised, more likely to
happen indoors, and increasingly tightly
scheduled.
In the UK a former Concord pilot and
his GP wife attempted to force their
local Parish Council to close a recently
developed playground because they did
not like the sound of children playing
(Harding and Stevens 2012). Similar
stories are reported throughout the
developed world. In Japan a family tried
to sue a family centre because they felt
the children there were making too much
noise (Suzuki 2013).
Intolerance
As children and young people disappear
from our streets so their demonization
gathers pace. Although intolerance of
children is not new – Plato (circa 428348BC) complained about the young
people of his day – the extent of fears
today about crime, health and safety, and
unruly children and young people amount
to a near moral panic. It’s not uncommon
to hear demands that children are neither
seen nor heard!
The ‘Mosquito’ is an ultrasonic speaker
that gives out a painful high-pitched
sound that can only be heard by those
under 25 years old. Modelled on devices
to keep away unwanted animal pests, it
has been used to prevent young people
congregating in public places such as
38
outside shops. They have been sold in
Europe, the US and Canada. Despite
being criticised in a joint report by the
UK’s Children’s Commissioners, and the
Council of Europe suggesting it breaches
human rights law, the government has so
far refused to ban them.
In the US, Hart (2002) describes how
public playgrounds are designed for ease
of maintenance and in response to fears
of liability. These relatively sterile places
simply do not offer the diversity and
manipulability to support a wider range of
play behaviours.
The United Nations Committee on the
Rights of the Child (UNCRC) has singled
out the UK for its ‘general climate of
intolerance and negative public attitudes
towards children, especially adolescents’
(UNCRC 2008).
‘One should be able to play everywhere,
easily, loosely, and not forced into a
“playground” or “park”. The failure of an
urban environment can be measured
in direct proportion to the number of
“playgrounds”’ (Ward 1990: 73).
Children and adults have different
conceptions of what constitutes
valuable play space. Lester and Russell
summarising several studies note that
adults desire for safety, order and
visibility strongly contrasts with children’s
desire for disorder, cover and loose
materials (2008). Where adults see
a redundant unsightly piece of waste
ground in need of redevelopment,
children see spaces that offer freedom to
have adventures, to explore, to think, to
make dens and hang out.
Design without children in
mind
Given the opportunity children prefer to
play in a wide variety of settings and in
ways that go far beyond that offered by
most adult designed spaces for children.
Older children often complain that parks
and playgrounds are boring and are
aimed at younger preschool children.
39
These spaces share the qualities of
nearness, wildness, secretiveness and
possibility yet these would appear to be
far from the minds of adult planners.
In the US the situation is arguably even
more severe with some 40,000 schools
no longer providing any playtime for
children despite opposition from bodies
such as the National Association for the
Education of Young Children (Marano
2004) and the American Academy of
Paediatrics.
School playtimes
Despite the wealth of evidence on the
benefits of play, school playtime is under
threat in the UK and other developed
economies. In many cases it is being
reduced or eliminated altogether in
response to pressure to include more
teaching on basic skills. The assumption
is that what happens during playtime
is unimportant and that reallocating
that time to traditional instruction will
improve school performance (Pellegrini
2009). Other reasons given for reducing
playtime include adult concerns of
aggressive behaviour in the playground
and fear of litigation.
‘Recess serves as a necessary break
from the rigors of concentrated, academic
challenges in the classroom. But equally
important is the fact that safe and wellsupervised recess offers cognitive, social,
emotional, and physical benefits that may
not be fully appreciated when a decision
is made to diminish it. Recess is unique
from, and a complement to, physical
education - not a substitute for it. The
American Academy of Pediatrics believes
that recess is a crucial and necessary
component of a child’s development
and, as such, it should not be withheld
for punitive or academic reasons.’ (AAP
2013)
In the UK a study (Blatchford and
Sumpner 1998) found that around half of
all schools – both primary and secondary
– had reduced playtime. A follow up
report in England and Wales in 2006
by the same authors revealed further
reductions and the virtual abolition of
afternoon break at secondary level.
In some states there are attempts to
replace playtime with structured PE
lessons.
In other countries the situation is very
different. In Japan primary schoolaged children have a 10 to 15-minute
break every hour. In Finland, which is
consistently at the top of the international
educational rankings, primary school
children get 75 minutes of playtime a day
(Abrams 2011).
Individual schools vary in the amount of
playtime they allow but some introduce
restrictions including separating younger
and older children, zoning, restricting
more adventurous equipment to specific
occasions, and declaring green areas
out of bounds for some or all of the year
(Newstead 2010).
Despite the wealth of evidence on the benefits of play,
school playtime is under threat in the UK and other
developed economies.
40
Class
a limited fare of heavily prescribed play
behaviours that in no way meet children’s
full range of play needs. Additionally,
access and cost also prevent them
from offering opportunities to many
disadvantaged children.
While there has been a significant
reduction in children’s freedom to play
out those restrictions have not been
uniform on all sections of society.
Several studies (Valentine 2004) suggest
that working class children’s play and
use of space is less supervised than
middle class children who in turn have
more opportunities to join in organised
activities. These organised activities are
planned and supervised by adults and
often have a financial cost. Research
also suggests that children of lone
parents play most frequently beyond the
immediate vicinity of their homes (ibid).
The realities of managing alone mean
these parents and carers often have little
option but to allow children more freedom
than those who have a partner to share
the burden of supervision. Consequently,
while middle class children are the most
likely to feel the educational benefits
of institutional privatised play, it is the
children of lone parents whose play is
more independent and may have richer
more varied experiences.
Arguably the danger in the spread of
play warehouses and similar commercial
playgrounds is that they further reduce
the visibility of children in public spaces
and can reinforce the view that children’s
play should be confined to proprietary
spaces.
Children’s fears
We have looked at the concerns of
parents but what do children say
inhibits their play? Findings from the
UK, Australia and Canada suggest that
children are less concerned with these
‘traditional’ adult fears than they are
with the risks posed by other children
and young people in their environments
(Brockman et al 2011).
Although younger children express fears
about kidnapping by strangers they also
say they are worried about older children
and adults committing crimes. Young
people said that their fears are about
bullying or threats from other young
people and that they feel safer in larger
groups. Conversely, these larger groups
are frequently seen as threatening and
can discourage younger children from
visiting parks more regularly.
Commercialisation
A feature of many towns and cities in
the UK is the growth of commercial
playgrounds. These spaces appeal to
parent’s safety fears but they also offer
an alternative in areas where there are
few outdoor play spaces. These spaces
while claiming to offer excitement offer
Research suggests that children of lone parents play most
frequently beyond the immediate vicinity of their homes.
41
Another, although lesser, barrier to play
reported by researchers was the weather
and in particular rain (Brockman et al 2011,
Henshall and Lacey 2007). In particular wet
weather was seen as a barrier to playing
out by children in rural areas. Snow,
however, was an exciting new opportunity
for children in the UK. Summer was
regarded as a positive time because the
longer daylight hours meant children were
often allowed out later.
Barriers to inclusive provision
While all the barriers to play outlined here
apply to all children, disabled children often
face additional barriers. These may be:
• Environmental – such as lack of access
or inadequate facilities
• Institutional – such as poor policies and
procedures, or the failure to recognise
the importance of choice and self
directed play
• Attitudinal – such as the notion
that all disabled children need
separate provision or specialist help;
stereotyping and making assumptions
about children’s abilities, needs and
preferences; and fear about how to
engage with disabled children.
The Children’s Society calculates that
four in every 10 disabled children in the
UK live in poverty and of those around a
third experience severe poverty (2011).
Accessing play and leisure opportunities is
further hampered by the lack of inclusive
provision and a lack of good information.
The Children’s Society calculates that four in every 10
disabled children in the UK live in poverty and of those
around a third experience severe poverty (2011).
42
Summary of barriers
In this section we have highlighted
some of the most significant barriers to
children’s play. We have shown how
public space has declined and how
adults have colonised many of the
places where children previously played
out. Residential streets have become
increasingly hostile environments for
children’s play and there has been
a dramatic reduction in the amount
of outdoor play in many developed
countries. This has been accompanied
by a sharp reduction in the amount
of freedom for many children and a
corresponding increase in the number
of supervised activities. These activities
are especially taken up by the children of
middle class parents.
Adult designed spaces for children are
often considered boring by older children
and there is a conflict between children’s
desire for adventure and possibility and
adult concerns for safety and order.
The overall effect of these pressures is
to institutionalise children’s play so that it
is reduced to a series of over-supervised
and over-scheduled activities.
In neighbourhoods where there is a lack
of community cohesion parents do not
trust their neighbours and this contributes
to parents restricting their children’s
access to outdoor play.
There are considerably fewer children
walking or cycling to school today and
there is evidence that playtime is being
reduced or eliminated in some schools.
This reduction is matched by some
research that indicates children have
diminishing amounts of free time in which
to play.
As a society we have become
increasingly obsessed with risk. Given the
saturation coverage of violent but very
rare crimes involving children, it is difficult
for parents to assess fairly the risks
facing their children. This is particularly
demonstrated by the perceived growth in
‘stranger danger’.
The enormous growth in traffic has forced
children to retreat from the street to the
extent that unaccompanied children are
looked upon with suspicion. The message
is ‘you don’t belong here’. Intolerance of
children and their play is widespread.
Compared to the threat from traffic,
the threat to children from abduction
The enormous growth in traffic has forced children to
retreat from the street to the extent that unaccompanied
children are looked upon with suspicion.
43
by strangers is remote. Nevertheless, it provides a
powerful disincentive to parents to let their children play
out.
When asked themselves, children reported being
worried about bullying and older children although
younger children expressed fears about kidnapping by
strangers. Children expressed a strong preference to
play out but were often unable to because of traffic,
parental fears, and concerns about bullying.
These barriers can affect all children but disabled
children often face additional barriers including poverty,
isolation and lack of provision.
Solutions
The issues preventing children’s play are complex and
varied and not surprisingly there are no easy quick
fix solutions. The issues range over deeply engrained
cultural values and influences and involve adults from
every area of life.
The irony of modern childhood is that while children’s
right to play has become more widely endorsed, it
has become increasingly difficult for many children
to play unsupervised. Parents who let their children
play out or walk to school unsupervised are criticised
and considered ‘unfit’. In a survey for Playday (ICM
2010) over a third of parents said that they worry their
neighbours will judge them if they let their children play
outside unsupervised.
44
Faced with all these barriers what, as
individual playworkers, can we do?
Playwork Principle 4 tells us that ‘the
play process takes precedence and
playworkers act as advocates for play
when engaging with adult led agendas’
(PPSG 2005). If all children are to enjoy
freely their right to play then public
attitudes towards children must change
and as playworkers we must steel
ourselves to be at the forefront of this
movement. It will certainly not be easy.
There is a section of society that views
children as a nuisance and children’s
play as messy, dirty and noisy, and not
much else. To change even some of
these views into ones that regard children
as equal and valued citizens, and their
play as an essential mechanism for
children’s growth and wellbeing, will take
a prolonged and concerted campaign.
Of course there are dangers in the
modern world – and the media ensures
we hear about every one of them from
every corner of the world day and night.
While we don’t deny these dangers,
neither do we attempt to eliminate them
or grossly overstate their likelihood.
Extreme and rare events do unfortunately
occur but they are no basis for what
children need.
Risk is part of life and efforts to eradicate
uncertainty from our lives are doomed
to failure and lead to ever increasing
amounts of anxiety and stress.
We promote a sensible, balanced
approach to risk that uses our common
sense and calculates whether the
benefits outweigh the risks. Yes,
there are risks in children’s play but
overwhelmingly these are very small
and crucially the risks of not playing are
substantial. This is important – we need
to convince all reasonable people that
the benefits of children playing out with
friends are too important to be denied.
We practice the argument and are
prepared for any criticisms and attitudes
that deny children’s play.
When we speak up for children’s freedom
to play we need to promote children’s
strengths and capabilities. Children are
competent. Yet all too often adults are
distrustful and suspicious of children and
childhood. We need to remind people
of their own experiences of playing – to
remind them of the simple pleasures of
play and the enormous contribution it
makes towards being healthy and happy.
As Gill notes (2007), those people
who have resisted this message of risk
aversion have an explicit philosophy
about the value of risk and autonomy
in children’s lives. For playworkers the
challenge is to ensure that this message
is heard loud and clear. We must be
prepared to combat the fears expressed
by parents and carers as well as
colleagues and local professionals.
In our arguments we need to stress
the view that play is a multi-faceted
mechanism that ‘equips children with the
full range of survival skills that enable
them to cope with the world around them,
as they develop into adults’ (Brown and
Patte 2013: 146). Play is not a trivial or
optional behaviour and the benefits we
have previously highlighted make it clear
that without it children suffer a range of
damaging effects. Play behaviour is vital,
spontaneous, chaotic, and should be
under the child’s control. We resist any
‘Disneyfication’ of play that would see it
sanitised, commoditised and privatised.
There are powerful societal forces
influencing parents and carers with a
message that their children are at risk
in a whole range of everyday situations.
Saturation coverage by the media of
every tragedy involving children can lead
us to assume that these terrible events
are common.
45
Researchers have shown that when we try to estimate
how likely an event is, we simply try to recall when
something similar has happened before. The easier we
can recall such an event the more likely we feel it is to
occur again (for example see Gardner 2008). To combat
these fears we need to know what the real risks are to
children and to arm ourselves with accurate up-to-date
information and statistics.
The good news is that in recent years there have been
signs of a reaction against excessive fear mongering.
In 2012 the Health and Safety Executive published a
high level statement that recognised the importance
of play and opportunities to take risk in play and made
clear that ‘the goal is not to eliminate risk, but to weigh
up the risks and benefits. No child will learn about risk
if they are wrapped in cotton wool’ (HSE 2012). This
is a message echoed by the Royal Society for the
Prevention of Accidents (RoSPA) which suggests that
parents are too risk averse and that the bumps and
scrapes of normal play provide children will valuable lifelong lessons (RoSPA 2007).
The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence in
the UK released injury prevention guidelines that called
for policies that counter ‘excessive risk aversion’ and
promote children’s need ‘to develop skills to assess
and manage risks, according to their age and ability’
(NICE 2010). It is becoming increasingly common
to find media articles railing against the decline of
outdoor and adventurous play and although there are
many who remain resolutely risk averse they are rarely
unchallenged.
Strong local neighbourhoods can mitigate parental
fears about children playing out by providing a sense
of community and security. When you know who your
neighbours are it becomes much easier to let your own
children play out.
Spaces that are good for children are often good for
adults too. We need to reinforce the message that ‘the
interests of children and the interests of the community
at large are not opposed but closely aligned and
mutually dependent’ (Beunderman et al 2007: 106).
Communities can benefit through better social contacts
including diverse groups and different generations.
This has the potential to increase participation and
counter negative stereotypes. We must move away from
strategies that view ‘children as a problem that either
need to be corralled for their own safety, or contained
for other people’s safety’ (Valentine 2004: 103).
46
We need to argue that residential streets
should be reclaimed as play spaces.
Children tell us that they highly value their
streets as play spaces and this message
is being taken up in a number of initiatives.
Home Zones or living streets are designed
to meet the needs of pedestrians, cyclists,
children and residents and to reduce the
dominance of the car. Originating in the
Netherlands in the 1970s, Home Zones
force cars to drive at much slower speeds
by eliminating the division between space
for people and space for cars. They often
include trees, planting and street furniture
to enhance the area.
A comparable scheme, known as
‘DIY Streets’, has been introduced by
the transport charity Sustrans. These
encourage communities to come together
to redesign their streets to make them
places where people are prioritised. The
benefits of these initiatives include lower
traffic speeds, reduced crime, a stronger
sense of community, and crucially the
ability for children to play on the street
where they live.
Yet another approach that requires less
organisation is a project known as Play
Streets. These close the street to general
traffic once a week or month for a few
hours allowing children to play out safely.
Following a model pioneered by the Bristol
Playing Out project they were trialled in
Hackney in 2012 and more recently in
Reading.
A practical first step towards making
communities more play friendly is to hold a
street party. These provide an
excellent focus to bring people together
and build community spirit and trust. Why
not encourage your local neighbourhood
to hold an event to celebrate children’s
play. Every year on the first Wednesday
in August the UK wide Playday campaign
celebrates children’s right to play.
There is plenty of advice on holding street
events at: www.streetparty.org.uk and
http://playingout.net/ and www.playday.org.
uk/playday-events/planning-your-event.aspx
Children tell us that they highly value their streets as play
spaces and this message is being taken up in a number of
initiatives.
47
Play Wales has also produced an
information sheet that provides inspiration
and guidance on making community
events playful; available at: www.
playwales.org.uk/eng/informationsheets
unstructured play will increase learning.
It’s vital that we speak up for children’s
playtime and are equipped with the
evidence to convince the doubters.
Brown and Patte (2013) provide a
summary of the benefits of playtime
which include:
Like almost every other aspect of
modern life play has been substantially
commercialised and there is now
considerable pressure on parents
and children to continuously buy new
activities and products. Commercial
interests sell us the idea that spending
money is the only way to raise our
children and give them what they want.
This simply isn’t true! While commercial
spaces or products may offer new
opportunities they do so at the cost of the
loss of control children have over their
own play (Moss and Petrie 2002). This
is a significant loss as the central point
about play is the control it offers children.
• Cognitive benefits – play provides
children with hand-on learning that
expands their imagination and
creativity and develops their problemsolving abilities. Playtime enables
children to refocus their attention and
be more productive.
• Social and emotional benefits – play
promotes social interaction and
develops interpersonal skills including
cooperation, negotiation and sharing.
Playtime is important for managing
stress and developing coping skills.
If we over-supervise or over-protect we
take away the child’s free choice and
with it the very thing that makes their
behaviour play. In a UNICEF report on
children’s wellbeing in the UK, Sweden
and Spain, almost every one of the
250 eight to 13 year olds interviewed
mentioned ‘time with those they love
(friends, family and even pets); being
outdoors and having fun ... it was people
and not things that made them happy’
(2011).
• Physical benefits – playtime provides
opportunities for children to be
physically active and to develop
muscle strength, endurance and
motor coordination.
Despite stereotypes to the contrary,
school head teachers overwhelmingly
feel that playtime is vitally important for
children’s learning and wellbeing. In
the US a nationwide study found that
more than 80 percent of head teachers
thought playtime had a positive effect
on academic achievement and nearly all
thought it helped social development and
general wellbeing (Robert Wood Johnson
Foundation 2010).
In the UK all schools are now free to
decide on the length of their day. This
includes the option to reduce or even
eliminate playtime in school hours. There
is an erroneous belief that increasing
the amount of study at the expense of
If we over-supervise or over-protect we take away the
child’s free choice and with it the very thing that makes their
behaviour play.
48
In the UK the experience of using Scrapstore
PlayPods® or similar models in schools has changed
attitudes. Projects like the Outdoor Play and Learning
Programme (OPAL) in the South West of England
have influenced some schools to make playtime
longer, uniforms more play friendly, change their
attitudes towards risk, and include play in their School
Development Plans.
We should encourage schools to allow children to
play out in the rain with appropriate clothing. Although
some parents may express reservations a survey by
the Scottish Parent Teacher Council and the Charity
Grounds for Learning found that 97 percent of parents
agreed that if children have appropriate clothing they
should be allowed to play outside in rain or snow at
playtime if they wish (2010).
We have seen the importance of advocating for play
in the face of significant barriers. How, as working
playworkers, can we do this most effectively?
• First we need to be confident in ourselves and in
our message. People are more likely to trust what
we say if they think we appear self-assured and
confident.
• We keep calm and are polite even if others use
emotionally charged arguments against us.
• We are factual and use accurate information to
counter fears and anxieties.
• We also use stories and personal examples to
support our case.
• We ask questions and appeal to people’s higher
values.
• We aim to be brief and timely – our message will
often be strongest when it’s most focused.
Having written materials available can be very
useful and we should know where to find supporting
information on play and play provision in print and
online.
49
on the meaning of an aspect of the
UNCRC that seems to require further
interpretation or emphasis. The aim of
the General Comment is to raise the
importance of an Article and increase
accountability among countries that
have signed up to the Convention. The
text of the general comment can be
found at: www.playwales.org.uk/eng/
generalcomment (UNCRC 2013)
Palmer (2008) suggests good play
settings lie at the heart of the community.
They act as a hub drawing in children
from the entire community. Staff are
known and trusted by children and
parents alike. Play settings should always
be looking to extend their outreach. We
might hold open days, attend community
forums, or involve parents in aspects
of the running of the setting such as
fundraising.
In advocating for play we should not
neglect one of our most powerful tools
– the United Nations Convention on the
Rights of the Child (UNICEF 1991). In
Wales the Welsh Government adopted
the Convention as the basis for policy
making for children and young people
in 2004. These rights, which include
the right to play, the right to be listened
to and participate, and the right to be
protected from abuse and neglect, are
universal, inalienable and indivisible.
These rights apply to all children equally
and cannot be taken away. The right to
play is not some extra extravagance,
something to be granted as a reward, or
appropriated to solve some adult social
problem.
Playworkers are always on the look out to
communicate the benefits of play to local
parents and carers. Playworkers also
take the time to make links with other
professionals in the area particularly
those involved with schools, social
services, health, community groups and
the police.
On 1 February 2013 the United Nations
Committee on the Rights of the Child
adopted a General Comment that
clarifies for governments worldwide the
meaning and importance of Article 31
of the Convention on the Rights of the
Child (UNCRC). A General Comment
is an official statement that elaborates
• Safety – we need to make clear both
the benefits of play and the process
of risk-benefit assessments in play
settings. This is particularly true of
open access provision.
As playworkers we should be particularly
aware of the needs of disabled children
who often face additional barriers to
play. It is vital we demonstrate our
commitment to inclusive provision by
creating a welcoming and supportive
atmosphere where all children are valued
and interaction is encouraged. Research
suggests (GAVO 2008) we also need to
address the concerns of parents around:
50
• Individual needs – we need to work
closely with children, their parents,
schools and support workers to
identify children’s needs.
2. Look to our own driving habits
As drivers, we can drive at safe
speeds in the same way we would
wish others to drive in the residential
streets where our children play.
• Availability – we need to ensure that
accurate up to date information on
existing play opportunities in our area
is readily available.
3. Help children get to know their
neighbourhood
If we are less reliant on travelling
by car ourselves in our local
communities, children will get to
know their local streets. Walking to
and from local facilities such as the
shops, school and the park can help
us identify solutions together with our
children to keep themselves safe.
• Accessibility – we need to ensure
our setting is accessible and that
any concerns by parents over its
suitability are fully answered. Access
includes every aspect of our provision,
including our equipment, fixtures and
play opportunities. It also includes our
attitudes and the courtesy and respect
we show to others.
4. Be community friendly
We can get to know local people,
neighbours and other families, and
agree with each other to keep an eye
out for children. This fosters a sense
of a safe community, allowing more
children to play out more, and to be
safer doing so.
We will examine the issues around
inclusive playwork practice in more detail
later in this qualification.
5. Trust children
We can make agreements with
children on where and how long
they go out to play. If they know their
local area, their address and phone
number, and whom they can call on,
and tell the time, it helps to make
those arrangements.
For children isolated from their local
communities, and parents anxious about
the alleged and potential dangers in
their communities, playing out can seem
daunting. How can we help children
to play out confidently? A Play Wales
information sheet recommends these
straightforward steps (2012).
6. Be realistic
Keeping our worries in perspective
and knowing neighbours and local
residents on whom you can call if
you have any concerns will help. The
benefits of playing out far outweigh
the risks.
1. Prepare children to be road safe
We can prepare children from an early
age by telling them and showing them
ways to keep themselves safe on and
around roads.
For children isolated from their local communities, and
parents anxious about the alleged and potential dangers in
their communities, playing out can seem daunting.
51
7. Make a change
We can join with others locally
to campaign for changes to our
neighbourhood that may make our
local areas places where children can
play out confidently. We can promote
the importance of playing out to other
people within our neighbourhoods by
word of mouth or holding community
events and letting others know about
them.
Notes
Play affects every area of life and
part of our role is to encourage more
collaborative practice and a better
understanding of the importance and
nature of play in other adults. The more
voices that campaign for play the louder
they will be and the more likely they will
be heeded.
The answer is not to be found in
segregating children into special
places called playgrounds (Hart 2002)
or corralling them in activity clubs
or removing them to a virtual world
controlled from their bedrooms. All
children have the right to be part of
their communities and to play in their
communities. To deny this right is to harm
their very wellbeing and development,
and threaten the broad adaptive
behaviours that promote children’s
survival. If children’s play is to flourish
then attitudes must change and as
campaigners for children’s play we must
meet this challenge head on.
52
Learners into
practice
Notes
‘We have created a world for our children
in which safety is promoted through fear’.
Do you agree with this statement? If so,
why do you think it has come about?
What would you say to a head teacher
who, having got rid of children’s playtime
at their school, tells you, ‘We are intent
on improving academic performance.
You don’t do that by having kids hanging
on the monkey bars?’ (These words are
attributed to Benjamin O. Canada, a
superintendent of schools in Atlanta, US).
The writer and play campaigner Tim Gill
warns of a vicious circle where particular
adults, alleging children to be perpetually
vulnerable, excessively intervene in
children’s lives (2007). This leads to
the loss of experiential opportunities for
children, which in turn leaves them more
vulnerable and so provides the rationale
for further intervention and greater
restraints. How can we prevent this
negative feedback loop?
If you are able to, visit the neighbourhood
where you grew up. How has the
environment changed? How have the
play opportunities available to children
changed? Are there more or fewer
children visible on the streets and in any
green spaces? Are any changes typical
of wider society or specific to that area?
Why is it, as the well-known children’s
rights campaigner Roger Hart has
pointed out, that when asked to recall
their favourite place to play, most adults
don’t describe playgrounds but rather
places forgotten by planners? Does this
assertion still hold true today?
53
?
?
??
?
Play needs and
play preferences
Summary
This section revisits
the defintion of play
needs and play
preferences and
explores the influence
of gender on play
preferences.
The terms play needs and play preferences
were explored in the Playwork: Principles
into Practice (P3) level 3 Award – it is
important that playworkers understand
them otherwise we will find ourselves more
responsive to children’s preferences than
their needs.
In a play environment where the playworkers have
worked diligently and sensitively to provide rich and
diverse play opportunities that take into account the
ideal ‘growing conditions’ for children to reach their full
potential, children’s play needs and preferences often
blur into one. If however we are only providing what
children ask for – which will have been influenced by a
number of factors – we have failed them.
54
Let’s revisit these terms to clarify the
differences.
Such preferences will be influenced and
limited by:
Playwork Principle 1 states that all
children need to play and that play is
a biological, psychological and social
necessity.
• their previous experience (they can
only ask for what they already know)
Play needs
• what their peers are doing and saying
If play is a biological necessity, children
must have the space and opportunities to
run, climb, swing, skip, hop, throw, chase,
spin, dance, jump – to use their bodies
in a wide range of ways when they are
playing.
• cultural ‘messages’ from their family
and communities that say what is and
isn’t acceptable
• what they think is allowed
• current fashions, trends and
characters advertised through a range
of media outlets.
If play is a psychological necessity,
children must be able to express their
feelings, experience a wide range of
emotions and experiment with the effects
and consequences of different feelings
whilst they are playing.
Catering primarily for children’s play
preferences will not meet their need to
play as described in Playwork Principle 1.
Gender
If play is a social necessity, children
must have opportunities to make friends,
communicate in a variety of ways,
negotiate, test boundaries and values,
make rules, try out beliefs – all in the
course of their playing.
One of the most interesting
manifestations of children’s play
preferences however is that influenced
by gender. We have all been socialised
to think that men and women, girls and
boys are different in various ways. History
has demonstrated this in the separated
gender roles; we are bombarded with
messages through books, films, cartoons
and advertising from birth onwards that
tell us males and females do not think,
feel, look and behave in the same ways
as each other. They are equal – in most
westernised cultures – but different.
As playworkers, we have to do all we
can to create rich play environments that
provide all of these opportunities.
Play preferences
Play preferences however, describe what
individual children and young people are
interested in and choose to play.
One of the most interesting manifestations of children’s play
preferences however is that influenced by gender.
55
In recent decades there has been an
abundance of research that explores
gender differences. With developments in
neuroscience and therefore research into
possible differences between female and
male brains, many books (for example
Elliott 2010 and Hines 2004) have been
published giving evidence both for and
against the existence of possible hardwired and/or hormonal differences.
scientific speculations being made that
ultimately ‘reinforce and legitimate the
gender stereotypes that interact with
our minds, helping to create the very
gender inequalities that the neuroscientific claims seek to explain’ (Fine
2010). It’s generally accepted that gender
differences are not simply caused by
nature or nurture alone rather they
influence one another.
Others such as Kane (2013), ShibleyHyde (2005) and Thorne (1993) argue
that there are far more differences within
genders than between them and more
recently scientists are recognising that
the binary concept of gender (there
are only two genders) is too simple.
The debate will continue for as Lippa
says, ‘The study of sex differences is
contentious and controversial. Some
scholars exaggerate sex differences,
others minimize them. The truth probably
lies somewhere in between’ (2005: 44).
Boys and girls’ play
Cross-cultural research consistently
shows that from a young age there are
some marked differences in the ways
girls and boys play. Boys are more likely
to play rough and tumble and take up
physical space and show a preference
for moving objects like balls and trucks
while girls show a preference for playing
with dolls and spending time chatting
and drawing and creating small spaces
to inhabit. We could all easily argue
why these differences exist but the fact
still remains that these are often their
preferences and that children themselves
– regardless of pressure or intervention
from adults to be ‘non-sexist’ – often
police their own and each other’s
behaviour.
It will however be some time before
a ‘conclusion’ is reached; it is likely
that biological differences that do
exist between genders – in brain or
body – will not account for the populist
differences we have come to believe.
We should all think critically about
56
Across societies, the majority of children
between the ages of approximately
four and 10 show a strong preference
to play with their own gender and often
take delight in highlighting gender
differences and declaring the superiority
of their own. A number of sociologists
and psychologists, most notably Eleanor
Maccoby (2008), notes that the sex
segregation that children themselves
seem to insist on, leads to the
development of distinctively different boy
cultures and girl cultures.
the assumption that what has worked for
them personally (in their own childhoods
or previous practice) will be suitable for
the children they work with.
Gender neutral
The playworkers believe that
fundamentally there is no difference
between boys and girls playing, apart
from what has been socially constructed
through their prior experiences. The
playworkers create and resource an
environment that is non-gendered
and believe and expect that given the
opportunity, both girls and boys will be
happy to have a go at anything and
should be ‘left to it’.
As playworkers how should we respond
to children’s desire to play separately?
It’s important we recognise that every
one of us is a product of our own familial
and societal upbringing. We have inbuilt
biases and prejudices that affect the
way we practice and what we offer.
This can lead us unwittingly to create
and resource gender specific spaces.
We must be aware that our own gender
impacts on the way we practice. Deep
reflective practice can unearth and help
us identify and respond to biases so that
we are able to modify the environment,
resources and activities to counteract the
effects of gender.
Gender controlled
The playworkers decide that boys and
girls are reluctant to take part in play that
is considered to be the other gender’s
forte and therefore attempt to ensure
that stereotypical play will not happen.
The playworkers probably ban weapons
and encourage girls to play football and
rough and tumble and encourage boys
to take part in creative activities and
dressing up. The playworkers intervene
in conversations where girls or boys –
usually boys – are putting each other
down on account of gender.
Kilvington and Wood (2011) describe
several different types of ‘gendered
practice’ and these are summarised
below.
Gender stereotyped
The playworkers decide that ‘girls will be
girls’ and ‘boys will be boys’ therefore
cater for both by providing ‘girly’ and
‘macho’ play opportunities. The male
playworker will be outside facilitating
physical activities and sports and the
female playworker inside facilitating
creative activities and cooking.
Gender ignorant
The playworkers do not give any
consideration to gender therefore the play
environment is based on their personality
and experiences. The playworkers make
We have inbuilt biases and prejudices that affect the way
we practice and what we offer.
57
Gender similar
The playworkers decide to create and
resource an environment that will focus
on the similarities of boys and girls
play. The playworkers may deliberately
encourage games like rounders rather
than football on the grounds that both
genders will participate. The playworkers
may ‘go large’ with craft projects like
constructing a life-size crocodile on the
grounds that both genders will enjoy and
access this.
Gender appreciative
The playworkers recognise that there
are differences in boys and girls play.
The playworkers create a genderneutral environment – let the children
do what they choose – but sometimes
encouraging specific events or providing
resources that will mostly appeal to one
gender, for instance a rap workshop,
a dance workshop, rubber sumowrestling suits or bead-making kits. The
playworkers do this because of their
understanding of boys and girls cultures.
black net or pink tools, experimentation
with lighting and music, or male
playworkers riding a pink bike.
Learners into
practice
Using Kilvington and Wood’s model
above, which of these categories do you
think apply to you and/or your setting and
why? (There may be more than one)
Which of these do you think is most
appropriate and why?
What are the benefits of discussing and
reflecting on gender in our playwork
teams?
Notes
Gender specific
The playworkers very much recognise
the differences and regularly provide
for this by having particular sessions or
resources that will mostly appeal to and
satisfy one gender. This is done without
reinforcing stereotypes and children are
encouraged to ‘break the mould’ and be
themselves if they wish. The playworkers
also behave in ways that might be
unexpected for their gender.
They encourage their own professional
development by branching out and
developing new skills that might be
more typical of the other gender, for
example male playworkers cooking and
female playworkers structure building.
The playworkers look for innovative
and creative ways to support and spark
children to explore gender identity and
new possibilities, without directly leading
anything. Examples might include piles of
58
Develop
playwork
practice
Unit 2
Playwork: Principles
into Practice
Level 3 (P3)
?
?
??
?
Summary
Developing
and sustaining
relationships
with children
This section explores
the unique relationship
between the playworker
and the child.
The relationship between the playworker
and the child is a special one, arguably
unique. It is a relationship that is focused
on the needs of the playing child through
supporting and facilitating the play process.
As playworkers our agenda is the child’s
agenda and this approach marks playwork
out from most other adult involvement in
children’s lives (Brown and Patte 2013).
As Playwork Principle 4 makes clear our
priorities begin with play and we must
resist the temptation to dilute it with other
adult agendas. This is our attitude and from
this attitude behaviour that truly supports
children’s play may follow.
59
endeavour to develop knowledge of
all the children who attend our setting
and, in particular, what motivates or
inhibits their play (ibid). Moreover, as a
playworker in charge we should ensure
this knowledge is shared with our staff
through reflection so that everyone
is aware of what stimulates or deters
different types of play in individual
children. This knowledge is especially
important for disabled children who face
many additional barriers to play and
deserve our active support.
Unlike most other environments where
children and adults come together,
playworkers actively concede power and
control to children in the play environment
(Hughes 1996). As playworkers we are
resources for children and not authorities
over them. The relationship we have
with children is honest, supportive
and personal rather than distant and
business-like. This means we take
the time to get to know each child and
develop a rapport, but on their terms.
Any effective relationship must be based
on openness, trust and respect and
anyone who works with children should
have a deep-seated empathy and liking
for children. As playworkers we are
interested in and care about children and
this sincere concern and respect should
be apparent to children and adults alike.
However, this care is not smothering or
stifling in any way. As Hughes suggests,
‘the playworker’s primary motive is “Can I
do anything to help?” rather than “This is
what should be done”’ (1996: 58).
A simple yet significant way we
demonstrate how we value children
is to remember and use children’s
preferred names for themselves. Names
are important and are inextricably
linked with our identity and sense of
self. Using children’s preferred name
(whether a given name or a nickname)
is an essential first step in any positive
relationship. This is an area that should
be handled with care, as names are
a child’s most personal possession.
We should always check first and not
assume that it is okay to call a child by a
particular name. Similarly, it is important
that we use our own given name or
the name used for informal situations.
Playworkers are not authority figures and
removing any title such as Mr, Miss or Ms
indicates that we are not about directing
or controlling children’s behaviour.
Valuing children
When we value children’s play we
value children. As playworkers we
are interested in children and what’s
important to them. This means we
need to keep up to date with children’s
culture and the influences and trends
that affect their lives. This sends a
powerful message to children that we are
interested in their lives and care about
what happens to them. It suggests that
we value them and consider what they
say and do important. Such a relationship
is essential for children to feel safe and
secure and so engage in the fullest
range of play behaviours available. This
relationship is a personal one and we
Being non-judgemental and
negative capability
At the core of the playwork approach
to relationships is a non-judgemental
attitude and approach. Playworkers
suspend their prejudices and leave their
preconceptions behind when they enter
the play space.
60
Hang-ups and assumptions are abandoned
and we resist the temptation to pass
moral judgement on children. This is no
easy task however, as there are powerful
societal norms and pressures that lead us
to prejudge children and their behaviour.
Consider the following situations:
• Two unfamiliar thirteen-year-old boys
enter the playground, hoodies raised.
One of them is smoking and the other
grunts quietly at you as you say hello.
• In a local network meeting a social
worker says she would like to refer
a child with multiple complex needs
including limited movement and speech
to your playscheme. She says the child
will require one-to-one support.
• A large twelve-year-old girl walks on to
the playground holding a football in one
hand and her much younger brother in
the other hand.
In each of these situations we may form
several assumptions about the children.
We may presuppose their attitudes,
capabilities and intentions without question,
while in reality many of these beliefs will be
false.
Why is a non-judgemental approach so
crucial for playworkers? The playspace
is an environment where children can try
out new behaviours, and can explore and
create without excessive fear of failure. It is
an area where they can develop a range of
flexible responses to whatever challenges
they may face both emotional and physical.
Children’s play experiences should be
first-hand and it is important that we do not
shortcut the process through unnecessary
intervention or by holding judgemental
preconceptions about children and their
behaviour.
Preconceptions can damage our thinking
in several ways. When we are faced with
a decision or problem, preconceptions
limit the range of possible interpretations
or solutions that we consider (Gilovich
1991). Preconceptions act as a short
cut that limits the possibilities and can
harm our relationships. As an example
let’s look at the first situation described
above. If we are influenced by popular
negative portrayals of hoody wearing
young people then our relationship with
them from the outset will be swayed
by that preconception. If we assume
that they’re ‘trouble’ then our thinking
is immediately limited to solving that
‘problem’ even though in reality it might not
exist! Our preconceptions have limited the
possibilities and damaged any relationship
before it has even begun.
Preconceptions also influence how
closely we think about any claims or
opinions (ibid). If the opinion matches our
preconceptions we tend not to look at
it too closely but if it disagrees with our
preconceptions then we examine it intently
looking for faults or reasons to reject it.
To return to our example, if a colleague or
parent makes a disparaging remark about
young people and anti-social behaviour
we’re likely to accept it if it matches our
preconceptions. Conversely, if the young
people behave in ways that contradict
our views then we are likely to be more
sceptical of their behaviour.
This non-judgemental attitude is allied
to an approach that Fisher (2008) has
termed ‘negative capability’. Brown and
Webb (2005) suggest that this attitude is
significant enough to be thought of as a
guiding principle of playwork. But what
exactly is ‘negative capability’? The term
was originally coined by the poet Keats
(1795-1821) and refers to a willingness
61
of playworkers approaching children.
The input should come from the child
and if they want to talk that’s okay and
if they don’t that’s okay too. We need to
ensure that we do not allow a culture of
dependency to develop in children (ibid).
This means we must never forget that
play should be a process motivated from
within the child and under their control,
not ours.
to embrace ambiguity and uncertainty
and not to try and reconcile contradictory
ideas. Keats (1817) suggests that this
capacity to live with uncertainty is a
characteristic of creative thinking.
How can this negative capability help
us in our relationships? By holding on
to doubt and uncertainty we remain
open to many possibilities and crucially
we prevent our own preconceptions
and prejudices from solidifying. With
judgement suspended we are free to
follow the child and take their lead rather
than implement our own. Of course,
this is no easy thing to do – being
uncertain, actively challenging our biases
and preconceived ideas, and adopting
the child’s agenda are challenging
attitudes to adopt. It cannot be faked; a
judgemental approach will leak out and
be detected at some level by children.
This approach does not mean we
never get involved or initiate events
and in particular we must be adept at
recognising when a caring response
is required and when a particular child
needs our attention. Children have a
right to protection from serious physical
and emotional harm and should expect
caring and committed playworkers to be
there for them. Leaving aside any clearcut situations where children need our
immediate help and protection, there are
many more where we need to use our
judgement whether to get involved. This
is a delicate area where knowledge of
particular children and the local context
will be enormously helpful. Observing
children often raises questions for us to
reflect on. Does that child want to be left
alone? Is she happy playing by herself?
Is that a squabble, which I should leave
well alone, or something more serious?
Am I genuinely helping children or am
I creating a culture of dependency to
satisfy my own needs?
Being reactive
Playwork Principle 6 states that ‘the
playworker’s response to children and
young people playing is based on a
sound up to date knowledge of the play
process, and reflective practice’ (PPSG
2005). The word ‘response’ here is
significant as it suggests that the initiative
in any relationship between playworkers
and the children they serve belongs with
the child. Or, as Hughes (1996) suggests,
there should be a high ratio of children
approaching playworkers but a low ratio
Children have a right to protection from serious physical
and emotional harm and should expect caring and
committed playworkers to be there for them.
62
Often children will make it quite clear
when they want our involvement – Can
you help? Where can I…? Can I tell you
something? On occasions children will
choose to play with us and we should
be vigilant for play cues. We should
remember that some cues may not
be positive prompts and might instead
consist of strong emotions or anxieties
that could be misinterpreted as attention
seeking behaviour (Sturrock and Else
1998). It is important that we have a
range of responses to play cues that
complete the return and extend the play.
play according to their own agenda and
form caring and consistent relationships.
A key function of play is that it allows
children the opportunity to try out,
experiment with, and refine novel
behaviours in response to different
challenges. As playworkers we can
support this behaviour by adopting a ‘can
do’, and a ‘let’s give it a go’ attitude. For
this to happen we need an open mind,
a sense that it’s okay to experiment,
and a real commitment to growing the
possibilities available to children. The
play space we create should be one
where children feel accepted and not
criticised; where their horizons are
expanded and not stifled; and where they
develop self-esteem and confidence, not
anxiety and insecurity.
Not giving up – give it a go!
A good play setting exists for all children
no matter what their background or
ability. This includes the most needy and
deprived who have often been excluded
from other provision. These children need
opportunities to play as much if not more
than anyone yet they are often ignored or
pushed to the fringes of society.
Welcoming children
One particular area in developing
relationships with children is how we
welcome children to the play setting.
Although the exact procedure will depend
on the type of setting, we are sensitive
to the child’s demeanour and are mindful
that the child will be unsure and perhaps
nervous in a strange and unfamiliar
place. Welcomes are best left simple and
low key. We should avoid overloading
children with information about the setting
although a friendly introduction about who
we are and what they can do is helpful.
Good play provision is inclusive in the
fullest sense. One aspect of this is how
we engage with the most disruptive,
challenging children. If we exclude or
ignore these children then that failure
to engage will leave them (even more)
isolated and resentful and a possible
outcome is that the play setting may be
vandalised or even destroyed.
It is essential we form positive
relationships with these children. Of
course building relationships may take
time. Children may test us to see if we
still care for them even when they show
their most challenging behaviour, but
we do not hold grudges and are quick to
forgive and slow to exclude. Playworkers
don’t give up on children, rather we
provide the time and space for children to
For many children the type of relationship
playworkers foster will be new and
strange, as might the sense of permission
and freedom that the play environment
encourages. New children may be
worried about making friends or fitting in
and casually introducing them to other
children and supporting them can help
encourage the play process.
63
A child may:
Sometimes we may have some prior
information about a new child’s play
preferences, and although initially this
can help, there is no substitute for
children engaging first hand with other
children in the play process and for us
as playworkers to observe and learn
from that behaviour.
• Skip through the door
• Frown and turn away when you say
hello
• Avoid eye contact
• Poke their tongue out at you while
smiling (or scowling)
Recognising and
responding to feelings
• Run up to you and give you a hug
As we have previously seen in these
materials, a key function of play is
to act as a kind of mediator for the
emotions (Sutton-Smith 2003). A rich
play space allows children the freedom
to exercise and control their emotions
through a range of different forms of
play.
• Sing to himself/herself.
Each of these situations reveal signs
of emotions that can tell us something
about what the child is feeling. However,
they only tell us part of the situation and
to get a proper understanding of what
the child is feeling we need to consider
other sources of information such as their
personality, recent events and the context
of the behaviour.
Likewise as playworkers it’s
important that we acknowledge and
accommodate the range of feelings
and moods that individual children may
bring into the setting. These may be
positive emotions such as happiness,
friendship and trust, or negative
emotions such as sadness, anger and
fear. Effective playworkers create an
ambience of welcome, acceptance,
freedom and playfulness. However, not
every child will arrive feeling buoyant
and ready to play every day as play
allows children opportunities to ‘play
through’ and overcome stress and
painful feelings – something Freud
(1974) calls reconciliation.
Playworkers are empathetic and
observant for the signs that may reveal
something about children’s feelings.
Consider the following situations.
64
Another advantage for playworkers
using this technique is that control of
any conversation remains firmly with
the child. By concentrating on checking
understanding there is less chance of
the conversation being taken over by
the adult. Of course like all techniques
it is possible to overuse ‘reflecting back’
and it is important that our conversations
aren’t forced or stilted. We will look at
this technique in more detail when we
consider the topic of listening later in these
materials.
It is important to acknowledge and
recognise children’s feelings and not to
deny or denigrate them in any way. Petrie
(1997) gives the following example.
A young child comes to you crying with
a cut knee. Consider the following two
responses.
1. ‘Aw, it doesn’t hurt that much.’
2. ‘Oh, you’ve cut your knee and it hurts.’
The first response essentially denies the
child’s feelings. The most likely outcome
is that they will continue crying since they
have been denied attention.
Being playful
Should playworkers be playful? Certainly,
as playworkers we need to be sensitive to
children’s play cues and when we should
and should not be involved in their play.
Adopting a playful style is often essential
to extending children’s play. Let’s take an
obvious example. ‘I’m a hungry dinosaur
and I’m going to eat you!’ shouts a child,
as she lumbers towards you, fingers
spread out like talons, teeth bared. This
is clearly a cue that requires a playful
response, and the more playful our
response the more likely we are to extend
the play.
The second response reflects back what
has happened and lets the child know that
you understand and accept them.
This second response introduces an
important concept in communication and
establishing relationships with children
and adults. ‘Reflecting back’ is a technique
where you repeat back to the speaker
the gist of what they have said. The reply
is not an exact response or repetition sometimes it doesn’t even have to be a
complete sentence - just so long as the
response makes it clear that you have
understood what was said. For example:
A playful response is also important when
we need to hold or contain the play. As
part of the play cycle, ‘containment’ is a
responsive function that maintains and
preserves the ‘play frame’ of the child
Child: ‘I’ve got a new puppy and she’s
really cute.’
Playworker: ‘You got a new puppy?’
A playful response is also important when we need to hold
or contain the play.
65
that has been interrupted or disrupted in
some way (Sturrock and Else 1998). In a
busy play setting children can sometimes
extend their frame to include the whole
environment bringing them into conflict
with other children. Playworkers need to
bring the play back to a safe level (ibid).
This needs to be done in a sensitive
and playful way and Sturrock and Else
suggest rituals and rites can be an
effective mechanism in ‘containing’ play
(ibid).
a warning. We must always remember
that our role is a facilitative one – a
helping, supportive role and not a
leading or directive role. As adults it is
all too easy to take over and adulterate
a child’s formative experiences and
understandings. This is particularly
acute with younger children or when
children need our physical support to
play because of an impairment. In these
cases we may have to take a more hands
on approach but the principle of our
facilitative role remains the same. ‘If the
playworker does the thinking, then they
as children do not have to’ (Hughes 2012:
217). If we are in control, as Hughes
notes, we may start to feel needed
and valued so a cycle of dependency
becomes established between the
playworker and child (ibid).
As well as our own playful states,
Newstead (2004) reminds us that we
must be sensitive to children’s playful
states. Children can and do become
totally absorbed in their play. In this
state, which Csikszentmihalyi (1975)
terms ‘flow’, children are totally immersed
in their play and may be oblivious to
anything else including the passing
of time. While we need to protect
these states as far as possible, even
playworkers need to go home at some
point! Adopting a sensitive and playful
manner and giving fair warning can
lessen the impact of any unavoidable
adulteration come closing time.
In a quality playspace children should
feel like they own the place. This means
they are not continually asking consent
for things such as asking for materials,
neither are they being directed or taught.
Instead children are in charge and feel
in control even when things don’t go
as planned. ‘Even if they appear to be
struggling it is their struggle. If things go
wrong it is because the child chose to do
it that way. Children are very resilient to
failure, so long as it is a failure that they
precipitated. For example, children learn
to walk even though they fall over a lot at
first. The damage comes when adults set
tasks, and the child fails’ (Brown 2007: 37).
Avoiding dependency
Many children particularly when other
playmates are not available will invite
us into their play. While this can be
enormously enjoyable it should carry
Many children particularly when other playmates are not
available will invite us into their play.
66
Role models?
As Hughes has described (2012), historically playworkers
saw their function as providing typical examples of socially
responsible behaviour – a good role model. Many were
(and some still are) under the misapprehension that their
role was about creating good citizens and preventing crime.
While these traits may be desirable for many people, they
are not what playwork is about.
Playworkers are not role models for children. We don’t wish
children to be like us, we want them to be themselves. As
well as being undesirable, being a role model would be
impossible given the range and diversity of the children
who attend the play space each with different backgrounds,
opportunities and aspirations. Of course, what we do
as playworkers influences others – how could it not in a
relationship of mutual trust? The respect and care that
we show others will tend to stimulate similar behaviour in
others.
However, our primary role as playworkers is about creating
rich and stimulating play spaces where children can play
freely (Playwork Principle 5). And in their play, children
follow their own instincts, ideas and interests, in their own
way for their own reasons (Playwork Principle 2). In no
way does this suggest children should be emulating the
playworker!
Questions and confidentiality
We are all are born curious and children at a play setting
are no different. Children can be persistent with their
questioning especially when things do not match their
current understanding of the world (Petrie 1997). Children
will ask questions about anything and everything and as
playworkers we should try to answer honestly and simply
according to the understanding of the child. Sometimes
children will ask questions that startle and surprise us.
This can often be because we are not aware of the child’s
background knowledge or the context of the question.
67
carefully and give feedback if appropriate,
being sensitive to children’s developing
understanding. An important area in our
relationship with children is what happens
when there is a disclosure of abuse.
Everyone, both staff and children, must
know that disclosures cannot be kept
secret and that the agreed safeguarding
policy must be followed. We will examine
the role of the playworker in child
protection as well as the wider context of
safeguarding later in these materials.
Consider the following story.
An inner city child on a trip to the beach
asks a playworker about the unusual
bands of coloured rocks in the cliffs
behind them. The playworker tries to
explain but the child seems unsatisfied.
‘But why are they those colours?’ Again
the playworker tries to explain but this
time the child interrupts, ‘But who built
them then?’ The playworker smiles and
explains but this time the child nods and
walks away satisfied. Later that day when
reflecting about the day, the playworker
realises that almost everything within a
half mile radius of that child’s home is
concrete, brick and tarmac. Even the few
existing trees have been planted by the
council.
Fairness, trust and keeping
our word
Any adult who works with children will
soon notice their acute sense of fairness.
Although the details of how it develops
are not well understood, children often
work out issues around justice and
fairness through their play. Taking
turns, making and breaking friends, and
sharing are all important experiences
that children need to go through in their
play behaviour. It is vital that children
experience the rules and protocols of
social behaviours at first hand. While
children are still developing their notions
around fairness they expect playworkers
to be fair, impartial and just.
Children, and young children in particular,
are often very interested in playworkers
and may ask a whole range of questions
about our lives – ‘Are you married?’ ‘Do
you have children?’ ‘Where do you live?’
On the positive side, sharing something
about ourselves and our experiences can
help build relationships and friendships.
Being open and honest can break
down barriers and promote trust and
understanding. On the other hand, we
should never burden a child with our
own concerns or worries, and we should
always be on our guard against the adult
temptation to dominate conversations
with children. While we should always try
and be open and share something of our
lives we may want to sensitively deflect
the most personal questions and avoid
more serious admissions altogether.
There is no place for favouritism in
playwork and although inevitably some
children will form closer relationships with
us than others, all children must know
that we care about their needs and that
we are available for them. In practice,
this means that over time, we should
ensure that our energies and attention
are spread across all the children who
attend the play setting, although in
the short-term individual children may
If the relationship is open and trusting
children will naturally talk to and confide
in us. This may be personal information
or simply requests for help and advice but
we should always be prepared to listen
68
Triggers and hang-ups
take up varying degrees of our care
and time according to their immediate
play needs. In some settings there may
be playworkers assigned to work with
individual children who need additional
support. While children should be able to
choose their carer, all playworkers should
be available and open to developing
relationships with all children.
As playworkers we are subject to
pressures beyond the gaze of children
who attend the setting. There may be
staffing problems, resource issues,
and funding may be insufficient or
facing imminent cuts. These are not
the children’s concerns and we should
behave ‘in a confident, relaxed and happy
manner, irrespective of the satisfaction
with the environment’s level of resourcing
and support’ (Hughes 1996: 58).
Allied to the importance of being fair is
the need for us to keep our word. This
may sound like a small or trivial matter
but keeping our word with children is
essential for building trust. Unless we are
trustworthy any agreements we have with
children are worthless and they won’t
know what to expect from us. Often we
work with children who have been badly
let down, or who are frustrated, or angry
from continual disappointments. It’s vital
that they know we are as good as our
word and that we will do our very best for
them. Keeping our word is important and
we should not make idle promises.
As well as work based anxieties we may
be under personal pressures. These
too have no place in the playworker
child relationship. Playworkers need to
be there for the child and not for their
own benefit. ‘It is often the case that
those with whom we work are socially
and economically disadvantaged or
emotionally vulnerable in some way.
Therefore, it is absolutely essential that
the adult brings no “baggage” to the
relationship’ (Brown and Webb 2005:
151). This is not easy to maintain but it is
important through reflective practice that
we can identify our thoughts and feelings
and recognise their impact.
Very occasionally, it may be impossible
to keep our word. Perhaps the bus has
broken down or maybe someone else
has let us down and a planned event has
to be cancelled. In this situation children
may still be disappointed but if we are
known as someone who is honest, who
does their best, and who tries to keep
their word, they will be much less likely to
feel angry, frustrated or betrayed.
In our relationships with children it is
important to recognise our ‘triggers’ or
those situations, behaviours, or people
that stir up strong feelings in us. We have
looked at triggers in the previous course
(the P3 level 3 Award) but it is worth
restating here.
As playworkers we are subject to pressures beyond the
gaze of children who attend the setting.
69
Knowing our triggers is essential to
developing and maintaining positive
relationships with children and adults.
Through understanding and reflective
practice we can recognise different
perspectives, try to see the world
through children’s eyes, realise that we
are not necessarily right, improve our
interventions, and better understand
others.
inseparable’ (Hughes 2012). All children
need to play and our role as playworkers
is to support all children in the play
space. While this commitment is clearly
expressed in the Playwork Principles,
in practice, it is all too easy to maintain
control and power over others. Some
methods are obvious: criticising, blaming,
demeaning, being superior, and being
accusative. While any good playworker
would avoid all of these behaviours
some others are less obvious but equally
damaging: passive aggressive behaviour
such as resentment, sullenness,
stubbornness, and hostile jokes.
Children and young people too have
their triggers and we need to be
aware of them. Experience and good
communication between staff can help
us prepare and respond or avoid these
triggers when appropriate. Information
from the children themselves and their
parents or carers can also help us
understand and build a more complete
picture of the child and their needs and
preferences.
Another area where messages of
control can be hidden is in the use of
stereotypes. Stereotyping is when we do
not see the individual child but instead
see them as members of a group and
assign them characteristics we believe
are true of all members of that group.
These can include supposedly good
points as well as bad ones. Petrie (1997)
gives the following examples:
Equal opportunities and
relationships
• ‘Black children are naturally good at
music’
‘Playwork and equal opportunities are
70
• ‘Asian girls are quiet’
• ‘The people round here don’t really care about their
kids’.
All of these examples are inaccurate, disrespectful,
and deny human beings basic individuality. From
the child’s perspective such stereotypes carry the
message ‘you do not see me as a whole person – you
do not care about me’.
Petrie also notes that staff who stereotype are likely
to encourage the very characteristics that fit their
stereotypes. For example, presuming ‘all Asian girls
are quiet’ leads to behaviour that encourages Asian
girls to take part in more sedate unobtrusive play
behaviours. In this way ‘the stereotype itself may be
helping to create the stereotypical behaviour’ (ibid:
77). Children treated this way have the range of play
behaviours available to them reduced and curtailed.
Stereotypes serve to control people and keep them
in their place, and as such have no place in the play
setting.
Body language and
meta-communication
A good deal has been written about verbal and
non-verbal communication and we will look at this
area in more detail when we examine listening
skills. In relationships most of the meaning in any
communication is conveyed through our voice, our
face and the rest of our body.
Our voice, pitch inflection, volume and speed all
convey a host of extra or meta-communication
that can enhance or even completely change the
meaning of words and actions as, for example,
with irony or sarcasm. (Meta-communication is
secondary communication that indicates how verbal
communication should be interpreted). These together
with our posture and gestures add meaning and
emotional content to the message.
71
Children’s views of
playworkers
People make a whole host of other
sounds such as laughter, cries, sighs,
and squeals. These all provide vital
clues to meaning and are often central
to children’s play cues. For children with
limited speech or who do not share a
common language with others these
sounds can convey a wealth of meaning
to which we need to be sensitive. For
the experienced playworker the ‘hum’ of
an effective (and affective) play setting
is something they are attuned towards,
and changes in the level can indicate that
attention or intervention might be needed.
Until now we have looked at the
playworker child relationship from the
point of view of the adult – but what do
children say is important in a playworker?
A research project in supervised play
provision in England revealed the
following (Manwaring, 2006).
Children wanted playworkers who would:
• Be nice, kind, caring and friendly.
Children wanted freedom and choice
but within a familiar structure with
boundaries. They did not want
playworkers to be strict but agreed
there should be some rules.
We also communicate through our faces
and in particular through smiles, gazes
and frowns (Petrie 1997). While we all
vary in the expressiveness of our face
this area of communication is important
in contributing towards the feel and
ambience of an environment as well
as towards the meta-communication of
what we say. Since these actions are
often unconscious they are especially
important in conveying or contributing to
the underlying message or truth of what
is said. For example, the insincere smile
sends a very different message to one
genuinely felt.
• Be good cooks. Food was important
for many children.
• Join in. Children wanted to be free of
interruptions in their play but they also
wanted playworkers to join in when
asked.
• Be fair. Playworkers were seen as
having an important role in maintaining
72
assumptions and being prepared to hold
on to uncertainty and contradictions in a
process known as ‘negative capability’.
Playworkers hold a ‘can do’ attitude
towards children and their play behaviour.
It encourages children to explore
and experiment, and to develop their
confidence and sense of self. In their
relationships with children playworkers
are careful not to allow a culture of
dependency to develop, but they are also
able to recognise and react positively to
situations where children need care and
protection.
fairness and offering protection from
bullying.
• Be playful. Children want playworkers
who enjoy playing with children.
• Be helpful. Children value playworkers
who can extend their play and help
when they get stuck.
• Not shout. Children wanted
playworkers who were calm and who
didn’t shout.
Other factors mentioned were
playworkers who let them play outside,
were young (and hence likely to be good
fun), organised trips, and who were
always smiling. Children also wanted
playworkers who they could talk to and
who would listen and understand them,
and who could be trusted.
Playwork relationships are rooted in equal
opportunities and playworkers actively
challenge stereotypes. Playworkers are
empathetic and adept at recognising and
responding to children’s feelings. They
appreciate the importance of children
working through their feelings in their play
behaviour and consequently they are
always ready to offer children a second
chance even when children are at their
most challenging.
Conclusions
The playwork profession is a distinct and
particular way of working with children
and young people. Part of its uniqueness
is the way playworkers form relationships
with the children they serve. Those
relationships are personal, honest, caring
and supportive, but crucially they are
on the child’s terms. Playworker child
relationships are reactive and responsive
with the initiative held by the child. This
is critical if play is to be truly directed by
the child. Playworkers are not authority
figures but they value children and are
genuinely interested in what’s important
to children and in children’s culture.
Playworkers can be playful and fun
when needed but they are sensitive to
the danger of taking over the child’s
play. They are also fair and trusting
and keep their word. Whatever the
external pressures playworkers don’t
bring their problems and hang-ups to
their relationships with children. Instead,
through reflective practice, they are aware
of their own thoughts and feelings and
any ‘triggers’ that might cause them to act
unthinkingly.
A playworker’s relationship with children is
by no means an easy role. It is a process
of continual learning and reflection and at
the very heart of how playworkers work
with children.
At the core of the playwork approach
to relationships is a non-judgemental
attitude and conduct. This means
actively challenging preconceptions and
73
What were your fears and how could
they have been calmed? What can you
learn from this to help you welcome
new children to your play setting? Are
there areas where this comparison is not
helpful?
Learners into
practice
Playworkers cede power and control
to children. Why is this difficult? What
particular aspect makes it challenging for
you?
Notes
What is special about the playworker
child relationship? How is it different from
that of a teacher, youth worker or social
worker?
Look again at the list of qualities
described above that children wanted in
a good playworker. Are you surprised?
How does it compare to the qualities
promoted by adult playworkers?
You overhear one of the new volunteers
at the play setting greeting two new
children from Poland. The children
introduce themselves as Wawrzyniec
and Katarzyna. ‘Blimey, they’re difficult
names!’ the adult exclaims. ‘Tell you
what, I’ll call you “Nitch” and “Cat”, okay?’
What would you say to your staff
member?
Why should playworkers resist becoming
‘part of the gang’?
Does avoiding favouritism mean that you
treat all children the same? What exactly
do we mean when we talk about treating
children equally?
Think about how you felt on your first day
at school or college or in a new job.
74
?
?
??
?
Children building
relationships
with each other
Summary
In this section we look
at the importance and
benefits of children
building relationships
with each other.
From an early age children’s relationships
with their carers contribute to their ability to
interpret and become attuned to emotional
responses. A baby responds to their mother’s
emotions, they do not simply copy them, and
these early emotional exchanges provide
the foundation for self-awareness, trust and
security.
Children’s early relationships with carers are vital for
their emotional and social development and form the
basis for exploring and developing relationships with
others including their peers (Bowlby 1969). In these
relationships shared play experiences become ‘an
important process for the development of self-other
differentiation and attributing value to verbal and nonverbal communication’ (Lester and Russell 2008).
75
equals. Loving parents may tell their
children how wonderful they are but other
children don’t overestimate one another
in their play (Gray 2011). While adults
may constitute the overall framework
of social rules it is through a process
of engaging and interacting with their
peers that children learn to understand
important rules about society (Goodwin
2006). Or to paraphrase Brown (2013),
children don’t become socially competent
through adults telling them what to do
but rather through meaningful exchanges
with their peers.
The importance of children’s peer
relationships for their development and
wellbeing is hard to overstate. By middle
childhood, it has been estimated that
more than 30 percent of children’s social
interactions involve peers (Gifford-Smith
and Brownell 2002). Most play is social
if children are given the opportunity.
Acceptance and rejection within a group
can have enormous significance for
children, as can the range of positive and
negative influences that develop between
individuals.
As we saw earlier in these materials
when we considered play deprivation,
children crucially need the opportunity
to develop relationships through their
play. In his study of a playwork initiative
focusing on the play deprivation of
abandoned and abused Romanian
children, Brown (2013) writes that the
remarkable change in their behaviour
from rocking and staring emptily into
space to becoming fully engaged active
children was fundamentally due to the
fact that the children now had playmates.
Moreover, because of the powerful and
inherently rewarding nature of play,
children will persist and negotiate in their
relationships with other children (ibid).
From the child’s point of view it’s better
to have some play with others even if it
isn’t fully controlled by them. The rules
of the game must be negotiated and if
children aren’t happy with what happens
they can leave and the game will end. In
playful relationships even those who are
more skilful at a particular type of play
behaviour must consider the needs of
others for play to continue (Gray 2011).
Social play allows children ‘to get into
other people’s minds and see from their
points of view’ (idem 2013).
The differences between child
relationships and adult ones
Although children form vital relationships
with their family and other adults such as
teachers, their relationships with other
children are special as they occur with
From the child’s point of view it’s better to have some play
with others even if it isn’t fully controlled by them.
76
The characteristics of social
play
Play signals and meta-communication
feature extensively in all kinds of social
play and can be subtle and complex. In
playwork we have adopted the idea of play
cues and returns (Sturrock and Else 1998)
that indicate an invitation and acceptance
to play. Meta-communication is any
secondary type of communication that
influences meaning such as vocalisations,
body language, and facial expressions.
Such signals can utterly change the
meaning and context. For example, a child
needs to be able to tell gentle teasing
from aggressive mocking, to understand
the meaning of double entendres and
jokes, to be aware of behavioural norms
and customs such as those around
gender, and to manage the whole range
of behaviours that children use to indicate
social structures such as who is in charge
or who belongs to what group.
Burghardt (2006) identifies three key
attributes of social play: role reversal,
self-handicapping, and play signals and
meta-communication. Each of these
signals can be seen separately but are
often seen together. Role reversal occurs
when normal roles are reversed and the
chaser becomes the chased for example.
Role reversal is particularly common in
rough and tumble play where two children
take turns to adopt superior or dominant
positions and roles. It is also seen in other
types of social play where it acts as a kind
of turn taking (ibid).
Self-handicapping refers to behaviour
when a stronger or more dominant child
deliberately uses less advantageous
strategies in order to prolong the play
when playing with a younger or less able
child. For example, a child may not kick
a ball as hard as she can, or run as fast.
She may adopt a more passive posture
and be more tolerant of her play partner’s
tactics (Bekoff 2001). Burghardt (2006)
notes that the commonly heard phrase,
‘You play too rough!’ is a call for the more
dominant play partner to self-handicap
their behaviour.
Children’s play culture
Where children come together and
develop networks amongst their peers
a unique culture develops. This playbased culture is frequently ignored or
underestimated by adults as they focus
on adult-based outcomes. This approach
views adult conceptions of friendship
77
Children’s culture contains a rich and
diverse tradition containing games,
singing, clapping, rhymes, riddles, tricks,
pranks, stories, jokes, parody, taunts,
legends, customs and folklore. This
varied collection of oral traditions and
‘practiced spontaneities’ (Mouritsen 1998)
is shared and collective yet experienced
and created in different ways by different
children. It is a living and creative process
that continually reinvents itself, as is
demonstrated by children’s increasingly
complex adoption of and reliance on new
technology and mobile communication for
their social play needs.
as more desirable and complex, and
something to which children must work
towards before they can have really
complex friendships (Corsaro 2003).
Children’s peer culture is also often
overlooked because it ‘thrives when
children find time away from adult
supervision’ (Lester and Russell 2008:
119).
Corsaro defines children’s peer culture
as ‘a stable set of activities or routines,
artefacts, values, and concerns that
children produce and share in interaction
with peers’ (2003: 37). Children form their
own cultures through a process he calls
‘interpretive reproduction’, in other words,
children create their own idiosyncratic
worlds, based on adult society, where
they come up with their own ways of
teaching each other how to relate to the
world.
The benefits of building
relationships
Children make it very clear that friends
are very important to them and research
indicates that on average children are
happier in social play with friends than
they are in any other situation (Gray
2013). In a 2011 UNICEF report (Ipsos
MORI and Nairn) almost 100 percent of
11-19 year olds surveyed said friendship
was really important to them. Given these
findings it is not surprising that when
children and young people are denied
opportunities to play and be with their
friends they are likely to be unhappy and
become prone to anxiety and depression.
Through their relationships with one
another children create their own rich
culture, separate from but parallel to that
of adults. This culture is complex and
dynamic where adult rules are sometimes
subverted or parodied. ‘We must realise
that as parents we do not simply mould
or shape our children. Children are active
agents in their own socialization’ (Corsaro
2003: 4). In their relationships children
‘can not only make choices but can also
negotiate, deflect, and resist socialising
attempts by others’ (Edwards et al 2006:
33).
Through their relationships with one another children create
their own rich culture, separate from but parallel to that of
adults.
78
• The regulation of emotions: Social play
allows children to rehearse a range of
emotions in the relative safety of the
play space (Spinka et al 2001, SuttonSmith 2002, 2003).
Hughes (2006) describes how social play
enables learning about the breadth and
subtlety of the norms of human relations
including:
• power and power structures
• Resilience and self-reliance: Positive
peer attachments are a key element
in developing resilience and begin
with the primary carer but additionally
develop through wider social networks
as children grow (Hofer 2006, cited in
Lester and Russell 2008).
• belonging and exclusion
• control and manipulation
• affection and violence
• competition
• Wellbeing: In a recent Good Childhood
Report (The Children’s Society 2013)
children who were rated as having low
wellbeing were three times as likely
to feel as though they did not have
enough friends.
• truth and lies.
More generally social play has been
linked to many essential developmental
processes including:
• Personal identity: Particularly for
adolescents, peer friendships are
highly influential in establishing group
norms for behaviour, language and
dress.
• Meta-communication: An understanding
of meta-communication and how to act
and feel in social engagements.
Social play allows increased fluency in
recognising and responding to play cues,
and children who experience plentiful
opportunities to play with others are likely
to become more adept at initiating and
sustaining friendly peer relationships.
Hughes (2012) describes a process where
playing with their peers allows children
to calibrate themselves socially. This
means learning to use and understand
meta-communication and all those signals
and features that underpin meaning in
communication and the formation of
• Friendships: Positive peer friendships
may compensate for poor early
attachment (Booth-Laforce et al 2005,
cited in Lester and Russell 2008).
Friendships foster building relationships
through resolving conflict, negotiation
and cooperation. Friendships also
reduce loneliness.
• Self-esteem: Having supportive friends
is widely associated with high selfesteem (Rubin et al 2006).
More generally social play has been linked to many
essential developmental processes.
79
relationships. As children play and form
relationships with others they are likely
to be exposed to different values and
attitudes that influence how they see
themselves and others. The typical play
environment with its mixture of ages,
genders, cultures, races and abilities
provides a diversity that has the potential
to expand the reach of children’s social
development.
After examining these benefits of children’s
relationships with one another we should
not forget that for children it is the play
itself and their social relationships that
are the most important things; skills and
competencies are by-products (Langsted
1994, cited in Santer et al 2007). Or in
other words, for the child ‘when playing,
whether play improves skills for non-play
functions is not central’ (Sutton-Smith
1997: 106). This is an important message
for us as playworkers for while we are
aware of the wider context of children’s
developmental needs we should never
lose sight of children’s perspective and the
importance to them of play in the here and
now.
party must modify their behaviour to
accommodate the other so promoting
reciprocal and altruistic behaviour.
Lester and Russell (2008) suggest that
children’s early attachment plays a key
role in determining the quality of his or
her relationships with peers. However,
they also note that supportive peer
relationships can serve to compensate for
family relations that lack closeness and
intimacy. Having a secure attachment to
a primary carer is vital but ‘it is not the
sole determinant of developing effective
empathic responses and emotional selfregulation’ (ibid: 76).
Children get to choose their friends and
being friends confirms a special privileged
status (Garvey 1990), which can be used
to gain access to another’s play (‘We’re
friends aren’t we?’) or control and threaten
reluctant playmates (‘Give me a go or I
won’t be your friend’). Children who are
friends may have special or favoured
types of play and are more likely than nonfriends to resolve or ignore disagreements
(ibid). Children tend to choose other
children who are similar to them as friends.
Making friends and
characteristics of friendship
Friendships benefit children in several
different but immediate and practical ways.
Berndt (2004) describes the benefits as:
Play is a powerful mechanism for making
friends, and learning to get along and
cooperate with others as equals may be
the most crucial function of human social
play (Gray 2011).
1. Informational. This refers to any sort
of advice for dealing with personal
problems such as with parents or
teachers.
Friendships are enormously important to
children of all ages and in all cultures.
Friendships are ‘voluntary, intimate,
dynamic relationships founded on
cooperation and trust’ (Gifford et al
2002). Because friends cooperate, each
2. Instrumental. This refers to help with
tasks such as building a den or doing
homework.
3. Companionship. This is having
someone to do things with such as
being a playmate.
80
• Shared experiences
4. Esteem. This refers to offering
encouragement as well as consolation.
• Shared values
Friendships have been shown to make
important contributions to children’s
wellbeing and self-esteem (GiffordSmith and Brownell 2002). Having
close reciprocal friendships is linked with
emotional and physical wellbeing and in
reducing the probability of depression
and a variety of other health problems
(Gottman and Graziano 1983). Friends
cushion children from some of the
stresses they face, such as those at home
or resulting from a transition to a new
school (Gifford and Brownell 2002).
• Shared interests
• Loyalty
• Trust
• Closeness.
Children’s friendships are not only highly
significant for children they also play a
role in strengthening local communities.
Research in 2007 (Weller and Bruegel)
found that parents suggested they
had established more networks and
friendships through their children than by
any other means.
The quality of children’s friendships is
closely linked with children’s emotional
wellbeing across cultures. In their
examination of the importance of play for
children worldwide, Lester and Russell
(2010) cite research from China, South
Korea, Belarus, Bolivia, India, Kenya
and Sierra Leone that highlights the
importance of friendships in building
resilience and coping with poverty.
Notes
The characteristics of what is important to
children in a friendship change and evolve
as children grow and develop. Younger
children typically form friendships around
companionship and reciprocal help
while older children and young people
increasingly share personal thoughts
and feelings. However, all children’s
friendships, whatever their age, share
characteristics to varying degrees that can
include:
• Being fun to be with
• Helping each other
• Shared expectation about play
activities
81
Being included
from the children’s point of view. Corsaro
(2003) suggests that for young children,
friendship is principally defined by whom
they are playing with and other children
not playing are seen as a threat. In a
busy playground children know that the
play frame they have created may be
interrupted or broken at any time by other
children or by adults adulterating their
play. Consequently ‘resistance to other
kids’ entry bid is not a refusal to share but
an attempt to keep control of their play,
to keep sharing what they are already
sharing’ (ibid: 64).
One aspect of social play that is troubling
for most adults is how it can be used
to exclude other children. Consider this
common example.
Two five-year-old girls are playing a game
involving dressing up in the corner of
the play setting. Another girl of about the
same age approaches and asks what
they are doing. The two reply, ‘It’s our
game but you can’t play because you’re
not our friend’. To adult sensibilities this is
difficult to accept – we might be tempted
to implore, ‘Why can’t everyone just play
nicely together?’
Children become protective of the play
frame they have created and are very
conscious of the fact that it can be taken
over, hijacked or ended by others. Corsaro
(2003) gives the following analogy.
To answer this we need to consider the
view of renowned child ethnographer
William Corsaro and consider things
One aspect of social play that is troubling for most adults is
how it can be used to exclude other children.
82
about making friends. Children may
also have difficulties if they are overly
aggressive or bossy in their relationships
with other children, or if they have trouble
recognising and responding to others’ play
cues.
Picture yourself at a cocktail party. After a
few drinks you return from the bathroom
and find yourself on your own. You would
like to talk to other people so do you just
walk up to someone and say, ‘Hi, can I talk
to you?’ Or, ‘What are you discussing?’
It’s much more likely you’ll hover near a
group, listen in to what is being talked
about and look for an opportunity to make
a relevant contribution.
While some of the examples above focus
on the ‘deficits’ of the individual child, a
different approach to dealing with peer
rejection is described by Wohlwend
(2004). In her study of a primary school
playground Wohlwend reminds us of the
powerful influence of peer culture with its
emphasis on testing both physical and
social limits. Her approach emphasises the
social construction of behaviour and how
children establish shared beliefs through
their play affiliations. This recognition leads
her to suggest that the most effective way
to deal with children’s own social inclusion
and exclusion is through the play process
itself. ‘The dynamic nature of children’s
play groups created plentiful opportunities
for shifts in membership tied to changes
or innovations in play activities or themes’
(ibid: 12).
In the same way children need to learn
how to develop effective ways of joining
in play. Successful strategies or cues are
often subtle, complex and use indirect
means. They often consist of collaborative
or responsive statements or friendly
comments about the other child’s play
(Power 2000). More forceful attempts to
initiate play with others are less successful
(ibid).
When making friends is
difficult
Despite what many adults think making
friends is not easy for some children,
especially for disabled children who may
live far away from their school friends
and who are denied opportunities to play
out in their communities. Making friends
can also be difficult for those children
– disabled and non-disabled – who are
clearly different in some way because of
how they look, speak or dress, and stand
out from the crowd. It may also be difficult
for children who have been isolated and
denied opportunities to play with others.
What does this mean for us in
practice?
• Most importantly we need to ensure
that children repeatedly engage with
the play space and the other children
it contains. Playworkers don’t give up
on children; it may take some time
for children to overcome the effects
of being friendless and to make new
ones.
These children are marginalised and
lonely and may even come to prefer their
own fantasy worlds to the stimulation of
being with other children. Some children
may feel they lack the skills to participate
and build relationships and feel anxious
• We consistently model trusting and
caring relationships and demonstrate
inclusive relationships. This is not
about ‘teaching’ children to behave in
a particular way but recognising that
83
itself. This means that playworkers
need to be adept at finding playful
solutions to social exclusions.
children assimilate the take on adult
culture and behaviours.
• We observe the play space and its
peer culture. We are aware of groups
of friends and any children who are
alone.
The darker side
Although play is often enjoyable and
fun, not all play is about pleasurable
experiences and social play in particular
can sometimes lead to feelings of
isolation, rejection, fear and cruelty (Lester
and Russell 2008; Sutton-Smith 2003;
Hughes 2006 and others). While playing
children negotiate, accept and reject
signals from other children and create
groups and affiliations. Hughes (2006)
argues that social play inevitably has to
contain argument, cruelty and repressive
elements, as these are part of the social
dynamic. Children experiment while
playing and this naturally includes their
social relationships.
• We can, when appropriate, sensitively
facilitate friendships forming by
pointing out (explicitly and implicitly)
commonalities and shared interests
between children.
• We recognise that conflict is a part of
building and maintaining relationships.
Children will argue, disagree and
exclude but it is important that
whenever possible we give them the
opportunity to develop their negotiating
skills and the chance to develop
their understanding of other people’s
feelings and opinions. Consistently
relying on adult intervention fosters
dependence, and disempowers
children.
Play takes children to the edges of their
emotional knowledge where inevitably
there will be conflicts (Panksepp 2007).
Things don’t always run smoothly but this
helps children learn about compromise,
authority, when you can get your own
way and when you can’t, as well as
about who is more powerful or in control.
For example, as Gray (2013) notes,
occasionally, children experience anger or
frustration in their play with others.
They may have taken exception to another
child’s behaviour or perhaps failed to
• We adopt a non-judgemental approach
that avoids singling out individuals.
• We are careful not to conflate what
children do with who they are.
• We recognise that friendships are
formed, broken and re-formed in play
and often the most successful solutions
for children who have difficulty in
forming relationships is through play
Play takes children to the edges of their emotional
knowledge where inevitably there will be conflicts.
84
Gender
get their own way in a dispute. But it
is through social play that they learn if
they want to continue playing then they
must control their aggression and use it
constructively.
The process of how children come to
establish their gender identity is complex
and sometimes controversial; a full
discussion of this area is beyond the
scope of this section of the learning
materials. Nevertheless, it is important
to recognise that peer relationships
and friendships play a crucial role in
determining how children come to define
themselves and others by gender (Lester
and Russell 2008).
This side of social play can put us in
an uncomfortable position where our
judgement about intervention will be
tested. We seek to balance the need to
protect children from significant harm
with the developmental need to allow
children to solve their own problems and
learn vital lessons about social structures.
There will be occasions when a child is
facing behaviour that is oppressive and
bullying and is unable to resolve a conflict
without our help.
The ‘orthodox’ view on play and gender
derives ultimately from the assertion
that there are significant hard-wired
differences between male and female
brains. Typically these claim that males
are more adept at systemising while
females as predisposed for empathy
(Goodwin 2006). It claims that boys and
girls have separate cultures where boys
typically engage in more competitive
and physical play such as rough and
tumble and ball games, while girls usually
engage in more sedentary and social
play, and focus more on their status
within their relationships.
There will be occasions when a child
is in need of our immediate protection
from social interactions that are violent
or dangerously risky. However, there
will be other occasions when a child
is fully able to negotiate and resolve
their own challenges, and where the
knowledge gained through play will have
significant benefits. Finally between
these two extremes there will be many
more situations where children need a
minimum of help, and our interventions
should be fleeting, oblique and playful.
This view is often supported by
observations from school playgrounds
where typically boys dominate the
available space by playing football, which
forces girls to the margins. Through these
segregated groups boys and girls learn
and practice the social roles associated
with being an adult male or female
(Pellegrini 2009).
To be responsive to these competing
demands reinforces the importance of
observing, reflecting, and sharing our
insights about children’s play behaviour
with our colleagues. These techniques
are essential tools as we seek to
balance the need to protect with the
developmental benefits of exploring
social rules and norms, and becoming
independent and resilient.
However, other researchers (Goodwin
2006, Aydt and Corsaro 2003, Epstein
et al 2001, cited in Lester and Russell
2008) question this perspective and note
that children’s peer relationships are
considerably more complex and vary
85
Although most children will make friends
without any adult involvement, some
children find it difficult to make friends.
Children may be isolated, lonely, anxious,
overly aggressive, or simply lack the
knowledge and experience to recognise
other children’s play cues. While each
situation will be unique playworkers
recognise that the play process itself
offers the best mechanism for developing
friendships and tackling exclusion.
from setting to setting and according
to peer culture. While some level of
separation between the genders seems
to be universal there is great variation. In
some settings, especially schools, there
is separation of boys and girls but this
is much less likely to be the case when
children play at home and in their local
neighbourhoods (Ackerley 2003, cited
in Lester and Russell 2008). To these
exceptions we would also add staffed
play provision, particularly if the prevailing
atmosphere is inclusive and open
rather than dominated by stereotypical
masculine or feminine practices.
Social play by its very nature will
sometimes raise repressive elements
that will test our intervention skills as
we try to balance children’s protection
with their need to be exposed to
social rules and norms and to develop
independence and resilience. In doing
so we should not forget that while
children may occasionally behave in
ways that are bullying or domineering,
it is social play that is by far the most
effective mechanism for dealing with
such behaviour (Gray 2013). It is surely
significant that anthropologists who study
hunter-gatherer groups where children
spend almost all of their time playing
report an almost complete lack of bullying
or domineering behaviour (ibid).
Conclusions
Play is a natural instinct for the formation
of relationships and friendships. Playing
with others provides a catalogue of
developmental functions and significantly
contributes towards children’s wellbeing.
Playing with peers has been linked with
children’s self-esteem, emotional control,
sense of self, resilience, good mental
health, understanding of societal rules
and norms, and socialisation. Friendships
are particularly important to children
and although their characteristics vary
somewhat with the age and development
of the children involved, they provide an
essential means of support, esteem, and
a buffer against difficulties and stress.
Children place enormous importance on
the quality of their relationships with their
peers as the current explosion in the
popularity of social media demonstrates.
Children are social beings.
Play is a natural instinct for the formation of relationships
and friendships.
86
We would argue that children’s fascination with social
media is driven by their need to seek out others.
Through their play with others, children create a unique
peer culture with its own rules and customs, separate
from but linked to the adult world. Children are not just
passive recipients of adult culture and learning but
active agents that contribute to their own socialisation.
Children want and need to play with their peers to be
happy and socially competent.
Learners into
practice
In your own play setting, what characteristics promote
children building relationships with each other?
What characteristics might frustrate or censor those
relationships?
Why is it important that children experience first-hand
the ups and downs of building relationships with their
peers?
Thinking back to your childhood, what impact did friends
have on you (both positively and negatively)? How
did you feel if your friends were absent? What are the
implications for your practice as a playworker?
Reflect on children’s peer culture on the play setting
you facilitate. What influences this culture? How does it
impact on boys and girls?
Notes
87
?
?
??
?
Transitions
Summary
In this section we
look at the transitions
and rites of passage
children undergo.
The term ‘transition’ has been subject to
widespread interest in the early childhood
education and youth work fields for some
time although its appearance in playwork
is far more recent. But what is a transition?
The term is used in a number of ways but in
its widest sense it refers to life changes from
one situation, state or position to another.
Transitions involve life’s key events, processes or
turning points that are linked to changes in a person’s
appearance, status, or relationship, and often involve
significant psychological and cultural adjustments
(Vogler et al 2008). For children these might include
anything from moving school or starting to attend an
afterschool club to bereavement or parental separation.
88
Others transitions are unpredictable –
these are termed life change transitions
(ibid). Life change transitions often result
from unexpected and more serious
events such as bereavement or family
breakdown. These have the potential to
cause more serious and lasting levels of
stress and anxiety.
Other examples include:
• Moving class
• Having a new teacher
• Moving house
• Having new siblings
The changes that both types of transition
bring may be temporary or permanent,
and impact on children’s physical and
emotional wellbeing.
• Having a new step parent
• Illness
• Changing friends
Children undergoing transitions react
differently according to their experiences,
resilience, personalities and level of
support. Although the stresses and
anxieties raised may be similar, the
experience of the transition will be
individual for each child (Walsh et al
2008). Some children may find them very
difficult particularly if they lack caring,
supportive and consistent relationships
in their lives and the opportunity to deal
with their feelings positively through
play. Children may become angry, sad,
anxious, moody or clingy. However, not
all children suffer significant negative
effects of harmful experiences. Some
children show considerable resilience in
the face of adversity and it is a mistake to
act under the assumption that all children
are inherently vulnerable (Vogler et al
2008).
• Puberty
• Attending play provision for the first
time
• Leaving the play provision for good.
Transitions may be gradual or sudden,
temporary or permanent and may last for
different periods.
Some transitions are predictable and can
be prepared for – these are sometimes
termed life stage transitions (Oliver
and Pitt 2011). Examples of life stage
transitions include those transitions
associated with a change of service
to the child such as starting or moving
school. These events are predictable and
can be prepared for and discussed in
advance.
Transitions may be gradual or sudden, temporary or
permanent and may last for different periods.
89
How can knowledge of transitions help
us as playworkers? Children actively
contribute to their experiences of change
through their play. Specifically, they
will play in order to work through their
anxieties. Play has long been recognised
for its healing potential. ‘There is much
in the theorising of play from Freud
(1974) through to more contemporary
thinking that suggest “playing through”
expression, might be healthier than
suppression’ (Sturrock et al 2004).
Children may deal with distressing events
by playing out similar situations and
gradually achieving mastery over them
(Schaefer and Cangelosi 1993). Through
play fears can become familiar and
predictable and consequently managed.
In this way children can exhibit control
over what was previously experienced
passively in ‘real’ life, and can develop
the skills and resources to face similar
challenges in the future (ibid). ‘Play
is one of the most powerful and most
effective tools used to reduce tension,
anger, frustration, conflict, and anxiety,
which are accompanied by the loss of
control, and self-esteem’ (Haiat et al
2003, in Lester and Russell 2008: 211).
Indeed, the eminent scholar Brian SuttonSmith suggests that the opposite of play
is not work but depression (1999).
Given the range and impact of some of
the many transitions children experience
it seems reasonable to ask whether
playworkers are in a position to affect
children’s lives significantly and positively.
Can we really make a difference?
In addition to the personal stories of
many playworkers, there is solid evidence
to suggest the contribution we make
can be very significant. Lester and
Russell, citing the work of Gillian (2000),
note that favourable experiences, even
minor ones, can make a difference to
the path of children’s development.
‘Although effective attachment to primary
carers provides a secure base, other
attachments with less significant people
can also have a positive impact’ (ibid:
33). Playworkers can contribute towards
children’s self-esteem and self-efficacy,
which are both key ingredients in
resilience.
This conclusion is also borne out by Russ
(2004) who points out that children’s
anxieties can be reduced through
imaginative play. Russ presents evidence
from a number of studies that show a
relationship between play and coping.
She suggests that one factor in this link is
creative problem solving. ‘Play facilitates
divergent thinking and insight ability. This
problem solving ability is generalised to
daily life and problems of daily living.’
(2004: 134). Russ also presents evidence
suggesting that good play is related to
less anxiety and depression.
90
solitary. It is important for children
to be able to work through these
emotions and equally important that
we provide them with the time and
space to do so.
Offering opportunities to play freely
has a significant role in enhancing
psychological and physiological wellbeing
and resilience (Burghardt 2005).
Moreover, for children who are having
difficulties at home the play space can be
a haven and sanctuary offering respite;
research suggests such refuges are
vitally important (Gilligan 2000).
• We are vigilant for any elements
of the play cycle and are ready to
support, contain, and extend play
behaviour. In particular, we should be
able to respond playfully in ways that
are sensitive to the likely impact the
transition is having on the child. As
we have seen previously, play cues
may not always be positive signals
(Sturrock and Else 1998) and this may
be especially true when children are
experiencing new or powerful feelings
in response to a transition in their
lives.
When children first attend a play setting
they may feel some level of stress
and anxiety. There will be unfamiliar
children with established friendships
and unfamiliar rules and cultures. The
physical environment may be strange
and they might be unaccustomed to the
amount of self-directed play. Younger
children might get anxious about their
parent or carer’s return.
• We recognise that children playing out
the effects of a transition may provoke
strong reactions in us. Children’s play
may stir up similar past memories of
our own and trigger deep feelings. We
must avoid bringing any of our own
‘baggage’ to the relationship (Brown
and Webb 2005).
As playworkers, how should we respond
to children who are dealing with changes
in their lives through their play? Drawing
on the work of Sturrock and Else (2005)
we suggest that:
• We recognise that children may
play in ways that express strong
emotions that can challenge us. We
should remember that play may be
a key mechanism for the regulation
of emotions (Sutton-Smith 2003).
In practice this means children may
not ‘play nicely’; they may shout,
get angry, be rude or aggressive,
or become less sociable and more
• We recognise that children may
represent important elements in their
anxieties as symbols, or through
proxies, and through pretend play.
Through these types of play children
can more safely express their
conscious and unconscious feelings
and worries.
We recognise that children may play in ways that express
strong emotions that can challenge us.
91
The most well known rites are those
connected with entry into adulthood or
religion and have ritual connotations, for
example, confirmations, Bar Mitzvahs,
Walkabouts, and sweet sixteen parties.
Other examples include hazing in
schools, clubs and colleges. As well
as these, children and young people
experience many smaller less formal rites
of passage throughout their childhood
and adolescence.
• Our role should remain caring and
consistent. Children experiencing
sudden or unfamiliar change may
feel a whole range of emotions from
excitement and nervousness to
confusion and fear. It is important to
avoid blaming and judging children
and instead remain accepting and
consistent. In the midst of change,
children need adults who are
trustworthy and who can be depended
upon.
At heart, rites of passage are about
coping with the uncertainties and
ambiguities of life and giving new
meaning and continuity to the changes
that are happening. For playworkers
rites can recognise in a formal way those
occasions when a child becomes that bit
‘older and wiser’. In the play setting Else
(1998) notes that rites can:
• We work to maintain and support the
development of children’s positive
relationships with peers. Lester
and Russell (2008) citing research
summarised by Booth-Laforce and
others (2005), show that high quality
friendships act as buffers to anxiety
and stress and help children feel safe.
Strong peer relationships provide
children with essential emotional
support and self-esteem.
• contribute to children’s own sense
of belonging and identity – for
example, when children use rituals
to pick teams or devise initiations for
admittance to gangs or secret clubs
Rites of passage
• contribute to children’s growing sense
of maturity and achievement – for
example, when children go on their
first camping trip, or build their first fire
One particular type of social transition
in people’s lives is known as ‘rites of
passage’. These are common to many
cultures and usually signify a change in
social status or indicate a readiness to
take on new responsibilities (Vogler et al
2008).
• ease the transition for older children
– for example, by having a leaving
ceremony.
For playworkers rites can recognise in a formal way those
occasions when a child becomes that bit ‘older and wiser’.
92
Here is an example:
The play centre was situated in a park surrounded
by large blackberry bushes. Every autumn after the
summer holidays a tradition arose around the making
of blackberry pies. This involved every child from the
youngest to the oldest picking enormous quantities of
blackberries and, although many were immediately eaten,
several large pies would always be made at the centre.
To make the pies the various jobs were negotiated and
assigned by the children according to age, ability and
influence. Younger children would pick the lower hanging
fruit while the older children would reach the very highest,
sometimes with ladders or by climbing nearby trees.
When it came to making the pies, again, the various
jobs would be assigned by the children themselves –
some making pastry, some washing fruit, some making
decorations, and always a group of the oldest girls
jealously guarding the hot oven as the pies baked.
When it finally came to eating the pies an older child
would always tell the (semi-mythical) story about the
very first blackberry pie that was made years ago that
had maggots in the fruit and was eaten unawares by the
children. Newer children would look horrified at this while
more experienced ones who had heard the story many
times before would laugh knowingly and say they wanted
more pie! Every year the story would get more elaborate
but the children never seemed to tire of retelling it.
93
Learners into
practice
Notes
Think back to a time in your childhood
when you were going through a
transition. Try to remember your feelings
in the face of those changes and how
you came to terms with the new situation.
What lessons are there for you now as a
playworker?
As the senior playworker how can you
ensure that all the playworkers at your
setting are more aware of the transitions
that children might be experiencing?
If your play setting has a policy on
behaviour does it take account of the
fact that, in response to the changes in
their lives, children will play through and
regulate their emotions through their play
behaviour?
94
?
?
??
?
Listening to
children
Summary
In this section we look
at the importance of
listening to all children
and what can impair our
listening.
Do we listen to children? ‘Yes, but of course’
would surely be the emphatic reply from
all playworkers. But do we really listen
to children? Do we listen to children’s
aspirations, fears, stories, and play needs
and preferences? Do we acknowledge and
appreciate children for who they are? Do
we recognise and affirm their crucial urge
to play? Listening to children is not just
agreeing to a request for some more yellow
paint or a new football but means truly
valuing and taking notice of what they say
and do.
95
As playworkers, listening to children is
integral to our professional and ethical
framework – as set out in the Playwork
Principles. By listening it becomes
possible to support and facilitate the play
process. By listening it becomes possible
to choose an appropriate intervention
style. By listening we promote children’s
need to determine and own their play. By
listening we demonstrate our respect for
the child, and so help to enhance their
self esteem.
about how others are feeling. When we
really listen to children we are ‘tuning
in’ to their world, to their agenda. To
paraphrase the author Steven Covey
(2013), we need to listen with the intent
of understanding, not simply listening with
the intent of replying. When we genuinely
listen to children we affirm and validate
their feelings and opinions. We say,
‘You are important’. This is vital for all
children and especially so for those who
are isolated, misunderstood or denied
opportunities to express themselves.
What do we mean by
listening?
It is often crucial for disabled children
who tend to have much more adult
intervention in their lives and may
have far less control and choice over
their decisions, including those in their
play. Being listened to is a vital source
of encouragement and support for all
children.
There is a truism that listening and
hearing are not the same thing. But
what exactly do we mean by the term
‘listening’? The Young Children Voices
Network (Dickins 2011) describes it as ‘an
active process of receiving (hearing and
observing), interpreting and responding
to communication – it includes all the
senses and emotions and is not limited to
the spoken word’.
Children may choose many different ways
to communicate including through:
• words and sounds
• signs and sign language
Listening is about paying attention
and taking notice, it is not about just
registering the sounds that are made.
Listening pays attention to all the ways
that we communicate including through
our bodies. Listening uses our eyes
as well as our ears. It is also about
understanding and making sense of all
the elements of communication both
verbal and non-verbal. Listening is not
a passive act. ‘Listening is an active
process, involving not just hearing but
interpreting, constructing meaning and
responding’ (Clark and Moss 2011: 9).
• body language and facial expressions
• more formal consultative methods
including written and visual means.
Communication can range from a subtle
glance to a shouted demand and from
a knowing expression of delight to an
unconscious fear. If we observe carefully,
children will also communicate by
what they don’t do. Notwithstanding all
these ways, for playworkers, listening
to children is principally concerned with
observing them at play. It is through play
that children will communicate how they
feel about what is there, and about what
In supportive relationships listening
extends to understanding and caring
96
Consider the following story.
A local authority leisure department keen
to consult with children in a particularly
deprived area employed two workers
to go out and canvas the views of as
many local children and young people
as possible. They were simply directed
to ask what leisure and play facilities the
children wanted. So the children listened
and then told the adults, ‘We want a 50
meter pool with diving boards, oh, and
slides’, (a large pool in the city centre
had recently closed). The workers looked
embarrassed and said, ‘I don’t think we
can do that – we don’t have the money’.
‘Then why did you ask us?’ came the
embittered reply.
they need, which is not there (Hughes
2012). The point of this is to facilitate the
play process and to make different kinds
of play possible (ibid).
Listening to children should not be
confined to a specific occasion or
consultation; it must be routine. As
playworkers we aim to convey to the child
that we are always available to listen –
that we are interested in them and what
they have to say.
Taking what children say
seriously
When we listen to children we take what
they say seriously and don’t ignore or
undermine their views. When we act upon
children’s ideas we convey a powerful
message that we value what they have
to say. Conversely when we ignore their
ideas this message is damaged. When
we can’t act on their wishes we should
explain why. Listening to children involves
more than just being polite and paying lip
service to what they say. Listening means
taking what they say seriously and acting
in response. Such a response empowers
children. Of course there may be times
when we cannot do what children ask of
us, but if we rarely or never react then we
are guilty of tokenism and children will
quickly become cynical and disillusioned.
What is our role when
listening to children?
When we listen to children we take on
several roles, sometimes simultaneously.
Most obviously we aim to understand
what children are communicating. This
can be straightforward or very complex.
For example, we may be listening
to a simple request or to the varied
‘soundtrack’ of a particular play behaviour.
As part of their communication we also
listen to children’s feelings and emotions
and these can range from strong and
red raw to subtle, hidden and confused.
As playworkers we acknowledge these
feelings and show that we empathise.
When we listen to children we take what they say seriously
and don’t ignore or undermine their views.
97
with each. It allows us to know their
likes and dislikes, their talents and
interests and how they play. It allows
us to appreciate their personalities and
their sense of humour. Through listening,
understanding and accepting we can
support relationships founded on trust
and respect. These relationships are
friendly, supportive and informal rather
than directive and authoritative.
This doesn’t mean we have to agree with
what is being said (although we might),
rather it means that we acknowledge and
show we understand how they feel.
When we listen to children we also
demonstrate that we care for them.
Hughes (1996: 52) notes that in a
quality playwork setting ‘children can
and do disclose personal problems’, and
‘workers are asked for information and
advice’. Children will talk candidly if there
is a sufficient level of trust and if they
know they will be listened to and taken
seriously. This level of trust may take
some time and be hard won particularly
with children who have been let down in
the past.
Listening to children also has a
therapeutic function. When children feel
they are being listened to, they gain a
sense of importance and value to their
lives. Listening has long been linked to
healing. Being able to get something ‘off
your chest’ and express pent-up feelings
is commonly thought to be cathartic
(Helanko 1958). A child who is listened
to, can be inspired to see their thoughts
and feelings with new insight, and come
to self-acceptance (Friedman 2012).
It is important that children are able
to choose what and when they
communicate with us, and we should
respect what they choose to share as
well as what they decide to withhold.
What children tell us is subject to
the same standards of privacy and
confidentiality that we have for adults.
Of course, this does not extend to
disclosures of abuse and we should be
clear about this, as should our policy on
child protection.
Why is it essential we listen
to children? And why is it
important to children?
Why should we listen to children?
Children are expert in their own play. This
means how children choose to play is a
matter for them and playworkers trust the
child to do so (Hughes 1996). ‘Too often
when we talk about children’s issues, we
talk about children, rather than listen to,
and talk with, them. They become the
Listening to children plays a key role
in developing and sustaining our
relationships with them. Listening allows
us to get to know children and to be
able to build a personal relationship
Listening to children plays a key role in developing and
sustaining our relationships with them.
98
Listening to children reminds us of the
reality of their experiences and helps
us ground and validate our theoretical
knowledge in first-hand events. Listening
to children reveals the depth and
complexity of play and how different
children experience it in a multitude of
different ways. Play shows itself to be
wondrous, delightful and funny, but also
earthy, impulsive and sometimes cruel.
Hughes (2012) reminds us that play is an
exploratory and experimental activity, and
listening to children can reveal something
about their development and wellbeing
as they engage in different forms of play
behaviour.
passive recipients of our knowledge as
though adults were the experts in what
it means to be a child in the fast moving
world of today’ (Sentamu 2012).
Children have the right to be listened
to, and their views are important and
relevant. A key principle behind the
United Nations Convention on the
Rights of the Child (UNICEF 1991) is the
establishment of participation rights. Of
those rights, we would argue, children’s
play is a quintessential example (Lester
and Russell 2010). Children have the
right to say what they think should
happen and have their opinions taken
into account (Article 12 of the UNCRC).
They have the right to receive and share
information (Article 13), the right to
believe and think what they want (Article
14), and the right to privacy (Article 16).
For children, being listened to has
significant developmental importance.
Children who are listened to can:
• Develop confidence in their thoughts
and abilities and in their feelings of
competence
Children will usually tell us through
their play how they feel about the play
space – what’s there, what’s missing,
and what they need (Hughes 2012).
Observing children allows us to listen
without interrupting them. It allows us to
pay attention to their needs and to hear
their voices in children’s natural medium
– play.
• Develop their sense of self-worth and
self-esteem
• Understand that others have opinions
that might be different from their own
• Develop trusting relationships.
99
However, perhaps more than these, being
listened to is a deep-seated human need
that connects us with other people. It is an
essential part of what makes us human.
Having your voice heard is commonly
linked to wellbeing. Being listened to leads
to feelings of contentment, satisfaction and
being cared about whereas the reverse
can lead to feelings of frustration and
insignificance. When someone is listened
to the relationship between the speaker
and listener is strengthened and trust can
develop.
Perhaps unexpectedly, listening to children
can also reveal something about us and
our own play histories and their role in
shaping our thoughts and opinions as
adults. Listening to children can trigger
play memories sometimes half-forgotten,
and those memories can inform our
judgements on how children are playing
now.
Listening to disabled children
All children, disabled and non-disabled
need to be listened to but some adults
assume that special skills or knowledge
are needed to listen to disabled children
(Dickins 2011). While some children may
have needs that require us to learn new
skills (such as learning a specific language
like Makaton or British Sign Language),
this view forgets that an enormous amount
of information is conveyed through ways
other than by speech. Laughing, crying,
blinking, staring, humming, and many
other sorts of body language can all
convey children’s thoughts and feelings.
Crucially for playworkers, children
communicate through their play and what
they choose to do, as well as what they
choose not do to. Observing children in
their play is vital, as much of what young
children say would not make sense
without observation (ibid).
Listening and being non
judgemental
Being a good listener means embracing a
non-judgemental approach (Fisher 2008).
It means putting aside our preconceptions
and biases and focusing on the child’s
agenda, not ours. This means not
criticising, not interrupting, and not thinking
about what to say next at the expense
of listening. Non-judgemental listeners
have an open mind and welcome others
and treat their thoughts and feelings with
respect and confidentiality. Of course
doing all these things is not easy; it is
also hard work! It requires concentration,
thought and patience and there is always
a temptation to take over or switch off
when we are tired.
What does this mean in practice? How
can we be effective and non-judgemental
listeners? Gander (2005) suggests the
follows techniques:
Crucially for playworkers, children communicate through
their play and what they choose to do, as well as what they
choose not do to.
100
1. We acknowledge the child’s feelings.
This means recognising all the features
involved in the communication – the
body language, posture, tone of voice,
level of excitement, facial expressions,
the context in which it is performed, as
well as any words. Being empathetic
is made easier as we get to know
individual children at our setting and we
should aim to get to know every child
and his or her play needs.
2. We clarify while withholding judgement.
By clarifying a child’s thoughts but not
judging them we show that we are
interested in the child’s opinions and are
not just trying to tell them our own. We
will look further at this technique often
termed ‘reflective’ or ‘active’ listening
below.
3. We summarise and paraphrase what
has been said without judging its
correctness or whether we agree unless
we are prompted. Our feedback is nonevaluative. This enables the child to
determine whether we really understood
their message and confirms that we
are interested in what they have to say
as we have taken the time to listen
carefully.
By adopting a supportive non-judgemental
approach we avoid taking over the
communication and short-cutting children’s
developing views and understandings.
Why don’t adults listen to
children?
As adults we justify not listening to children
in a whole variety of ways ranging from the
blatant to the very subtle. Here are some of
the most common:
• ‘Children should be seen and not
heard’.
• ‘Children don’t understand’ and ‘I know
best’.
• ‘I’m too busy’.
These ideas are all too common in
UK society. They probably derive from
John Locke’s (1690) ‘Essay in Human
Understanding’, wherein he proposed
the notion that babies are a ‘tabula rasa’
(a blank slate), empty of information
and understanding. Adults have a
responsibility to fill in the blanks, so that
the child gradually develops into a rational
knowledgeable human being. The logic of
this view is that children have nothing of
value to offer in public discussion. They
should therefore keep quiet and listen.
Although adults may feel that they have
learnt what they know from experience
and so children have little to teach them,
we now know Locke’s concept to be a
complete fallacy, and that children come
into the world with masses of knowledge
and a set of motivations, which they use as
As adults we justify not listening to children in a whole
variety of ways ranging from the blatant to the very subtle.
101
the basis for their subsequent development.
Trevarthen and Malloch (2002), using video
recordings, have shown that babies are
in fact ‘coherent’ and have strong social
motivations as soon as they are born.
They immediately show interest in their
environment and especially other human
beings.
• We use our body to show we are
listening and have understood. These
signs will vary in how appropriate
they are depending on the situation.
For example, smiling can show we
are happy to listen but it can also be
inappropriate in some more serious
situations. Signs include:
• Nodding occasionally
If, because of our attitudes and values, we
don’t value what children say then we will
never hear them. Listening requires time,
energy and active interest.
Many adults don’t listen regularly and so
lack the experience to become effective
listeners. Our society values speaking over
listening and considers talking powerful,
but listening weak and passive. There are
sadly very few prizes for listening but many
for speaking (Centre for Health Education,
Training and Nutrition Awareness 2011).
How will children know we are
listening?
Children of all ages and abilities will be able
to tell if we are listening and whether they
have our full attention. What are the signs
that show we are listening?
• First and most obviously we give
children our attention. We look but don’t
stare at the speaker and we avoid or
shut out distractions.
• Smiling
• Making occasional eye contact (but
we should avoid excessive eye
contact)
• Adopting an open and engaging
posture
• We can also show we are listening by
occasionally encouraging the child with
appropriate positive interjections (such
as ‘Okay’, ‘Uh-huh’, ‘Ah’, ‘I see’). These
are often used with nods and smiles.
• We don’t interrupt. This is important
and particularly so when we don’t agree
with what is being said, or when what is
being said is having a strong emotional
affect on us. It is also important we
don’t interrupt when we receive any
disclosure of abuse.
• We may reflect back or summarise what
we hear to check our understanding.
However, it’s important that our
feedback is non-judgemental.
Children of all ages and abilities will be able to tell if we are
listening and whether they have our full attention.
102
Reflective listening
• Preconceptions and biases. If we
have made up our mind before
someone has spoken then we will
only hear what we want to hear. If
this happens we will filter the child’s
words so they fit our preconceptions
or agenda. This strongly reinforces
the notion that it is essential for
playworkers actively to adopt a nonjudgemental approach (Brown and
Webb 2005).
Reflective or active listening is a
commonly used method to try and
understand a speaker’s thoughts. It
attempts to do this by restating in your
own words the thoughts and feelings
of what the speaker has said to you.
Newkirk and Linden (cited in Rynders
1999) outline five techniques for active
listening:
1. Paraphrasing. This is restating,
without interpretation, in your own
words what has been said.
• The environment. Noise, temperature
and comfort all impact on our ability to
concentrate and focus on listening to
someone else. These are likely to be
common factors in most play settings
that cannot always be controlled.
2. Reflection. This is telling the speaker
what you believe their feelings are
rather than focusing on the content.
For example, ‘From what I can hear,
you sound really cheesed off’.
• Short attention span. If we are tired,
hungry or emotionally charged in
some way such as when we’re upset,
listening for any length of time can
be difficult. Our attention span is
not unlimited and it can be hard to
remember everything that has been
said. Our attention can also wander
when we are bored and when we
don’t concentrate.
3. Neutral technique. This is using the
commonly seen nods and ‘Uh-huh’
sounds that encourage the speaker to
continue.
4. Clarifying. This is used when we need
more information and usually consists
of a question. For example, Child:
‘Chloe hit me!’ Adult: ‘Chloe hit you?’
• Rehearsing a response. If we are
continuously rehearsing our response
to what we hear then we are not
listening properly. We are speaking
because of our own needs and not
those of the children and in this
case we are more likely to take over
rather than take in what has been
said (Nicols 2009). ‘Most failures of
understanding are not due to selfabsorption or bad faith but to our
own need to say something. We
tend to react to what is said, rather
than concentrating on what the other
person is trying to express’ (ibid: 3).
5. Summarisation. This technique
combines and condenses the
speaker’s main points. For example,
‘So the main things you are saying
are…’
What impairs our listening?
Given the clear importance of listening
for playworkers in establishing and
sustaining relationships with children it’s
appropriate to ask what gets in the way
and makes the task difficult. Drawing on
the work of Gordon (2003) we suggest
the following factors negatively affect our
ability to listen.
103
• Does it ask questions to which the
adult already knows the answers?
Yes, the adult probably knows every
answer to their questions. They are
hardly genuine.
• ‘Hot words’. These are words or
phrases that have particular meaning
for us (‘triggers’), and can cause a
powerful emotional response that
can undermine our concentration and
ability to listen. These are words that
cause us to be anxious, defensive, or
feel hurt.
• Does it encourage the child to
contribute? No, each question is
‘closed’, that is, they are questions
that are likely to receive a simple
one-word answer. Open questions
on the other hand allow plenty of
scope in how they are answered.
Open questions might begin, ‘Tell me
about…’ ‘How’, or ‘Why’.
Questions
Consider the following ‘conversation’.
Adult: ‘That’s a nice picture, what is it?’
Child: ‘A house.’
Adult: ‘And what are those outside the
house?’
Child: ‘Flowers’
Adult: ‘And is that an aeroplane in the
sky?’
Child: ‘Yes’
Adult: ‘And what colours have you used?’
(and so on)
• Is it likely to promote further
conversation? No, asking this many
closed questions is daunting, and
simply reinforces the idea that the
adult is in charge.
Conversations like these are all too
common. On the surface the adult may
feel their questions are helpful as they
show an interest in the child, but in truth
they are meeting their own needs, not
those of the child. They are meeting
their need to say something, to have an
opinion. It may be because they feel it’s
their role or any number of other reasons
but none of these reasons genuinely start
with the child.
This isn’t a conversation – it’s an
interrogation! Asking so many direct
questions one after the other can be
intimidating and particularly with a
younger or more introverted child the
likely result will be a child who clams up
or who answers in monosyllables.
Let’s examine this ‘conversation’ further.
• Does it adopt a supportive and
responsive approach? No, the
conversation is extremely directive
and controlling.
Of course there is a place for playworkers
to ask children questions. Questions are
a normal part of conversation and any
relationship. Petrie (1997) highlights the
following ways we can use questions.
• Does it show an understanding of
what the child has said? No, the
conversation gives no indication the
adult has listened to any of the child’s
answers.
• Questions can show we are interested
– for example:
Child: ‘I’ve got a new baby brother.’
Playworker: ‘Ooo, what he’s like? Tell
me all about him’.
104
• Questions can make things clearer –
for example:
Child: ‘Can we have some more of
that stuff that we made things with last
week, and you can put it in the oven?’
Playworker: ‘Do you mean the
modelling clay that comes in all
different colours or the red pottery clay,
or maybe something else?’
• Questions can reflect back (as we
described above), allowing the child to
remain in control of the conversation –
for example:
Child: ‘I’ve got a cool new game for my
X-box.’
Playworker: ‘You’ve got a cool game?’
Listening to all
‘Listening must not wait until children are
ready to join in adult conversations’ (Clark
and Moss 2001: 41). All children need to
be listened to. This means the older ones,
the younger ones and the ones in the
middle that are not so visible. It means the
girls and the boys, the disabled and nondisabled. It means the quiet polite ones
as well as the noisy demanding ones. It
means the street savvy extrovert and the
child who doesn’t speak. It means the
children who are drawn to us, and the
ones we find it difficult to like. It means
listening when we’re tired and sad as well
as when we’re energetic and happy. If
we’re honest, this is not an easy thing to
manage in a busy play setting.
Children will demand our time and
attention at different times and there are
always distractions and other agendas
that encroach on our time. Being aware
of distractions may not make listening
easy but it does allow us to take steps
to concentrate harder. For example, if
we’re listening to a child telling us about
a problem in a noisy play space we can
suggest finding a quieter spot.
Sometimes it will be impossible to give
a child our proper attention and listen
to them. For example, when there is an
emergency or accident. In these situations
we need to say quickly and simply why
we can’t listen now. If we make a promise
to listen later then this must be kept. This
is important, as keeping our word is a
fundamental part of being trustworthy.
Conclusions
Listening to children underpins all our
work as playworkers. It allows us to
facilitate the play process and respond to
children’s needs. Listening and responding
to what children say and feel is important
and empowers them. Being listened to
is an important element in children’s
psychological and emotional health and
contributes to feelings of self-worth and
self-esteem. Being listened to contributes
to developing confidence and being
able to express and understand different
opinions. It is also important in developing
trusting relationships that are essential
in the play space. Listening means more
than just hearing what is said or watching
what is being done; it means acting in
response.
Playworkers listen to children by observing
them at play. We also listen in other ways
but we are careful not to control and take
over any conversation or communication.
Our role is a responsive one. Playworkers
put aside any preconceptions or biases
and adopt a non-judgemental approach.
Playworkers are slow to criticise or
interrupt and instead concentrate on what
105
the child is saying and not on their own feelings and
opinions. Listening to children is challenging and hard
work and inevitably sometimes we are not able to listen
when we would like. When this happens we explain why
and if we make any future promises these are strictly
kept.
Children tell us very clearly that they want to be heard
and that they want us to take their views seriously. Are
we listening?
Learners into
practice
Think back to a specific time in your childhood when an
adult didn’t listen to you. How did it make you feel and
what did you think about them? How can this reflection
help you as a playworker?
‘We tend to react to what is said, rather than
concentrating on what the other person is trying to
express’ (Nicols 2007). What do you think this statement
means? Do you agree?
What factors make it difficult to listen in your play
setting? What can you do to mitigate the effects?
Notes
106
?
?
??
?
Summary
Establishing and
maintaining
relationships
with adults
In this section we look
at the importance
of relationships with
parents, carers and other
adults in child and play
centred provsion.
The Playwork Principles (PPSG 2005) make it
clear that our prime focus as playworkers is
to support the play process and this activity
takes precedence over other concerns.
But what does this mean when it comes to establishing
and maintaining relationships with adults? How
important are our relationships with parents, carers
and other adults in a child and play centred provision?
How should we deal with adults who have very different
agendas to ours? Moreover how does the type of
provision we operate affect those relationships?
107
children as quickly as possible and
then leaving or do they stay for a cup
of tea and a chat or even become more
involved?
Of all the adults playworkers meet,
parents and carers are the most
significant for the welfare and wellbeing
of most, but not all, children. They have
primary responsibility for their children
and have a unique understanding and
experience of them. Parents tend to feel
more confident sending their children to
play provision when they receive proper
information and there is a good line of
communication.
Part of the community
Good play projects are part of the
community. On a fundamental level,
children are not just individuals but part
of their communities with a complex
web of human relationships. Their play
is both part of those relationships and a
response to them. We cannot effectively
modify the play space in a way that
meets the full range of children’s needs
without knowledge of, and consequently
an engagement with, the community in
which we work.
The amount of contact playworkers have
with parents and other adults varies
considerably. Generally playworkers
operating in closed access provision
will see parents more regularly than in
open access provision but there are
many exceptions to this statement. For
example, there are many adventure
playgrounds where parents visit regularly
and occasionally become volunteers. The
claim also doesn’t take into account the
length and quality of those relationships.
Are parents merely picking up their
For play provision to be sustainable,
what happens there must be valued by
not just the children who attend but by
their parents/carers and the members
108
of the wider community. An unloved play
setting will likely fail through vandalism
and hostility. As playworkers it is important
that we engage positively with parents and
are in turn known, recognised and trusted
by them. Of course this won’t happen
overnight and may not be straightforward.
Many playworkers are limited in the
amount of time they have available for
anything other than working directly with
the children who attend their setting. But
there are practical strategies we can use
to ensure people know who we are and
what we do.
How can we do this? Put simply we make
sure we are seen and heard.
and these are unlikely to match the
playwork rationale for providing staffed
play provision. For example, Kilvington
and Wood (2010) list a range of different
opinions that parents and carers may have
including some who:
• See the provision as childcare and
want their children looked after
• See the provision as education and
want planned learning to take place
• Complain that the provision is dirty, or
chaotic, or not safe enough or lacking
in some other way
• Are too busy to show any interest but
are happy for their children to attend
Being seen – we attend school fares,
concerts and performances for example.
We use local shops and sometimes drop
in to the local pub for a drink and a chat
after work. We happen to find ourselves
talking to parents as they wait to pick up
their children from school. We scrounge
for scrap at local businesses.
• Are inspired by the provision and want
to work as a playworker
• Are lonely and use the provision to
chat to other adults.
Being heard – we advocate for play at
every opportunity. We tell people what we
do and why it’s important. We meet key
influential locals. This could be the local
councillor or a local religious leader. It
could be the headteacher or the school
crossing guard or the parent who always
seems to ‘know a man who can’. All these
various ways, although each may be small
and insignificant, add up and contribute
to the visibility of the play setting and to
a wider appreciation of the importance of
play and playwork.
To these we could add adults who see the
provision as valuable in ‘getting kids off
the streets’ and reducing crime.
Whatever the views of adults, there is
no substitute for first hand information.
Seeing what happens and hearing why
that is important from a committed and
passionate playworker can act as a
powerful counterweigh to the negative
stereotyping around children and children’s
play that exists in the media. It is vital that
we explain the ethos of the setting and
in particular why it values and promotes
freely chosen play.
Without any opportunity for us to advocate
for play and playwork, the views of local
adults about the play setting will be based
on their existing attitudes and opinions
109
Adult roles
proper supervision, mentoring
and training. It is our responsibility
that volunteers adopt an authentic
playwork approach and, however
well meaning, do not adulterate the
play space with their own agendas.
In addition we must ensure that
anyone wanting to work with children
undergoes checks to determine their
suitability, including a check on any
past criminal record. In England
and Wales this is carried out by the
Disclosure and Barring Service; in
Northern Ireland by AccessNI; and
in Scotland by Disclosure Scotland.
More information about safe
recruitment is described later in these
materials.
Many adults who visit play provision will
only want a fleeting association but some
may want to become far more involved.
Parents and carers can become involved
in a number of ways:
1. Parents can act as advocates. When
they are motivated parents can be
powerful advocates and campaigners
for play and playwork in their local
area.
2. Parents can act as fundraisers. Often
parents have unrivalled knowledge of
their local area and are able to access
different networks and be far more
innovative than more formal sources
of funding.
Listening to adults
3. Parents can act as resource gatherers
and providers. Parents can have a
range of skills and resources that can
be helpful especially as finances are
always tight for play provision.
The principles that we looked at when we
considered effective communication with
children apply equally to communication
with adults. Drawing on the conclusions
of Petrie (1997) we can summarise the
main points as follows:
4. Parents can become involved on
management committees. These sorts
of relationships are very important
to get right and we need to be clear
on their roles and responsibilities so
that the needs of children remain preeminent.
• Effective communicators are willing
to listen. This is demonstrated in our
posture, body language and facial
expressions, and our tone of voice. It
is also demonstrated when we avoid
or remove distractions.
5. Parents can become facilitators. If
parents become volunteers, again,
there must be very clear rules on their
roles and responsibilities including
• Effective communicators reflect back
what they hear. Actively listening
Effective communicators are willing to listen. This is
demonstrated in our posture, body language and facial
expressions, and our tone of voice.
110
and concern, and understand the
tension they feel as they attempt to
balance the concerns they feel with
the developmental benefits to the
child.
and reflecting back what we hear
demonstrates that we have heard and
understood what has been said and
encourages others to communicate.
• Effective communicators recognise
feelings. We pay attention to the
emotions behind other people’s
words and are aware that meaning
is often dependent on feelings,
mood and context. For example, a
parent sighs and tells us that they
have new neighbours. If we ignore
or misinterpret that sigh we risk
responding inappropriately – for
example: ‘You’ve got new neighbours,
that’s nice!’ or ‘Your neighbours?
You want to meet mine, they’re the
neighbours from hell!’ In this example
we need to acknowledge the parent’s
concerns about their new neighbours
but it is a mistake to overdo the
feedback when we have so little
information. It is better to respond
cautiously with ‘You sound a little
concerned’ rather than ‘Oh no, bad
luck!’
• Effective communicators respect other
people. In our role as a playworker we
meet men and women from a range
of different cultures, backgrounds,
and ethnicities and with a variety
of opinions and views. Respect
involves acknowledging all these
individuals and treating them equally.
It means avoiding stereotyping other
people and not using judgemental
language that controls or denigrates.
Respect also means keeping private
information confidential, unless there
are situations where children’s safety
and wellbeing are in question.
First impressions
When we meet someone for the first
time their initial impressions of us will
be especially influential in shaping their
opinions, and this is true of children and
adults. By creating a positive impression
of ourselves and of our provision, we
make it much more likely that parents
will allow their children to attend. Are we
welcoming? Have we clearly explained
the playwork approach? Are we clear
about how the provision operates and
why? Have we answered any concerns,
• Effective communicators are able to
appreciate another person’s point
of view. For example, we notice a
support worker on their first day at the
play setting looking extremely anxious
as a child climbs a tree. Although no
words may have been spoken we
are able to recognise and respond
appropriately to their feelings of worry
By creating a positive impression of ourselves and of our
provision, we make it much more likely that parents will
allow their children to attend.
111
Regulations for Family Support,
and the Minimum Standards for
Childminding and Day Care for
Children Under Age 12.
such as questions about the access
policy or our approach to risk? Have
we managed to explain all this in a
clear and accessible way?
In our experience there is no
substitute for clear and accessible
first hand information at the beginning
of any relationship between
playworkers and parents. By avoiding
misunderstandings at the start we can
prevent many of the most common
difficulties in any relationship.
For or against involvement?
There are a number of views outlined
by Kilvington and Wood (2010) on
the advantages and disadvantages of
involving parents in the play setting.
Some welcome parents as a way of
building strong trusting relationships
and providing a source of potential
volunteers and even future paid workers.
On the other hand, some see parents
as a restriction to children’s ability to
play freely, and that they complicate and
confuse the child-centred nature of the
play environment with parental adult
concerns. We will explore issues around
community engagement later in these
materials but the following points are
relevant.
Parents should also be given clear
written information on the setting in
line with the various regulations laid
down for their nation and the provision
they offer.
Legislation
The legislative and procedural basis
for professional relationships with
parents, carers and other adults
are outlined in a number of different
standards and regulations.
• A significant part of our role as
playworkers is to advocate for play.
If our communities are genuinely to
become play-friendly places then
there must be a wider dialogue about
how play can be facilitated, and
parents and carers have a vital role to
play in this discussion.
In Wales, the standards relating to
relationships with parents are affected
by the Child Minding and Day Care
(Wales) Regulations 2010, as well as
the National Minimum Standards for
Regulated Child Care. In the other
home nations:
• In England they are affected by
Every Child Matters and the Early
Years Foundation Stage Standards
• The play space exists for the child.
It is a space where they must be
free to experiment and try out new
behaviours according to their own
instincts and for their own reasons.
• In Scotland they are affected by
The Play Strategy Action Plan and
Getting it right for every child
• Playworkers actively concede power
to enable children’s own culture to
grow (Palmer 2008).
• In Northern Ireland they are the
Children Order Guidance and
112
Play driven not parent driven
Despite our earlier comments about
the importance of play provision being
part of the community in which they are
based, we must be clear that our role as
playworkers is to facilitate play and that
concern trumps any other. We must be
vigilant to defend an ethos that is driven by
children’s instinctive urge to play and not
by the needs of parents or other adults.
The play setting exists for the play needs
of the children who attend and not for ours
or any other adult however well meaning.
Of course this uncompromising stance
is made considerably easier when we
operate from dedicated provision.
Playworkers operating in paid-for provision
inevitably have to face and answer
the question, ‘Who is the customer?’
Whatever our final answer to that question,
play spaces, however they operate, must
not become colonised by adults so that
they are merely extensions of school or
home (Hughes 2012).
Trust
Without trust playworkers cannot operate.
Most parents care deeply about their
children and recognise, sometimes
instinctively, that children need to play in
order to grow and develop and be happy.
Most parents too recognise that modern
society is increasingly hostile to children
playing out and that dedicated staffed play
provision is important. However, if parents
and their children are to take full advantage
of this provision there must be a level of
trust in playworkers and how we operate.
How can we develop the level of trust
between parents and ourselves?
Warrell (2013) highlights that trust is
made up of three elements and each of
these parts is relevant to our role as a
playworker:
• Competence. Parents who believe we
are capable in what we do will be more
likely to trust us. We can enable trust
by clarifying that we have the required
knowledge, skills and experience to
fulfil the role of the playworker. The
information we provide to parents
should also explain how we are able
to meet the play needs of all the
children who attend the provision. (Of
course, some parents’ views on what
constitutes an effective playworker may
be very different from our own).
• Reliability. We demonstrate to parents
that they can count on us to do what
we say we’ll do. For instance, the
setting should open and close on time.
It is important that we behave in a
consistent and dependable way.
• Sincerity. We mean what we say, that
is, we genuinely care about play and
playwork. We are fair, consistent,
truthful and ethical in our approach and
we demonstrate integrity.
The play setting exists for the play needs of the children
who attend and not for ours or any other adult however well
meaning.
113
It is important that if possible we try
to meet with parents and not just rely
on written information. Not all parents
will have the literacy skills or the time
and patience to read detailed written
information. For some playworkers in
closed access provision meeting parents
will be routine but playworkers in open
access provision may see much less
of children’s parents, if at all. This will
make it much harder to build up a level
of trust that is vital in supporting good
relationships and dealing with any
difficulties now and in the future.
We cannot force people to trust us, but
by demonstrating these traits in our
practice we can make it more likely that
we will build trusting relationships with
those around us.
Information
Parents should have the information they
need to make an informed choice about
the type of play provision being provided.
Typically these details are outlined in
national minimum standards and we will
not repeat them all here except to add
that we should be diligent to ensure that
the rationale for freely chosen, personally
directed, intrinsically motivated play is
clear as is the role of the playworker
facilitating the play process.
Information about the provision shouldn’t
stop after parents have been welcomed
on the first day. A steady stream of
feedback about the provision can keep
it in the public (and parents’) eye and
maintain a level of interest in children’s
play. We can also feedback regular
positive information to parents about
their children’s play. Just relying on an
annual open day for communication and
feedback for example, is not enough.
Children’s play behaviour can be
amazing and inspiring, and sensitively
feeding back something about a child’s
We must ensure that parents understand
why it is fundamentally important for
children to play uninterrupted and in their
own ways. Sometimes parents may be
sceptical or worried, particularly around
safety issues. In these cases it often
helps parents to see with their own eyes
what happens at the setting and the
effect of the playwork approach.
114
play behaviour to their parents can be very constructive.
This needs to be done carefully so that confidentiality and
privacy are maintained. Conversely, waiting until there is a
problem before meeting a parent is not a productive way to
begin any relationship.
Maintaining regular contact with parents also has benefits
when keeping information about a child up to date. Parents
are also able to provide vital information and context that
can help us make sense of their child’s changing play
behaviour.
Confidentiality
As we build relationships with parents and carers in our
area, it is normal that they will tell us about their lives and
their community including information about other adults
and children. It is important that we keep any confidences
we have been given and generally stay out of matters that
are beyond our concern as playworkers. It is unprofessional
for playworkers to gossip about other people’s personal
concerns. By respecting information that is private or
sensitive we will gain the reputation that we can be trusted
and this will increase the respect in which we are held as
well as for the setting in which we work.
As we have previously noted our commitment to
confidentiality does not override situations where children’s
safety and wellbeing are in question. Passing on our
concerns about a child is not the same as gossiping (Petrie
1997).
Campaigning parents
To be sustainable, play provision needs the support of
local adults and one area where they can be especially
effective is in campaigning and advocacy. Parents can
have considerable influence on local policy although
many may not realise it. Local people have access to their
local councillors who they directly elect to represent their
interests. Consequently they can campaign and advocate
for play in ways that may not be available to playworkers
who are not also local residents as the following story
shows.
115
the role of adults in facilitating it. It is
essential we are able to explain what we
do and why we do it and can highlight our
professional framework and its theoretical
basis. Of course this is no easy task and
will happen over a period of months and
years.
The play setting was based in a small
park in a built up area of the city. As
an open access scheme many children
came and went every day but what
concerned the playworkers was the
increase in traffic particularly on the wide
residential road next to the entrance to
the park. One child had already had a
‘near miss’ and the playworkers were
concerned there would be a serious or
even fatal accident in the near future. A
pelican or zebra crossing was urgently
needed but nobody seemed to be
listening to a few humble playworkers.
The playworkers shared their concerns
with the local parents who immediately
decided some direct action was needed.
The next day the playworkers found that
the parents had made banners and had
organised a protest that had temporarily
blocked the road and stopped the traffic!
The police and the press were soon
involved but thankfully it ended quickly
and peacefully. The campaign quickly
gained attention and support and to
everyone’s delight and amazement, a few
weeks later a crossing was installed and
that feared accident never happened.
Everything we have said about
developing good relationships with
parents also applies to other adults.
Listening, reflecting back, recognising
feelings and respecting differences are all
important in forging and maintaining good
relationships. It is also helpful if we have
some understanding of other professional
approaches and where they differ from
ours in their attitudes towards children’s
play. In practical terms inviting these
adults to see first hand what happens in
the play setting can be an effective way
of combating biases and misinformation
about play provision. Malcolm King,
longstanding playworker at an adventure
playground in Wrexham, called The
Venture, recommends having the children
show adults around (Brown 2007).
Cultivating good working relationships
with these adults is important for the
effective running of a play setting and its
reputation, and contributes to the wider
process of promoting and advocating for
play and playwork.
Other adults
As well as parents and carers it is
important we have good relationships
with a range of other local adults.
Depending on the setting these might
include teachers, health professionals,
social workers, police officers, registration
and inspectorate services, park and
leisure management staff, and caretakers
and cleaners. All of these adults need
some understanding of play and playwork
but it is a mistake to assume other
professionals automatically share our
views on the importance of play and
Conclusions
Playworkers vary considerably in the
amount of contact they have with parents,
carers and other adults. Nevertheless
these relationships are important and
need to be carefully managed and
cultivated in order to develop and sustain
good trusting relationships.
116
When communicating with adults we use active
listening skills that appreciate different points of view
and respect cultural and ethic diversity. We take every
opportunity to advocate to local people about the
importance of play and playwork.
Parents and carers should have proper written
information about the play setting. This needs to be
carefully explained so there can be no doubt about the
setting’s ethos and rationale.
Written information should be reinforced with first hand
communication whenever possible and we should take
opportunities to feedback positive information. In our
relationships with adults we keep any confidences we
are given while making clear that this doesn’t extend
to situations where children’s safety is in question.
Parents and carers can commonly become involved in
our play setting in a number of different ways including
as advocates, fundraisers, resource gatherers and
providers, sitting on management committees and
becoming a volunteer. In roles that impact directly on
children’s play it is important that we lay down clear
roles and responsibilities that ensure that the play
environment is not adulterated by adult agendas. Play
environments should be driven by the play needs of
children and not the needs of adults.
If our relationships with them are handled well, parents
can make a valuable contribution to the running of the
play setting – one that enriches the play environment
and supports children’s control over their own play,
rather than one that overrides or diminishes it.
117
Learners into
practice
Notes
If you are told information in confidence
by a parent or carer when would you:
a) Tell no one?
b) Tell your staff but no one else?
c) Tell protection agencies?
Do parents and carers trust you? What is
it about your practice that influences your
answer?
What is your setting’s policy on parental
or other adult involvement in your
provision? Does this policy still leave
control of the play space in children’s
hands?
Brown (2008) suggests that playworkers
should work holistically. How might this
be relevant to how we work with other
adults?
How do other professionals view your
play setting? Is this important? Are their
views accurate and if not, how can you
change this situation?
118
?
?
??
?
Conflict with
adults
Summary
In this section we look at
conflict with adults - why
it happens and conflict
resolution principles.
Conflict is an inevitable and normal part of
human relationships. When people with
different interests or objectives meet conflict
may result. Conflicts arise from different or
opposing needs, values, motivations, ideas
and demands. Perhaps surprisingly, despite
the large amount of literature about the
subject, there is no single clear meaning of
conflict (Rahim 2010).
Conflict is often linked to aggression and negative
feelings but this is not necessarily so. It can be a
vital source of change and innovation that prevents
stagnation. Handled poorly however, conflict can
certainly lead to aggression, strong negative feelings
and damaged relationships.
119
a parent may sign a consent form
without reading all the details and
instead rely on their assumptions or
what others say.
How do we respond to conflict? Many of
us are unaware of how we respond to
conflict as when tensions are high we fall
back on our instincts. Researchers have
found that there are a number of different
ways to respond to conflict, each of which
is useful in particular situations – there is
no single best way (ibid). By becoming
more aware of how we usually respond
as well as how we could have responded,
we can resolve more situations
amicably in the future and build stronger
relationships. For playworkers this level
of self-knowledge is an essential part of
reflective practice.
• Interpersonal differences. People
have different personalities and
temperaments that can clash and
make it difficult to get on with one
another. In practice, this difference
may be closer to the first point in this
list and actually involve a clash of
values. For example, one playworker
feels it’s important to share all their
feelings with colleagues in their
regular peer reflection sessions, while
another more private playworker finds
this embarrassing and unnecessary.
Why it occurs
• Strong feelings. Conflict can raise
deep and powerful feelings that
can spill over into other situations.
Sometimes conflicts occur because
of displaced emotions such as when
a person redirects their feelings onto
a safer alternative. For example,
frustrated by the slow decisionmaking progress of our management
committee, we might go home and
shout at our loved ones instead.
Drawing on the work of Rahim (2010) we
can describe how conflict can occur when
there are:
• Different priorities and values.
People’s values influence their
behaviour and their attitudes towards
what is right and wrong. For example,
some adults will feel strongly that
swearing in a play setting is wrong
while others will feel that it is a normal
and important part of children’s
developing expression.
• Unfair actions and decisions. When
things such as money, resources,
and attention are, or appear to be,
unfairly allocated, conflict can result.
For example, a manager of a busy
summer play scheme feels it is unfair
that they have the same budget as
• Misunderstandings. People
can misread and misinterpret
communication and form opinions
and judgements on erroneous or
incomplete information. For example,
People’s values influence their behaviour and their attitudes
towards what is right and wrong.
120
a much quieter scheme with far fewer
children.
• Competition for resources. Individuals
and groups can compete for the
available status, position and
resources. For example, if an event or
activity becomes ‘first come, first serve’
say, because of a lack of available
places then competition and conflict will
often result.
• No appropriate procedures. Since
some level of conflict is inevitable
in all relationships there should be
no excuse for not having effective
procedures and information available to
prevent, manage and resolve conflict.
Conflict resolution principles
How should we deal with conflict
situations? While each situation is
different and may favour slightly different
approaches there are a number of
principles that can guide our practice.
First, we need to keep calm. When
feelings are running high it can be very
difficult to remain calm and keep focused
on the problem. Staying calm is important
so we can accurately read and interpret
others’ emotional states including their
verbal and non-verbal communication
(Petrie 1997). Keeping calm is also
important for controlling our own emotions.
If we are calm we can communicate how
we feel and what we would like to happen
assertively but without threatening others.
We should never retaliate; instead we
acknowledge and show we understand the
other person’s point of view. This means
watching out for and acknowledging what
others are feeling as well as what they
actually say. As part of our strategy for
reducing a high level of emotions we
should look to deal with conflict situations
in a calm, non-threatening space away
from audiences.
We have already looked at the importance
of listening carefully and the conclusions
we drew are particularly relevant here.
Acknowledging, clarifying, reflecting, and
summarising are all vital tools in listening
effectively and can help focus our attention
on what the other person is actually
saying. Listening also involves using our
bodies to show we have understood with
appropriate use of eye contact, nods or
smiles.
We also need to recognise any non-verbal
or meta-communication that suggests the
feelings (and meaning) behind the words.
For example, we might say, ‘I can see that
this is difficult for you’ or ‘I can see you are
upset’. Meta-communication can be seen
in a whole range of ways including facial
expressions, tone of voice and posture.
Changes in certain expressions such
as sighs and grunts can be significant
and can indicate some level of insight or
acceptance, but we should always remain
cautious to avoid over-analysing any
non-verbal communication. Consider the
following example.
At the end of the day at an after school
club the staff wait for a mother to pick up
her daughter. The child has had a lovely
day and as part of her play has used
face paints on herself to great effect! The
mother arrives looking very unhappy and,
without a word, takes her daughter by
the hand and marches off. Some of the
staff are worried and think they must have
somehow upset the mother – perhaps she
doesn’t like the messy face paints?
121
can actually be increased. Consider this
example.
The following day the parent returns and
tells the staff she has been asked to work
different shifts at work. She says she
is very upset because she knows how
much her daughter loves the club, and
she probably won’t be able to bring her
any more.
A playworker notices that a parent
who they know well is smoking by the
doorway and smoke is blowing into the
building. The playworker takes hold of
a small fire extinguisher and pretends
with great pantomime-like exaggeration
to creep up on the parent as though to
squirt them! Of course the parent sees
this and thankfully finds it very funny,
and quickly apologies and puts out their
cigarette. If we are going to use humour
it’s important to be ourselves and use it in
a way that is not accusative, judgemental
or derisory.
We use humour. Humour can be a
powerful tool in diffusing tension and
broaching difficult or sensitive topics in
a way that doesn’t put people on the
spot or lead them to become overly
defensive (Meyer 2000). Of course, what
people find funny varies enormously and
it’s important any attempt to deal with
conflict in a humorous or playful way
is done sensitively otherwise tensions
To avoid blame we concentrate on trying to achieve a
positive resolution to any conflict, and we speak honestly
and fairly while recognising our own and others’ feelings.
122
We avoid blame. Blame is not about finding solutions
to challenges, rather it focuses on the person and
leads to an atmosphere of distrust, suspicion and
stagnation (Petrie 1997). Blame is extremely harmful to
our relationships as it damages trust and supports the
self-esteem of one party at the expense of the other.
To avoid blame we concentrate on trying to achieve
a positive resolution to any conflict, and we speak
honestly and fairly while recognising our own and
others’ feelings.
We seek a ‘win-win’ resolution. Whenever appropriate
and possible we aim to achieve a ‘win-win’ resolution to
a conflict situation (Conflict Resolution Network, n.d.).
The win-win approach is a complete departure from the
more usual confrontational style of conflict. It challenges
the assumption that there must be a winner and a loser
and instead replaces it with co-operation. To achieve
this we adopt a creative problem-solving approach that
involves both sides.
The sceptic may say that this approach is not always
possible and indeed there are occasions when we
cannot fully resolve some situations. Nevertheless
because this approach involves acknowledging,
understanding and valuing people’s needs they feel
differently about the outcome (ibid).
Respect is a quality that is important throughout our
practice. In essence it is about ‘an attitude that the other
person has an individual experience of life, that they
have their own feelings and ways of understanding and
they have the right to be treated equally’ (Petrie 1997:
122).
By acknowledging and listening to others’ views we
value and respect them. For example, we might validate
their concerns by saying, ‘I’m glad we’ve got this
opportunity to talk’. By avoiding communication that
blames, judges or stereotypes, we give out the message
that all people have the right to be heard and treated
equally.
123
Different styles for handling
interpersonal conflict
ignoring a conflict. It is also known
as suppression and an avoiding
person may deny any conflict exists.
Consequently, they ignore their own
and others’ needs and concerns. The
goal of this approach is ‘I lose, you
lose’.
What strategy should we adopt when we
want to resolve a conflict? Should we
force the issue and try to get our own
way; should we try to find a collaborative
or compromise solution; or should we try
to avoid the situation altogether? There
are several theoretical models that reflect
these approaches. Rahim (2010: 80-84)
outlines a model with five different styles
to resolve conflict.
5. Compromising. People who adopt a
compromising style take the middle
ground and favour solutions where
both parties give up something.
Compromisers give up more than
those who adopt a dominating
approach but less than those who
take an obliging approach. They
explore a problem in more detail than
the avoiding style but in less detail
than the obliging style (ibid). The goal
of this approach is ‘I win some, you
win some’.
1. Integrating. This approach emphasises
openness and collaborating towards
solving problems to the satisfaction of
both parties. Integrating involves two
stages; first, confronting the problem
through clear communication and
analysing the causes of the conflict;
next, problem solving so both parties
benefit. The goal of this approach is ‘I
win, you win’.
Each of us will have a natural preference
for one or two of these styles but in fact,
all of these styles can be appropriate
depending on the circumstances. When
should we adopt each of these different
styles? Rahim (2010) summarises each
as follows:
2. Obliging. Also known as
accommodating, this style plays down
any conflict and emphasises common
values and interests. An obliging
person may give up some of their
own concerns in order to satisfy the
concerns of another person. The goal
of this approach is ‘I lose, you win’.
1. Integrating. This approach is helpful
when there are complex issues
to be resolved and that need time
and commitment from all parties to
produce better solutions. There is
some evidence that this approach is
the most constructive and the most
effective in managing social conflicts
(Rahim 2010). For example, we are
planning a joint project with another
organisation that has a slightly
different but related agenda and
ethos. For the project to be successful
we need to use the ideas and skills
of both parties so that any solutions
are appropriate to both organisations’
policies and attitudes.
3. Dominating. Also known as
competing, this approach is about
achieving a win-lose situation. A
dominating person stands up for what
they believe to be right at the expense
of the views of others. They will use
their authority and power to win at all
costs. The goal of this approach is ‘I
win, you lose’.
4. Avoiding. This approach involves
postponing, side-stepping or
124
a cooling off period is needed. For
example, at a management meeting
one of the members is angry that their
special ‘prize’ mug has been used by
someone else and left unwashed in
the sink. We decide it’s best not to
get involved and instead carry on with
business.
2. Obliging. This approach is helpful
when maintaining relationships is vital
and the issue is more important to
the other party. It’s also appropriate
when we believe we may be wrong.
For example, we failed to pick up
some scrap from a local business as
we thought the arrangements were
for another time. The other party
feels aggrieved as they went to a
lot of trouble to help. We consider
this relationship to be much more
important to us and the setting
than simply arguing over a date, so
adopting an obliging style seems to
be the most helpful approach.
5. Compromising. This approach is
appropriate when the goals of each
party are mutually exclusive and
consensus cannot be achieved. It is
also applicable when an integrating
or dominating style has not been
successful. For example, we have two
members of staff who both want the
same period off for their holiday. To
resolve this situation fairly, both sides
may have to compromise.
3. Dominating. This approach is best
when the issue is trivial and when a
speedy decision is needed. It is also
appropriate when unpopular actions
need to be taken and when technical
decisions need to be made but others
around us don’t have the necessary
expertise. For example, it is a hot,
sunny day and some children at our
setting say they want to go to the local
beach. A parent offers to drive saying
he can get most of the children in his
large white van. Sadly we have to
decline the offer, as we know that this
would go against all the procedures
our setting has for off-site trips.
Perhaps we can find an alternative
that will meet the children’s request?
When parents and their
children’s needs differ
There may be times when the views and
needs of parents and their children differ.
For example, a busy parent may ask us
‘not to let their child get dirty’, meanwhile
their child is planning to finish their secret
den in the bushes, dig for bugs, and play
with water. A parent may ask us not to
let their child play with another child who
they disapprove of, but the two children
consider themselves best friends. A
parent may tell us that their child is not
to leave until a certain time at an open
4. Avoiding. This approach is best when
the issue is unimportant or when
There may be times when the views and needs of parents
and their children differ.
125
relationships, by listening courteously,
and by confronting constructively when
necessary.
access scheme, while the child wants the
freedom to come and go with the other
children. In all these cases the parent’s
values and needs do not coincide with
those of their child’s or of the play setting.
If we need to challenge then we
remember that we are confronting
others’ behaviour and not criticising them
as a person (Petrie 1997). We listen
carefully, check for misunderstandings
and avoid blaming others. It is essential
that adults are aware of our professional
responsibilities, and in particular what
our role is as playworkers facilitating and
supporting play.
How should we deal with these
situations? While it is important we
recognise and respect parental views
about their children, these views do not
override the policies and principles of the
play setting. In most cases first listening
and acknowledging parents’ views and
then explaining carefully how and why we
operate the play setting will be helpful.
This is particularly so when we’ve been
able to develop friendly relations over
some time. Of course this doesn’t mean
we are indifferent to requests that are
entirely reasonable and appropriate.
If the situation is getting
inflamed
Sometimes despite our best efforts the
situation at the play setting may get
inflamed – for example, another adult
may complain bitterly about something
they dislike and verbally attack us. How
should we react when we are facing
aggressive behaviour?
For example, a parent who is concerned
that their child is being bullied is entirely
correct to speak to us about the situation
and should expect that we would respond
appropriately. It would not be acceptable
for them aggressively to confront and
threaten the alleged bully in the play
setting.
The Conflict Resolution Network (n.d.)
suggests the following process. First and
most critically we must keep calm and
not get aggressive ourselves or overly
defensive. Our first task is to diffuse
the high emotional state and until that
happens a solution is not likely to be
found.
Sometimes adults may have unrealistic
expectations, for example they
may suppose that a school-based
playscheme will have exactly the same
rules as the school. They may also be
misinformed about the purpose of the
play environment. For example, they
may assume that the playworker’s role
is to entertain the children, or they may
feel that the play environment should
be risk free, or they may want a list of
activities that a child can do. In practice,
most of these situations can be dealt with
through developing friendly supportive
If possible we need to use a neutral
environment and certainly we would
want to avoid an audience. If we know
the person, it will probably help if we call
them by their name. We need to use our
active listening skills and let the other
person know we have heard them.
126
Finally after the event we must record the
incident and follow any guidelines from
our setting or organisation. Aggressive
behaviour can be frightening and
stressful and it is important that we can
express our feelings. Reflecting with a
colleague or manager can help us work
out what happened and how we reacted.
When people feel they are not being
heard they will feel frustrated and angry
and are likely to shout. We avoid telling
people to calm down and instead adopt a
non-threatening and respectful attitude.
Next we need to acknowledge their
position. This doesn’t mean we have
to pretend we agree with it, merely that
we have heard and understand what
the other person is saying. We avoid
patronising or talking down to the other
person or telling them that they are
wrong. Sometimes we will need to check
or clarify what they are saying as often
conflict is about perception and not
reality.
Apologising
Inevitably at some point we will make
a mistake as a playworker. In practice,
there will be several! If what we have
done or said (or perhaps what we have
not done or said) is wrong, then we
apologise. When we apologise we say
we are sorry and then we say what we
will do to try and correct matters. For
example, we might say, ‘I’m sorry that
this has happened, this is what I’m going
to do about it’. This approach takes
responsibility for the situation. What is
much less helpful is apologising followed
by an excuse. For example, ‘I’m sorry,
but it wasn’t my fault, it was really caused
by…’ This isn’t really an apology and
doesn’t solve the problem; it merely shifts
the blame.
Once the heat is out of the situation we
can begin to state our case and to ask
how we can solve the problem. If at
any time the situation starts to become
heated again we need to return to active
listening.
Now the situation is calmer we need to
state our case in an assertive manner
without riling the other person. To do
this we need to speak from our own
point of view using ‘I’ statements. For
example, we might begin ‘From my point
of view...’ or ‘I feel that...’ We avoid
lecturing what they can or cannot do.
The point of speaking in ‘I’ statements
is not to magically fix the situation and
have the other person suddenly agree
with us, rather it is a way of opening up a
dialogue and clarifying what we feel and
what we would like to happen in a nonthreatening way.
This highlights a very important
distinction that people regularly get
wrong; namely the difference between
fault and responsibility. It may well be
that a negative occurrence is not our
fault. However, that does not mean we
are not responsible. The most obvious
example of this would be when a child
gets hurt at our setting even though a
volunteer was overseeing the activity.
Clearly the accident was not our fault.
One technique we can use is to appeal to
an overriding common concern, interest
or goal. The more powerful the common
concern the more likely it is to succeed.
127
However, if we are the playworker in
charge of the setting, then the incident
is our responsibility in many senses,
including:
Learners into
practice
• Making sure the child’s needs are
attended to as soon as possible
Think back to a time when you were
involved in a conflict with another adult.
Which conflict handling style did you use
and was it appropriate for that situation?
With hindsight and using what you
have learnt, would you deal with things
differently now?
• Recording the details of the
event making sure that everyone
understands the concept of dynamic
risk assessment
• Taking reasonable steps to ensure the
accident won’t happen again.
As the senior playworker what are the
benefits of sharing the principles of
effective conflict resolution with your
staff?
Conclusions
Conflict is an inevitable part of our
experience as playworkers but it doesn’t
have to be a negative or destructive
process if dealt with effectively. Conflict
arises from opposing interests, values
and needs that cannot be easily and
quickly resolved. It can stir up powerful
feelings and cause us to respond
instinctively. Because of these emotions
we need to keep calm in any conflict and
focus on what is being said and how it is
being said.
In the play setting what triggers a
temptation to blame others? How could
you handle these situations more
productively?
Notes
We use active listening skills to
acknowledge and clarify what is being
said and we look to achieve a resolution
where both parties’ needs are met.
There are several different styles for
handling conflict, each effective in
different situations. We always adopt a
courteous and respectful approach but if
we need to confront someone we do so
constructively and in a way that makes
clear our professional boundaries and the
play setting’s rationale and policies.
128
?
?
??
?
Risk – different
approaches to
risk assessment
Summary
In this section we
look at risk-benefit
assessment in play
settings.
While everyone would agree that health
and safety is important and nobody wants
to see a serious accident happen to a child
or anyone else, we believe health and
safety legislation has, on occasion, been
used disproportionately and with the
unachievable goal of eliminating all risk.
Legislation that was designed for hazardous
industries has been applied in a blanket style
to all occupations, including ones where
serious dangers are extremely rare, like
playwork.
Concerns about litigation and the aggressive marketing of
claims management companies have led many to adopt a
fearful, defensive approach to working with children that,
we would argue, does not put their play and wellbeing first.
129
Fortunately many in the playwork and
childcare workforce as well as many
parents are challenging this climate of
fear that has developed around health
and safety. Crucially, it is also being
challenged by the regulators and by
government itself.
should not be sacrificed to the cause of
overzealous and disproportionate risk
assessments’ (ibid: 37).
In 2012 the Health and Safety Executive
(HSE) published a high level statement
promoting a balanced approach to risk.
The statement emphasises that when
planning and providing play opportunities,
the goal is not to eliminate risk, but to
weigh up the risks and the benefits –
no child will learn about risk if they are
wrapped in cotton wool.
In 2010 the UK government published
Common Sense, Common Safety
(Young), which recommended taking a
common sense approach to health and
safety, and moving from risk assessment
to risk-benefit assessment. It also
considered reviewing the Health and
Safety at Work Act 1974 to separate out
play and leisure from workplace contexts.
As for children’s play spaces the report
notes:
This statement makes clear that:
• Play is important for children’s
wellbeing and development
• When planning and providing play
opportunities, the goal is not to
eliminate risk, but to weigh up the
risks and benefits
‘There is a widely held belief within
the play sector that misinterpretations
of the Act are leading to the creation
of uninspiring play spaces that do not
enable children to experience risk. Such
play is vital for a child’s development and
• Those providing play opportunities
should focus on controlling the real
risks, while securing or increasing the
benefits – not on the paperwork
• Accidents and mistakes happen
during play – but fear of litigation and
prosecution has been blown out of
proportion.
In 2002 The Play Safety Forum produced
the position statement Managing Risk
in Play Provision that underpinned the
influential implementation guide of the
same title published in 2008 and again
in 2013. This guide, which is endorsed
by the HSE, recognises that children
need challenge and uncertainty in their
play and describes how play providers
can balance the benefits of play against
the risks. This process of risk-benefit
assessment is now recognised ‘as an
130
the approach laid out in the current edition
of Managing Risk in Play Provision:
Implementation Guide (Ball et al 2013).
appropriate approach to risk management
across play, leisure and education’ (Ball et
al 2013: 4).
Risk-benefit assessment offers a practical
and technical means for assessing
the benefits and risks involved in play
provision and should be part of all play
provision policies on play and risk. Without
a clear and explicit philosophy on the
aims of play provision and the importance
of risk in play, there is a danger that our
strategy will be replaced by one of the
other competing agendas involved in
the provision of children’s facilities (Ball
2007). In Wales the Welsh Government
made its position clear in the Play Policy
Implementation Plan in 2006.
‘The Welsh Assembly Government
recognises the significance and the value
of play in children’s development and
that children have an innate desire to
seek out opportunities to take increasing
risks. This is an essential part of their play
and learning. It requires us to respond
positively by extending the range of
environments and opportunities available
for children’s play while continuing
to have due regard for their physical
and psychological well being’ (Welsh
Government 2006: 3).
Approaches to risk-benefit
assessment
Ball (2007) describes two distinct
approaches to the risk assessment of
play facilities and both may be familiar to
experienced playworkers. The first, and
arguably the most common approach until
recently, is to compare the equipment
on the play setting with the published
advice or standards, and in particular,
the recommendations of the British and
European Standards, (for example:
EN 1176 the European Standard for
Playground Equipment and Surfacing).
Ball (ibid: 67) notes that this has a number
of advantages and disadvantages.
Advantages:
• Traditional approach
• Seemingly based on expert knowledge
• Apparently straightforward
• Creates a level playing field.
This statement gives force to the view that
some risk is inevitable, even desirable,
and that we should adopt a balanced
approach in deciding how much risk is
reasonable (Ball 2007). The ethos of
assessing both risk and benefit should
also be reflected in the information we
give to parents and other adults. This is
an important measure in combatting the
over-protective and risk averse attitudes
that are now increasingly common. We
wholeheartedly endorse and advise using
Disadvantages:
• Reasons for criteria may be unclear
• Inflexible
• Measures required may not be safety
effective or cost-effective.
This is a technical and specific method
that measures what is provided – such
as a swing or slide – and compares it
against a standard. The problem with
131
such an approach is that many things
on a playground won’t be covered by
a relevant standard. However, a more
fundamentally serious problem is that
play provision needs to offer opportunities
for challenge and uncertainty. As
playworkers our goal is not to eliminate
risk – that would be impossible – but it
is also not necessarily about reducing
it either. Rather, playworkers adopt a
balanced approach and consider both
risks and benefits together.
However, in a play setting a wobbly
bridge offers a challenge to children
and has inherent benefits ‘even though
it may lead to more accidents than a
rigid bridge’ (ibid: 2). For the playworker
the task is not necessarily to remove or
reduce the risks but to manage them.
Consider the example about the wobbly
bridge discussed by Gill (2013). In the
workplace such an unstable bridge would
be quickly identified as a needless hazard
and fixed or removed.
Advantages:
The other approach identified by Ball
(2007) to assessing safety focuses on
risk assessment. This approach has the
following advantages and disadvantages:
• Based on actual risk
• Can accommodate local
circumstances and priorities
As playworkers our goal is not to eliminate risk – that would
be impossible – but it is also not necessarily about reducing
it either.
132
detailed technical understanding that
are beyond the competence of many
playworkers. For example, offering advice
about appropriate timber for building and
the implications of industry standards,
or the use and storage of tools and
construction equipment.
• Capable of optimising both safety and
resource allocation.
Disadvantages:
• Requires a more sophisticated
analysis and understanding of risks,
costs, and other trade-offs
The publication Risk and Safety in Play
(PLAYLINK 1997) offers a comprehensive
guide to many of the specific technical
considerations involved in self-build,
construction, and tool use, including
hazardous activities. Such experts are
able to offer helpful advice and guidance
but the final decision, and responsibility
in law, about balancing risks and benefits
rests with the provider (Ball et al 2013:
59).
• Results may be counter-intuitive.
There has been a tendency amongst
some to present risk-benefit assessment
as simple but this view has been
questioned (for example see Ball-King
et al 2013). The process of evaluating
a wide range of risks and benefits
can be complex and demanding and
requires a detailed knowledge of both.
However, neither should it be onerous or
excessively bureaucratic.
Carrying out a risk-benefit
assessment
The point of carrying out a risk-benefit
assessment is to manage the health,
safety and wellbeing of children so they
are able to play. It is not primarily about
avoiding liability. Having acknowledged
this, playworkers are required by law
to keep records detailing their risk
assessments, and managing and
monitoring a clear audit trail is part of
good risk management. As a playworker
in charge we ensure that assessments
are accessible, secure and up-todate and that they are informed by the
organisation’s policy and understood by
all staff.
Before we consider the specifics of what
a risk-benefit assessment might look like
it is vital that we have a ‘philosophy, a
rationale, or agreed purpose, and to state
what it is’ (Ball and Ball-King 2011: 136).
Decisions need to be made against a
policy background. Managing Risk in Play
Provision: Implementation guide strongly
recommends that all risk management
should begin from a policy framework that
is best set out in a play policy (Ball et al
2013: 41).
We have included an example risk
management policy in the appendices
to these materials that could be adapted
to form part of a provider’s play policy.
This policy makes it clear the values
and principles on which we base our
decisions about risk, and why risk is an
essential component in children’s play.
Risk-benefit assessment provides
a mechanism for bringing together
‘common-sense knowledge and
experience that providers have acquired
from a variety of sources’ (Ball et al
2013). However, it also allows for
the input of expert advice. There are
situations such as those requiring
133
When should we carry out a risk-benefit
assessment? In essence ‘risk-benefit
assessment is a tool for improving
decision-making in any context where a
balance has to be struck between risks
and benefits’ (ibid: 88). Considering the
benefits as well as the risks is significant
because ‘it is only possible to be confident
that play provision offers the best possible
opportunities to children and young
people if there is explicit consideration
of the benefits’ (ibid: 57). Risk is not
an optional extra but an integral part of
children’s play and clearly associated with
a number of play mechanisms including
combinatorial flexibility, co-ordination,
deep play, exploratory play, and mastery
play (Hughes 2001).
For playworkers typical situations requiring
risk-benefit assessment could include
children’s use of fire or water, hard
landscaping, trees and natural features,
self-built structures, fixed equipment, and
surfacing. They can also include situations
involving social or emotional risks. The
point of the process is to come to an
informed and reasoned judgement based
on the evidence and local circumstances.
For some children the social cognitive
and emotional risks in playing with other
children can be far more important than
any physical risks. Specific types of risk
described by Gladwin (2005) include:
• Social risk from peers such as ridicule,
insult or verbal aggression by other
children. For example, being mocked
for being unaware of some local rite,
initiation or custom, or being left out of
a game.
Furthermore many instances of supposed
physical risk taking often have significant
underlying social and emotional causes
such as the need to maintain status and
cement friendships. For example, a child
showing off their expertise on a high swing
to his or her peers is risking far more than
simple physical injury.
While some situations may be risky for
some children but not for others there are
some emotional risks that are arguably
universal (Davis and Eppler-Wolff 2009).
These emotional risks include:
• The risk of achievement and mastery
• The risk of separation
• The risk of enduring delayed
gratification
• The risk of close connections with
others
• Dares from other children that involve
a social risk. For example, being dared
to pick up a large spider or walk past a
fierce dog.
• Social risks from adults where the
play behaviour is likely to involve
rebuke from adults. For example,
knowingly breaking a playground rule,
or deliberately trespassing on private
property to encourage a reaction from
an adult.
• The risk of expressing one’s beliefs
and ideas
• The risk of coping with uncertainty.
Crucially for the process of risk-benefit
assessment, regardless of whether the
risk is specific to the child or universal,
the level of risk will vary for each child
depending on age, ability, experience,
temperament, and the local and social
context and conditions.
134
The implication of this for our
practice is significant: the accuracy
and effectiveness of our risk-benefit
assessments are dependent on our
ability to develop and maintain effective
relationships with the children we serve.
• What views are there on the nature
of the risk and how authoritative are
they?
These could include technical
specialists, guidance from accident
prevention organisations, and
authoritative publications from national
play organisations and the Play Safety
Forum such as Managing Risk in Play
Provision: Implementation guide.
Below we have included a generic set
of questions taken from Managing Risk
in Play Provision: Implementation guide
that could make up the basis of a riskbenefit assessment (Ball et al 2013: 65).
The authors suggest that these should be
considered as a set of prompts and not a
fixed list. They should also be adapted to
meet local needs and policies.
• What relevant local factors need to be
considered?
This could include the characteristics
of the local environment and the likely
users.
A risk-benefit assessment might ask:
• What are the options for managing the
risk, and what are the pros, cons and
costs of each?
• What are the benefits?
These are for children, young people
and for others. They might include
the range of benefits that play has on
children’s wellbeing and development,
benefits to the local community,
benefits from reduced costs, and/
or benefits from a reduction in
undesirable hazards.
Options should be evaluated and
any new information discussed.
Possibilities include increasing
the opportunities that led to the
assessment, reducing or removing the
risk, doing nothing, and monitoring the
situation.
• What are the risks?
• What precedents and comparisons
are there?
These might include the risk of
harm and injury to children, risk
of complaints or litigation, risk of
environmental damage, and financial
risks.
These could be from comparable
services or spaces as well as from
other providers.
The assessment should outline possible sources of
information depending on the topic to be assessed.
135
• What is the risk-benefit judgement?
These are dependent on the policies and objectives of
the provider as well as local circumstances. Judgements
should be monitored and periodically reviewed.
• How should the judgement be implemented in the light
of local political concerns, cultural attitudes and beliefs?
This could include taking account of the views of
local parents and other adults, of local providers, and
considering local traditions.
In addition, the assessment should outline possible sources
of information depending on the topic to be assessed.
Managing Risk in Play Provision: Implementation guide
suggests these could include:
• Common sense and experience
• Observation of the play space/equipment in use by
children
• Standards
• Guidance and resources from relevant agencies
• Expert opinion
• Views of colleagues and peers
• Relevant experience from other providers
• National and local data sources
• Research studies
• Local knowledge.
Managing Risk in Play Provision: Implementation
guide advocates a descriptive approach to risk-benefit
assessment, which does not feature numerical calculations
and values assigned to risks and benefits. Although such a
scoring process is undoubtedly possible it is inappropriate
for playworkers as benefits and risks are fundamentally
different things.
136
For example, it makes no sense to try and score a cut knee against the
thrill of a zip line ride, or to grade the effects of occasional bad publicity
from over protective adults against the benefits of children directing their
own play and developing resilience and independence. A descriptive
approach is also preferred because assessments must reflect local
circumstances and draw on the provider’s policy. Given all these
different elements and conditions Managing Risk in Play Provision:
Implementation guide notes that any scoring system would be
inconsistent and unreliable. It recommends that risk-benefit
assessments are made and kept in narrative form. This style is
best suited to meeting the individual needs of providers and in
Having strongly the absence of a definitive authoritative
pro forma we
advocated for the use
recommend this approach as a starting
point.
of risk-benefit
Ball
assessment as an essential Who should carry out risk-benefit assessments?
people are
tool in playwork we must and Ball-King (2011) are clear that local
bring attention to the fact that the best source for making accurate
risk-benefit
it is simply a tool to help us in assessments because they know the
local
our decision-making. It is not a situation and are more likely to be familiar
magic wand and there is no
with local policy objectives too. Even
when
guarantee or certainty in the special expertise is required they note
that
technique however much we
the HSE has indicated that local might crave it. As Spiegal expertise is again preferable.
notes, there can be no certain right or wrong answer, rather ‘what a risk-benefit
For us this means that specific
assessment requires is a decision underpinned risk-benefit assessments are
by reasons. And reasons are always open to best carried out by local counter-reasons’ (2013). The effectiveness of
playworkers who have a
any risk-benefit assessment we make is an expression detailed knowledge of the
of our competence both to reflect organisational policy children they serve and
on risk and to be able to routinely make rational, balanced
the environment and
informed judgements in a range of situations with
community in and children. As Spiegal explains, while these judgements may not
which they work.
be easy, knowledge and confidence can grow provided there
is an understanding and agreement between the organisation’s
position and the risk-benefit assessor (ibid).
Dynamic risk-benefit assessment
Dynamic risk-benefit assessment is the ‘minute-by-minute
observation and potential interventions by adults who have
oversight of children in staffed provision, such as school
playgrounds, out of school facilities and adventure playgrounds’
(Ball et al 2013: 56). Children are instinctively driven to explore
137
and try out new behaviours that can be
complex, changeable, and dependent on
countless variables. This unpredictability is
beyond the scope of any practical written
assessment. Dynamic risk assessment is
not a replacement for written assessment
but a natural partner. It relies more on
intuition, memory and experience rather
than reasoned analysis and scientific
evidence. (These are the first three
categories of Hughes’ IMEE Protocol
for Reflective Practice (1996), that we
will examine more closely later in these
materials).
Dynamic risk-benefit assessment is a
‘bottom-up’ approach that relies on the
knowledge, skills and experience of those
working face-to-face with children. It is
a crucial part of the risk management of
staffed play provision and an essential
skill for all playworkers. To be effective it
requires:
character, previous experience and
abilities
• A level of self-knowledge and an
awareness of personal ‘triggers’
• An understanding that people react to
risk cognitively and emotionally and
that these two reactions can result in
different assessments of risk
• An appreciation of the local conditions
and particularly when they change
• The ability to think on your feet and
adapt to circumstances even when
under pressure.
Dynamic risk-benefit assessment is
sometimes referred to as ‘common sense’
but the key point about common sense is
that it should genuinely be common. The
implication for us as playworkers is that
we must continually share and discuss our
understanding of risk and how and why we
assess it within our team. The skills that
make up effective dynamic assessment
cannot be taught in the traditional way
as they come mainly from experience,
however it is quite possible to have lots of
poor experience!
• A close working knowledge of the
children who attend the setting
• An understanding of risk and its role in
children’s developmental needs
• An understanding of different play
behaviours and what they look like in
practice
• An understanding that one child’s
stimulating risk can be another child’s
extreme danger, not just because of
differences in age, but also, each child’s
Reflecting, sharing with our colleagues and
learning from one another offers a way of
communicating best practice, of learning
from everyone’s mistakes and successes,
and ensuring a level of consistency at our
setting.
Dynamic risk-benefit assessment is a ‘bottom-up’ approach
that relies on the knowledge, skills and experience of those
working face-to-face with children.
138
Gill writes: ‘Indeed too much guidance,
at too great a level of detail, can be
counterproductive, because it can
reinforce a distorted approach to risk
management that focuses on technical
compliance rather than critical thinking
and proactive problem solving’ (2010:
14). It is important that any guidance,
including that contained in these
materials, is thought through then
considered, applied to practice, and
reflected on. Otherwise we risk falling into
an automated tick-box mentality.
How
important is self-knowledge when making
risk-benefit assessments (in other words,
the realisation and acceptance that our
decisions are coloured by our personality
and previous experiences)? And how can
we ensure consistency?
Because dynamic risk assessment is a
continuous process it is ideally suited
to situations where known risks are
unexpectedly replaced or accompanied
by hidden dangers. For children,
known risks are commonly assessed
experiences such as height, speed
and balance. Hidden dangers on the
other hand are those threats that are
invisible or not fully understood, such
as poison, electricity, high-speed trains
and fragile roofs (Hughes 2012). For
example, consider the following story.
A playworker is sitting by the fire
as a number of children toast their
marshmallows on sticks. Others are
cooking food and are fascinated
that sugar and salt make the flames
change colour. The play setting has a
risk-benefit assessment for this activity,
which the playworker is following.
A girl involved in the cooking says
that she’s heard that aerosols make
a cool bang when put in the fire and
promptly produces a small container
of antiperspirant from her pocket and
throws it on the fire.
How important is it that a playworker is
specifically competent in the area they
are assessing. (I.e. can you risk assess
a child climbing a tree if you’ve never
climbed one yourself? If the answer is
‘no’, how competent do you need to
be? Is this related to the level of risk
involved?)
Given children’s individual needs and
preferences may vary greatly, it seems
reasonable to assume that the exact
benefits from particular play behaviours
may also vary. Does it matter that we
might not know what the precise benefits
are from a specific risky activity? Does it
matter that we might not know the exact
ability levels of each and every child?
While a written risk assessment should
arguably include guidance about this
type of event it’s not always practical
to include every possible source of risk
in a written assessment. Fortunately
in this situation, the playworker (unlike
the children) was well aware of the
increased danger and could intervene
quickly and appropriately by asking the
children to move away from the fire
and quickly removing the aerosol.
While we wholeheartedly endorse
the message and approach outlined
in Managing Risk in Play Provision:
Implementation guide, adopting it
is not an excuse for an unthinking
automatic approach.
139
Learners into
practice
Notes
How important is self-knowledge when
making risk-benefit assessments (in other
words, the realisation and acceptance
that our decisions are coloured by our
personality and previous experiences)?
And how can we ensure consistency?
How important is it that a playworker is
specifically competent in the area they
are assessing. (I.e. can you risk assess
a child climbing a tree if you’ve never
climbed one yourself? If the answer is ‘no’,
how competent do you need to be? Is this
related to the level of risk involved?)
Given children’s individual needs and
preferences may vary greatly, it seems
reasonable to assume that the exact
benefits from particular play behaviours
may also vary. Does it matter that we
might not know what the precise benefits
are from a specific risky activity? Does it
matter that we might not know the exact
ability levels of each and every child?
140
?
?
??
?
Risk aversion supporting those
who are risk averse
Summary
In this section we
explore how to support
risk averse parents.
Children today have never been safer yet
‘it seems the less we have to fear, the more
we fear’ (Gardner 2008: 353). Why this
should be is debatable but there is little
question that adults, and in particularly
parents, are routinely bombarded with
messages warning them about almost every
conceivable danger. Furthermore, the more
dramatic and unlikely the danger the more
attention it receives.
For example, the abduction and death of a child by a
stranger is a truly terrible but thankfully very rare event,
yet these dominate the media for weeks and months.
In comparison, the death of a child in a road traffic
accident is many times more common yet is likely to be
barely reported. Inevitably these messages influence
adult opinions about levels of risk and what sorts of
behaviour are appropriate and permissible for children
and young people.
141
to constructively engage with people and
use the evidence of our own practice to
change minds and attitudes.
There is a wide range of attitudes
towards risk in adults. Some are more
anxious than others but the overwhelming
majority want children to be happy,
independent, healthy and safe. Despite
this, the sheer level and intensity of
scaremongering around children’s lives
means it is unsurprising that children’s
play is threatened by some adults who
over-supervise and over-schedule
(Whitebread et al 2012). A particularly
worrying development is that some of
these adults have themselves grown up
in a climate of risk aversion and now as
adults have adopted that position as they
work with children or raise their own.
We can support adults who are risk
averse in a number of ways:
• We should know what is really
dangerous and what is not. This
means being aware of the real risks
surrounding children’s lives and in
particular those connected with their
right to play. For example, playground
deaths are extremely rare – roughly
one every three or four years (Ball
2002). In comparison RoSPA (2011)
reports that around 120 children
and young people below 15 years
die every year as a result of a home
accident. Knowing the real risks helps
us to advocate, and to challenge
misleading claims.
Risk aversion is not confined to any
particular group of adults and can be
seen in every area of society. However,
the voices calling for increased
restrictions and protections around
children’s lives are often the loudest.
• We must be clear about the benefits
of play and those benefits need to
be demonstrable. Adults who are risk
averse are likely to be very sure about
the dangers involved in some play
behaviours but much less so about
any benefits. Put simply behaviours
that are considered beneficial are
generally considered less risky (Slovic
et al 2002) and so by increasing the
visibility of the benefits of play, risk
averse adults may be more likely to
reconsider their views.
There is no shortage of advice for adults
concerning children and children’s play
but much of it is contradictory. Parents
are ‘in a double bind: on the one hand
they are castigated for being incompetent
and on the other they bear total
responsibility for their child’s well-being’
(Furedi 2001).
It is important we do not take up a
judgemental position where we berate
parents for being risk averse. Rather than
condemn, we believe it is more effective
Risk aversion is not confined to any particular group of
adults and can be seen in every area of society.
142
• We should be empathetic in our
relationships with parents and other
adults. Most parents instinctively
realise that some form of risk taking
is needed for their children to develop
independence. However, there are
significant societal pressures on any
parent who does not conform and
some of the most powerful surround
how children are reared. Offering
understanding and support is more
effective than laying blame and guilt
on adults who already feel responsible
for being over-protective. There
are practical sources of help and
encouragement available, for example,
Lenore Skenazy’s playfully written Free
Range Kids (2009) has many realworld tips for parents who would like
to give their children more freedom
to become self-reliant but are unsure
how, and Warwick Cairns’ How to
Live Dangerously (2008) provides an
accessible corrective to modern fears
and anxieties.
• We must be explicit about the process
of risk-benefit assessment. The
thinking behind risk-benefit assessment
should be included in our policies,
in the information about our service
we provide for parents and other
professionals, and in the training we
provide for staff and volunteers. We
recommend adopting an approach
in line with the guidance contained
in Managing Risk in Play Provision:
Implementation guide. The HSE
supports this guidance. It will be much
easier for parents and other adults to
trust us (and their own children) if they
are clear about our approach to risk.
• Many adults fully realise that children
need and want to take risks in
their play and ‘consider it is more
favourable for children to discover risk
management skills in a supervised
play environment rather than in other
everyday life situations’ (Hughes 2001:
7). Playworkers are able to facilitate
a full range of play behaviours and
so provide opportunities for children
to experience and manage risk for
themselves in a secure environment.
We should cultivate trusting
relationships within the community.
As adults see first hand the benefits
of children taking risks in their play so
their views may change. To change
beliefs we must change behaviours and
attitudes.
• We must be prepared to challenge
and advocate. Inevitably we will
come across adults who do not share
our views on the importance of play
and with our belief that children are
competent individuals. In particular
we need to challenge the myths and
untruths around the risks in children’s
play.
• Policy and information. It is vital we
have a robust play policy that is clear
about our position towards risk taking.
The primary goal of any play provision
is to enable children’s right to play; it
is not the pursuit of safety at any cost.
Unless this point is made explicitly
there is a danger that other agendas
will end up driving the policy (Ball
2007). Our position on risk should
also be reflected in the information we
provide for parents and other adults.
For example, we should make it clear
that we expect children to explore,
be active and sometimes take risks
in their play. They may suffer bumps
and bruises, they will encounter the
normal ups and downs of forming
friendships, and all these experiences
143
He describes how, from a position in
the late 1970s and 1980s when safety
was considered paramount, playworkers
successfully campaigned and advocated
for a more balanced approach to risk
taking in play. Nationally this issue
was championed by the Play Safety
Forum and now the arguments for the
importance of risk in play, for children’s
developing competence to assess
and manage risk, and the need for
judgements to strike a balance between
risks and benefits are accepted by the
HSE and those agencies responsible for
playground safety.
will make them more independent,
more resilient and more competent.
We cannot and do not promise total
safety, but rather an approach which
guards against inappropriate risks and
the most serious disabling and fatal
dangers.
• We should demonstrate a joined
up approach where playworkers,
managers and the organisation adopt
a shared and consistent approach to
risk in play – from policy to practice.
This sends a powerful message that
our approach to risk is considered
and authoritative. Gill has suggested
that we advocate the ‘philosophy of
resilience’ rather than the philosophy
of protection (2007). ‘Unless children
are allowed to take a degree of
responsibility and to gain some
experience in how to do this, adults
in many contexts will feel under ever
more pressure to intervene’ (ibid: 84).
‘The process has successfully reframed
the problem of playground safety,
rejecting philosophies of protection and
adopting a philosophy of resilience, by
introducing into the debate some broader
perspectives and values. Such reframing
offers the prospect of progress in other
contentious areas of childhood risk’
(ibid: 83).
Can playworkers make a difference to
the level of risk aversion amongst many
adults? While this is a huge undertaking
and our influence as playworkers may
be small in comparison with some
sectors, there is evidence we can make
a considerable difference when our
efforts are co-ordinated and targeted.
In his book No Fear: Growing up in a
risk averse society (2007) Tim Gill uses
public playgrounds as a case study for
looking at the influence of risk aversion.
At local level moving towards a
philosophy of resilience and competence
will take the courage and conviction of
playworkers prepared to advocate for this
approach and routinely to demonstrate it
in their play provision. Are we ready for
this challenge?
Can playworkers make a difference to the level of risk
aversion amongst many adults?
144
Notes
Learners into
practice
What causes do you believe lie behind
the modern increase in risk aversion?
Can it be reduced, especially when it
concerns children?
In your experience what has
proved the most effective method in
supporting adults who are risk averse
around the issue of children’s play?
How can you promote a philosophy
of resilience and competence in your
day-to-day playwork practice?
145
?
?
??
?
Intervention
- a playwork
approach
Summary
This section covers
the playwork approach
to intervention.
Much of the environment in the most
developed countries is increasingly
considered dangerous or unsuitable for
children, so by way of compensation
designated play spaces have been provided
– some with adults to supervise.
These supervised spaces are artificial spaces that
often concentrate a variety of children in one place
that otherwise would be dispersed in the surrounding
environment. Intervention is the inevitable result of
supervised spaces, as playworkers must occasionally
intervene for reasons of safety and to support or extend
the play.
146
The challenge for anyone who facilitates
children’s play is to balance our ethical,
legal and organisational duties to prevent
serious harm while at the same time
trying to replicate the feel of an authentic
space that previously would have been
largely adult free (Hughes 2012).
not to become involved – a kind of nonintervention. In fact, for playworkers this
non-interventionist approach is central to
best practice. Intervention usually refers
to non-intervention or a tendency towards
non-intervention.
Supporting children’s play can in turns
be exhilarating, frustrating, rewarding,
exhausting and inspiring. It is rarely easy
or straightforward and the challenges
raised around intervention are everpresent for practicing playworkers.
Why a low level of
intervention?
Why should playworkers favour an
approach to intervention that is ‘hands off’
and cautious? Why should we be slow to
get directly involved in the child’s play?
Intervention sits at the heart of playwork
practice and helps define playwork as a
unique approach to working with children.
It reveals much about our core values
and is intimately bound up with our
attitudes towards children, their play and
their development and wellbeing.
Play is a natural process that belongs
to the child. It is a process of trial and
error where children can experiment,
try things out, and repeat and refine
behaviour. Central to this behaviour
is that children can choose how, why
and with whom they play. The level of
control children have over their own
play is part of what makes it play, ‘along
with its characteristics of flexibility,
unpredictability, spontaneity and
imagination’ (Lester and Russell 2008:
217).
What is intervention?
As we have seen previously in this
course, intervention is the word we use
for any involvement that a playworker
has with a child or group of children. It
covers how and why playworkers may or
may not become involved in children’s
play, although in practice, it’s often
seen as referring to situations where
there is a problem to be addressed.
Intervention refers to the act of becoming
involved as well as actively choosing
Intervening can disrupt this level of
control and interfere with the flow of play
that children often exhibit when playing. It
may shortcut the very processes that play
seeks to develop.
Intervention is the word we use for any involvement that a
playworker has with a child or group of children.
147
‘The great strength of play is that because
the child chooses what to do, does it in
his or her own way and for his or her own
reasons, a task or object is learnt on every
sensory level until the child has exhausted
the thing’s learning potential’ (Hughes
2012: 282).
The implication of this is that children
are the experts in their own play and this
can be a difficult pill to swallow for some
adults!
Balancing risk with
developmental benefit
must consider whether the risk is within
the child’s current competency. Risk and
challenge are desirable, but inappropriate
hazards are not, and we have a duty to
ensure children’s safety. This doesn’t
mean children can’t suffer minor cuts
and bumps – these are the inevitable
consequences of active play. What it does
mean is that children are not subjected
to dangers that are hidden, beyond their
competency to assess, pressurised or
coerced into, without any compensating
benefits, and generally excessive and
inappropriate.
Balancing these two needs is mainly
common sense but there are a number of
factors we should consider, including:
Knowing when to intervene and when to
leave well alone is a constant challenge
for playworkers. In the UK playworkers
work to the Playwork Principles,
which establish the professional and
ethical framework for the profession
(PPSG 2005). Playwork Principle 8
directs playworkers to balance ‘risk
with the developmental benefit and
wellbeing of children’ when choosing an
intervention. This is a difficult balancing
act and requires accurate and sensitive
judgement.
• knowledge of the particular child or
children
• knowledge of the play environment
including variables such as the
weather
• the context of the behaviour
• the visibility of any hazard
• risk-benefit assessment
We know that children need and want
to take some level of risk and that
playing is a key mechanism for how it is
experienced and assessed. However,
children’s judgement is developing and we
• our knowledge of playwork theory
• our self-knowledge and play history.
Knowing when to intervene and when to leave well alone is
a constant challenge for playworkers.
148
Intervention styles
5. Leave the content/intent of play to the
children. Play is an integral part of
the child’s developmental processes.
How it’s done is a matter for them –
it is their agenda. For playworkers
working in a therapeutic setting this is
especially important. (For an example,
see the work of Brown and Webb with
children in a Romanian paediatric
hospital – Brown and Webb 2003).
As playworkers how should we approach
intervention? What methods should we
employ? The First Claim … a framework
for playwork quality assessment
(Hughes 2001) lists eight approaches or
intervention styles. As we have already
noted the term ‘intervention’ here is used
in the sense of little or no intervention.
1. Wait to be invited to play. Playworkers
are sensitive and careful not to take
over.
6. Let children decide why they play.
Play is behaviour without goals or
rewards. It is a process. No prizes or
inducements need be offered.
2. Enable play to occur uninterrupted.
Playworkers think hard before they
organise too much or interrupt the flow
of play.
7. Enable children to decide what is
appropriate behaviour. The play space
should exist for the children’s benefit.
Play settings do not need complex
rules – perhaps the following could
suffice: ‘Have the best time you can
here but try not to hurt yourself or
anyone else.’
3. Enable children to explore their own
values. Play is a process of trial and
error and supporting it requires a
sensitive flexible approach.
4. Leave children to improve their own
performance. Play is a mechanism
where children develop their own
judgement. Playworkers are wary of
short cutting the process and making
children overly dependent on them.
8. Only organise when children want
support. Children sometimes run out
of inspiration and become bored,
and they may ask for help inventing
something for them to do. Playworkers
149
leave the play to the child as soon as
possible.
are sensitive to their own need to
please and the children’s vulnerability
to becoming dependent.
Whenever possible we ‘should aim to
offer a response that is playful rather than
controlling or prescriptive’ (ibid: 16). This
response is based on an understanding
of the child and their play cue, the play
environment, and an understanding of the
playworker’s own skill and ability.
All of these styles are based on the
approach that children must have the time
and space to control their own play, and
should be able to decide how and when
they play without undue interference from
adults. Although there are times when we
should intervene, these styles offer us a
general approach rather than a set of rigid
rules.
Sturrock et al describe a range of
interventions as follows:
Although these intervention styles are
not really about getting involved in the
child’s play they are not an excuse for
laziness on behalf of the playworker!
Low intervention does not mean low
activity. Continually checking the play
space is working, monitoring and
observing children’s play, being sensitive
to play cues, being an accessible
resource for children, and being vigilant
for inappropriate risks are just some of
the tasks we carry out throughout a play
session. This is a low intervention but
high response approach (Hughes 1996).
It is also a necessary component of
reflective practice (Palmer 2003).
1. Play maintenance. The playworker
observes the play and no intervention
is required.
2. Simple involvement. The playworker
becomes a resource for the play and
this involvement may be subtle or
overt.
3. Medial intervention. The playworker
becomes involved in the play at
the request of the child before
withdrawing.
4. Complex intervention. ‘There is a
direct and extended overlap between
playing children and the adult – the
adult may need to take on a role in the
play, or act as a partner to the playing
child’ (ibid: 16).
An alternative scheme
An alternative but complimentary
approach to intervention is suggested
by Sturrock et al (2004). This outlines
a range of responses from the
subtlest minimum to obvious complex
interventions. As with the Playwork
Principles the emphasis is on intervening
only as a means of facilitating play, or
to help children avoid serious harm. In
order to remain ‘authentic’ we should
consciously resist any temptation to
control or influence the play and having
intervened should aim to withdraw and
When do playworkers
intervene?
Although our general approach is nondirective there are times when we should
intervene. Hughes (2012) notes that the
freedom to play for some children is very
limited and they may have lost some
of their motivation and skill to interact
playfully. The loss of those opportunities
150
makes it vital, that if we do intervene,
it should be from the child’s agenda
(Sturrock and Else 1998). This means the
child determines both how and why they
play (Hughes 1996).
by no means an easy thing to do and of
course there are times when we must
directly and urgently intervene for safety
reasons (for example, when we intervene
to prevent a child being seriously harmed).
For the child, play offers the prospect
of both freedom and autonomy and
by respecting and supporting these
values playwork empowers the child.
This approach holds true especially for
playworkers in a therapeutic setting. Brown
and Webb (2003) describe how even
when working with abandoned children in
Romania where a strong and persistent
presence was needed, ‘it remained the
case that most of our interventions were a
response to the specific play behaviours of
each child’ (ibid: 151).
However, many more mundane situations
exist that require a lighter touch where
play can be redirected or transformed
rather than halted. Intervening in ways that
encourage and extend play demands a
great deal of sensitivity as well as a playful
empathic approach. This approach is one
that must start with the child’s motivations.
Playwork Principle 8 continues and directs
us to ‘... choose an intervention style
that enables children and young people
to extend their play’. Supporting and
facilitating play is the primary reason for
the playwork profession and this extends
to how we intervene. Will children continue
to play because of our actions? This is
1. When children ask for it. Sometimes
children will directly ask us to play. At
other times this invitation may be subtle
and may consist of a wink, a grin, an
affectionate insult, or a hundred other
small signals. These invitations or cues
require us to be constantly vigilant so
we can recognise and ‘return’ the cue.
So far we have looked at reasons for a
low level of intervention but there are
times when we should and must intervene.
These include:
151
All children give out these cues and
they can come at any time. While we
should always respond to these cues
we need to be aware that the more we
become involved the more likely it is
that we adulterate the experience and
encourage the child to be dependent
upon us (Hughes 2012).
2. When children need us to act as a
resource, such as providing an extra
pair of hands. In this instance having
given the help asked for we can
withdraw.
3. When a child is unhappy or distressed.
This requires a great deal of sensitivity
to judge accurately. Does the child
want to be left alone? Will our
intervention focus unwanted attention
on the child? This is an area where
our knowledge of the child or children
involved is especially important
together with the quality of our caring
and compassionate relationship.
4. When there are serious disputes
that the children have been unable
to resolve themselves. Again these
situations require great sensitivity. We
need to listen and observe and be
wary of jumping to conclusions. Often
children are able to resolve disputes
for themselves but sometimes these
disputes may be the result of adult
feuds or prejudices and escalated by
outside influences. Children greatly
prize fairness in adults who are
involved in their play.
5. When there is violence, harm or
danger. Of course, no one wants to
see any child seriously hurt or injured
and it is our responsibility to ensure the
play environment feels safe and secure
even when children are engaged in
risky activities (Hughes 2012).
6. When there is a hazard that has not
been detected by the child. While
many children are very capable
of assessing familiar and obvious
dangers this is not the case for unseen
or unknown hazards.
7. When children have a condition that
makes it less likely they will recognise
play cues. Some playwork writers
suggest that children with Attention
Deficit Disorder, for example, may
find it difficult to recognise play cues
(Sturrock and Else 1998).
If we do choose to intervene then, in
practical terms, there may be specific
times when we should err on the side of
caution. This could be because:
• We are unfamiliar with the child or
children involved. Usually playworkers
have well-established friendly
relationships with the children they
If we do choose to intervene then, in practical terms, there
may be specific times when we should err on the side of
caution.
152
serve, but if the children (or the
playworkers) are new to the setting, it
will be less obvious what is normal or
usual behaviour. Children, even those
of the same age, have a whole range
of different capabilities. So knowledge
of individual children is a key part of
any dynamic risk-benefit assessment
or intervention.
One area that frequently provokes interest
from playworkers and others who facilitate
children’s play is dealing with challenging
or aggressive behaviour. How should
we respond in a way that is consistent
with our non-directive, non-judgemental
approach?
Put succinctly, our intervention in
behaviour that is detrimental to others
is preventative or curative rather than
punitive. In other words, we aim to
prevent a situation getting to the stage
where behaviour is damaging to others, or
we aim to help children whose behaviour
is detrimental to others to reframe their
behaviour so that they and others can get
back to the business of playing.
• We are unfamiliar with the setting
and the other members of staff. Again
not knowing the style and practice of
the setting can leave us at odds with
other playworkers.
• We are unwell, stressed or tired.
These are the times when we are
most likely to be unable to think
clearly and reflect objectively,
consequently these are the occasions
when we are most likely to make
mistakes or poor judgements.
Our intervention may also support
children who are the victims of the
detrimental behaviour to get back to the
business of playing. How we achieve this
in practice will depend on a whole range
of factors including, the child or children
involved and the type of relationship
we have with them, the context and
background to the event, the atmosphere,
and the level of danger to the children
and ourselves.
Being cautious does not mean that we
change our fundamental approach. We
are still non-directive and any intervention
is still chosen because it will extend
children and young people’s play.
Rather, being cautious implies we must
be especially thoughtful and watchful
and actively question and reflect on any
intervention. Being cautious implies that
we rely less on any assumptions and
unconscious ‘short cuts’ that we may be
tempted to use.
Avoiding preconceptions and
prejudices
In the previous P3 level 3 Award course
we looked at a range of individual
Our past influences can act as ‘triggers’ which can interfere
with a non-judgemental approach.
153
Although this is vital it is by no means easy
as ‘our … tendency as adults is to protect,
teach or socialise, and this construct of
adult-child relations is deeply embedded
in the current social policies relating to
children and young people’ (Lester and
Russell 2008: 177).
influences or ‘triggers’ that left unchecked
could cause us to intervene in ways that
override the child’s agenda. It is worth
briefly recapping that message here.
As adults we all have a personal history
containing experiences and memories that
shape and influence us. Our knowledge,
beliefs, culture and personality all
contribute towards making us who we
are. These influences form our tastes
and dislikes and inevitably, our personal
prejudices. When we work with children
it’s vital that we suspend these prejudices
so as not to override children’s developing
needs and preferences.
Common triggers include:
• Controlling: ‘First we will play a game
of tig and then we can all sit at the
table to have a drink. Everyone line up
now!’
Our past influences can act as ‘triggers’
which can interfere with a non-judgemental
approach. Without our acknowledgment
and self-knowledge they can override the
child’s agenda with our own. ‘Playworkers
should adopt a non-judgemental, nonprejudicial, non directive and largely
reflective approach to their work’ (Brown
2008: 10).
• Helping: ‘Do you know that if you
just added a bit more blue that would
work? And if you tie that bit on at the
top, it’ll come out at the right angle,
just like it should.’
• Protecting: ‘Careful Amandeep, you’re
not really big enough to do that are
you? We wouldn’t want you getting
wet.’
154
• Remonstrating: ‘Now then you boys, I
can see this is going to end up in tears
if you don’t stop. Come on now, make
sure you play nicely.’
• Let me play: ‘Oooh! That looks fun, let
me have a go! Whoopee! I can jump
the highest!’
• Taking over: ‘Right, I’m coming to join
in now to make sure you do it right
and don’t break the rules.’
• Teaching: ‘That’s very good Rhys,
you’re making good progress on
painting that platform but if you hold
the brush like this you might finish
quicker.’
Observing interventions
Observing children is a key skill for
anyone who works with children. For
playworkers observation provides the
principle means of assessing whether
the play space is working. Observing
children is an essential part of listening
to what they ‘say’ as through their play
behaviours children express their play
needs and preferences. They indicate how
they feel about the space as well as about
what they need which isn’t there (Hughes
2012).
Observing children allows us to judge
whether we are offering different kinds
of play experiences, play types, and
behaviours. It allows us to judge whether
the modifications we have made before
the children arrive are working. It allows us
to assess whether the space is inclusive
and welcoming to all children and whether
it is a space where children are free to
follow their own ‘instincts, ideas and
interests, in their own way for their own
reasons’ (PPSG 2005).
• Looking after: ‘Li, your laces are
undone; let me do them up for you,
good boy. Oh Angharad, you need
some more sticky tape – I’ll get it …
All right girls?’
There are doubtless many more. Did you
spot one that seemed particularly relevant
to you?
Some of our interventions may even be
unconscious and non-verbal. A withering
look or a tense smile can all be triggered
by events that unconsciously bring out
strong emotions. Our body language and
even where we stand (or sit) in a setting
can affect our relationship with children at
play.
To avoid adopting an automatic,
unthinking response we first need to
be alert to a range of options and then
select the approach that we feel will most
likely extend playing whenever possible.
This approach may well be subtle, nonintrusive or may even involve deciding not
to intervene at all but it should always be a
conscious act.
Observation allows us to weigh up the
effectiveness of the play space and make
a judgement against our knowledge of the
playwork literature and our personal and
professional values and principles. This
is why, to observe effectively, we must
have a sound underpinning knowledge of
how and why we practice as playworkers.
In other words, we interpret what we see
based on our beliefs, and not the other
way around.
Let’s consider an example involving two
playworkers observing the same event at
a summer playscheme. It’s a sunny humid
afternoon and the playscheme is very
busy. Most children are outside and the
atmosphere is noisy, chaotic, and
155
Playworker 2 – ‘Wow, those two have
clearly had a lot of fun! Why do they want
to play in the toilet? I guess it’s the only
place today where they can play with
water. Perhaps we should have made
it available elsewhere – a hose and a
few bowls would have been no trouble.
I suspect those narrow toilets also make
a good hiding place. Perhaps we should
have provided more opportunities for
them to make their own little secret
spaces elsewhere’.
mostly happy. The phone rings inside the
playscheme building and simultaneously,
but unknown to each other, both
playworkers go inside to answer it, one
coming in via the front door and the
other by the back door. As they enter the
building they both notice that the toilets
are flooded. Hiding inside, grinning but
looking slightly sheepish, are two nineyear olds in wet clothes holding wads of
wet toilet paper. It’s clear they have been
playing with the water in the basins. Let’s
imagine we can stop the action and listen
to each playworker’s thoughts.
These two playworkers observe the
same situation but with very different
results. The first simply berates the
children because they don’t match up
with what the playworkers have provided.
The playworker holds the view that it is
the children’s behaviour that needs to
change, and consequently, the playwork
practice will likely remain unquestioned
and unchanged.
Playworker 1 – ‘Those little so and so’s
have flooded the toilets! Why can’t they
play properly like everyone else? Why do
they always have to wreck everything?
Playing in the toilet is disgusting. Where’s
the mop? I better clean up before anyone
slips.’
Unless we are prepared to watch and evaluate what we
do our practice will stagnate and we will be condemned to
repeat the same mistakes again and again.
156
Improving our intervention
practice
The second playworker interprets
what is observed through the lens of
playwork knowledge. This provides a very
different outcome from the thinking of the
colleague. This playworker uses the event
to question and assess the environment
and what it offers, and to improve
understanding. For this playworker it
raises the question, does the environment
I provide meet the needs of the children,
and if not, how can I improve it?
Intervention will always remain a
challenging area of practice for anyone
who facilitates children’s play.
The question should we intervene,
and if so how and when, needs to be
considered afresh for every situation.
Although playwork has agreed a general
non-interventionist approach, children’s
behaviour is too diverse to allow this to
become a fixed set of procedures laying
down exactly how we should respond.
Conway (2003) notes there is a
distinction between observing children’s
play behaviours on one hand, and
playwork interventions on the other. The
difference is that children’s play behaviour
comes first and causes a response or
intervention from the playworker. It is
about shaping our provision to meet the
needs of the children who attend rather
than expecting children to fit what we
provide. We need to ‘shift our thinking
away from the template approach to play
provision where the given environment
intervenes in and directs children’s play
rather than the other way around’ (ibid:
108).
In the Play Wales film Pushing Eddie
in the Nettles with Connor (2006) a
playworker observes two young people
arguing. While initially just pushing and
shoving the situation becomes more
serious when one of the young people
picks up a large mallet in a threatening
way. What should the playworker do?
Timing here is everything – too early and
the playworker removes any chance that
the young people themselves can resolve
the situation, too late and real harm may
result. In this particular case, we believe
the playworker times his intervention
well – removing the mallet but allowing
the young people to sort out the issue
themselves.
Unless we are prepared to watch and
evaluate what we do our practice will
stagnate and we will be condemned to
repeat the same mistakes again and
again. Inevitably there will be times
when we get things wrong and misjudge
a situation. The important point is that
through reflection we learn from these
events. This requires a level of personal
honesty and integrity and a commitment
to professional development and
improvement.
This particular example reveals the
skills, sensitivity and timing that effective
intervention requires. It also reveals
that if we are to become more effective
playworkers we need to reflect and
honestly discuss our interventions with
our colleagues. This includes times when
we have been less than successful.
157
We should ask ourselves some hard questions, for
example:
• Do we honestly leave how and why children play to
them, or do we try to ‘improve’ it with our own ideas
and agendas?
• What particular issues get us going and ‘push our
buttons’?
• Do we offer a consistent approach to intervention
across our provision?
• Are there particular children to whom we apply
different styles of intervention albeit unconsciously?
• Does our approach always match up with the
Playwork Principles?
Intervention may never be a skill that can be
completely mastered but sensitive adult involvement
that avoids controlling or disrupting children’s play
is at the heart of quality staffed play provision. As
playworkers we must never forget that our role is to
support the play process and that play process belongs
to the child.
Learners into
practice
Did the last time you intervened in children’s play at
your setting genuinely help children to extend their
play? If the answer is no, consider what prevented this
and whether this was avoidable.
How could you ensure that the intervention approach at
your setting is consistent?
What do you do to ensure that whenever appropriate
any interventions you make are playful and
empathetic?
We often focus on the occasions when we have
intervened but playwork intervention is arguably more
concerned with choosing not to intervene. When was
the last occasion when you chose not to intervene in
children’s play? What were your reasons and did your
non-action extend play?
158
?
?
??
?
Children
resolving conflict
for themselves
Summary
This section covers
why it is important
for children to try to
resolve conflicts for
themselves.
Children vary considerably in their ability
to deal with conflicts and disagreements
and to control and regulate their emotions
with others. They vary in their biological
temperaments and in the social and
emotional skills they have developed. But
whatever their proficiency in dealing with
conflict it is a skill that is developed by
personal experience.
Consequently, by allowing children whenever possible
to resolve their own conflicts, we send a powerful
message to them (and to any adults who are present)
that children are competent and capable individuals.
Conversely, by intervening excessively we announce
that we believe children are needy and incompetent
and we undermine their developing self-esteem and
disempower them.
159
In trying to resolve their own conflicts
children are developing a range of
communication and negotiating skills.
They are processing and coping with
their own feelings and interpreting their
peer’s emotions and point of view. The
emotions are the driving force behind
children’s actions including their ability to
make friends and form relationships (Ladd
2005).
Indeed, Sutton-Smith has proposed that
all the emotions are mediated by play
and ‘that individuals who play more will
be more capable of controlling their
emotional lives’ (2003: 15). Consequently,
by allowing children the opportunity to
navigate the normal tensions and upsets
that are part of social relationships we are
providing the ground for them to develop
resilience, independence and sociability.
Play is often an experimental activity
where children try out new strategies and
refine others. It is also how children make
and develop friendships with their peers.
Given these two facts it is inevitable that
children will sometimes make mistakes,
or misjudge their relations with others,
and conflict will result. This is usually a
normal everyday experience that needs to
be under the control of the child and not
taken away by the adult. It is not enough
to just ‘know’ how conflict can be resolved.
Children need the opportunity first-hand to
develop and refine the skills and abilities
essential for managing their relationships
and in particular what to do when there
are difficulties.
If a solution to a conflict is imposed on
children then, regardless of how fair or
well meaning it might seem to an adult,
we have denied children the chance to
learn something about fairness, problem
solving, co-operation and getting on with
their peers. For playworkers such an
intervention would lack integrity as it takes
away children’s control of their own play.
As in many instances of playwork, we
are walking a fine line here between
enabling children to take responsibility
for their own lives, and risking damage
to the sense of trust that we build up
with the children. Younger children in
particular tend to see adults as the
solution to their problems, so a failure to
intervene when a child feels frightened
or vulnerable may be interpreted by that
child as ‘letting me down’. That may have
lasting consequences if the child decides
they cannot trust the playworker, and so
doesn’t return to the setting.
Judging when not to intervene in a conflict
between children is not a simple thing.
The distinction between a playworker and
most other adults is that the playworker
will always ask the question ‘should I be
intervening here?’, whereas most other
adults will take it for granted that they
should always do so.
Play is often an experimental activity where children try out
new strategies and refine others.
160
It is important to note that we are not
talking about serious bullying when
we advocate for children resolving
conflict for themselves. There are clear
differences between routine squabbles
and disagreements and bullying. In short,
incidents of bullying are characterised by
repeated actions; they will feature unequal
power relationships, and the incident will
often be more severe (Olweus 1993). In
instances of bullying children are often
unable (or are prevented) from resolving
the conflict themselves and we need to
build up a range of interventions that
involve and support children and young
people. Bullying is dealt with in more detail
later in these materials.
For some children the experience of any
adult stepping back and encouraging them
to resolve their own difficulties will be new
and strange. Some children’s lives are
perpetually supervised and controlled and
they are denied adult-free experiences in
which they can make friends, fall out and
make up again. This is particularly true for
many disabled children.
In practical terms this means that some
children, unaccustomed to dealing with
their own conflicts, will immediately come
to us for assistance rather than deal with
it themselves. We need to respond to
this sensitively and not let a culture of
overdependence develop. As children
become more experienced and proficient
in dealing with conflict so our support
can become increasingly less direct and
obvious.
As an individual playworker it is important
to encourage children to solve their
own disputes but it is equally important
for every other playworker at a setting
to adopt a shared approach. If we are
the playworker in charge then we have
a responsibility to ensure there is a
consistent attitude towards intervention
and that individual good practice is not
compromised or contradicted by any
directive judgemental practice from
other playworkers. This reinforces the
importance of peer reflection and sharing
what we believe is good practice while
questioning what we consider poor
practice.
Common tactics to avoid
Watching children attempting to sort out
problems between themselves will never
be an easy task for playworkers. When
children are agitated or angry and are
engaged in a dispute with another child
it can be difficult to remain calm and
composed. There are strong emotions
or ‘triggers’ encouraging us to protect,
remonstrate, or teach. There are powerful
societal pressures that view children as
incompetent and vulnerable, and that in
order to learn an adult must teach them.
These can all lead us towards a number of
common responses that we should avoid
including:
1. Tell them to calm down. Telling
children or adults who are upset to
‘calm down’ normally only achieves
the exact opposite! This is because
it focuses attention on the child and
makes the situation personal. It is a
command that tells them what they
should feel rather than acknowledging
what they actually feel. Moreover, it
suggests that what they are feeling
is invalid and what they are saying
is irrelevant. It captures the exact
opposite of the empathetic, nonjudgemental approach that playworkers
should adopt.
161
2. Lecture. Playworkers are not parents
or teachers. Lecturing children takes
away the very sense of responsibility
that first-hand play behaviour delivers.
Lecturing children is an intervention
that significantly short cuts and
weakens the process of discovery
and experimentation. ‘The onus for
learning in the play space should
normally be on the child’ (Hughes
2012: 282)
3. Taking sides. Playworkers need
to build and maintain strong
relationships with all children. For
children to feel secure and be able to
play they need to feel they can trust
us and be confident that we have
their interests at heart. Sometimes
taking sides can be triggered by
our own childhood experiences,
particularly if they contain powerful
unconscious or unexamined feelings.
For example, we watch a group of
children playing skipping and notice
that one girl always seems to be last
in every game and the other children
frequently berate her for her lack of
ability. This causes us to remember
own our childhood experiences of
being treated in a similar way and
we are instantly drawn towards the
isolated girl and we want to take her
side. While taking her side may feel
‘right’ we need to reflect whether this
is about satisfying our own needs or
whether it is genuinely about making
the environment feel more secure
for that child and opening up more
opportunities for her to play.
4. Making assumptions. When there are
disputes between children we must
avoid jumping to conclusions. We will
often only witness part of an event or
we may be unaware of the context in
which it happens. For example, we
observe two children one black and
one white calling each other names.
We have observed situations in which
this behaviour ranges from normal
friendly behaviour between friends,
to a genuine falling out between
friends, to deliberate and aggressive
racist bullying. Without stopping to
consider the context we are in danger
of responding in the same way to
each of these situations. Should we
ignore it, or playfully take the heat
out of it, or should we consider more
When there are disputes between children we must avoid
jumping to conclusions.
162
direct intervention that challenges
the children involved? We cannot
know unless we stop, look and listen
and avoid jumping to conclusions.
A classic example is the temptation
to ally ourselves with the younger
or ‘weaker’ party in any dispute,
however, we should avoid taking
sides. Playworkers try to suspend
their personal prejudices and be nonjudgemental in all their dealings with
children (Brown 2008).
This contrasts with a situation where
children are continually asked what, when
and how they want to play. Stepping back
and giving children the opportunity to
resolve their conflicts is an integral part
of the control and ownership that children
must have over their play.
Learners into
practice
Conclusions
There may be times when children
are unable or unwilling to resolve their
disagreements themselves. Other adults
or young people may compromise the
situation by getting involved and ‘upping
the ante’ so that the situation becomes
about more than just a conflict between
children. These events can be dangerous
and need careful handling to prevent
matters getting out of control. It is
important that we are seen to be fair and
listen to all sides.
Why is encouraging children to resolve
conflicts for themselves so much more
challenging in practice than in theory?
Reflect on a recent occasion when you
observed children attempting to sort out
their differences. How did it make you
feel? Did those feelings influence how
you responded?
Reflecting on occasions when we have
intervened ineffectively can reveal
valuable learning and lessons for the
future. Having read these materials what
lessons can you draw and what do you
need to do or find out in order to improve
your practice?
However, in most routine conflicts
between children our approach is based
on the position that children often can
and do resolve their disagreements
successfully. By stepping back and only
intervening when necessary we empower
children to find their own solutions and
to become confident and competent
individuals.
This approach is consistent with what
Hughes describes as ‘child-empowering’
(1996: 23). This is when a child is
guaranteed an appropriate response
when asked for, but otherwise is left
alone to determine his or her own play.
163
Appendix 1
Risk Management Policy
This policy has been developed to provide a coherent,
consistent and balanced approach to the management
of risk at _______________ to ensure greater clarity of
understanding around this issue.
In doing so, the policy aims to present some challenge
to the existing risk averse nature of our society which
can limit children’s play experiences.
The policy is supported by the High Level Statement
produced by the Health and Safety Executive and the
Play Safety Forum.
The Children’s Play and Leisure: promoting a balanced
approach statement makes clear that:
• Play is important for children’s well-being and
development
• When planning and providing play opportunities, the
goal is not to eliminate risk, but to weigh up the risks
and benefits
• Those providing play opportunities should focus on
controlling the real risks, while securing or increasing
the benefits – not on the paperwork
• Accidents and mistakes happen during play – but
fear of litigation and prosecution has been blown out
of proportion.
Risk Management Systems
Risk Management in this policy is used to refer to all
elements involved in the management of risk that can,
and should, incorporate much more than paper risk
assessments alone. Where all these elements are
appropriately supported there is potential to develop
more robust and better informed risk management
systems.
Providing for risk and challenge in play provision
______________________ recognises that childhood
is full of new experiences, which necessarily involve
some degree of risk taking, whether it be physical or
emotional. Childhood is a continuous process of trial
and error with the potential for achievement, but also
1
Reasonable Controls
During the risk-benefit process it
may be necessary to identify control
measures in order to reduce risk of injury
to an acceptable level. However, the
control measures that can reasonably
be implemented will depend on the
resources available. The cost of any
potential control measures must be
justified by being proportional to the risk
of injury involved.
the inevitability of accidents. Children
would never learn to walk, climb stairs or
ride a bicycle unless they were strongly
motivated to respond to challenges
involving risk of injury.
We have a duty of care to try and protect
individuals accessing our services and
facilities from the potentially, long-term,
damaging effects of being exposed to
serious and unreasonable physical and
emotional harm. However in doing this
we must not overlook, or seek it at the
expense of, also enabling children to
actively participate in their own personal
development of health, wellbeing and
resilience, as a result of engaging in
situations with uncertain outcomes.
Prior to the implementation of control
measures consideration should also
be given to any potentially negative
impacts that may result from making
that intervention. For example, it is
important that children’s need to use their
environment in novel and unexpected
ways is not constrained in the search for
providing absolute protection from injury.
Risk-Benefit Assessment
Decisions about what is reasonable and
the desirability of children engagement
and involvement will be made using
a risk-benefit approach. This process
involves considering the potential benefits
afforded by an opportunity alongside any
potentially negative outcomes and then
making a judgement about whether the
potential for injury is proportional to the
benefits. That is, do the potential benefits
justify allowing risk of injury to remain?
For the purpose of risk-benefit
assessments, benefits can be physical,
emotional, social or environmental (and
are likely to be a combination of all of
these). Risk of injury can be identified by
considering the likelihood of any potential
injury occurring together with the potential
severity of that injury.
Key points:
• There is intrinsic value in children
experiencing uncertainty and personal
challenge through their play.
• Children need to feel free to
experience risk and challenge of their
own choice. They will only be able
to do this if we allow some degree of
uncertainty to remain.
• The play provision we create aims
to support children to experience
reasonable levels of risk for
themselves.
2
• There is a need for balance
between ensuring appropriate
levels of protection and
preserving reasonable levels of
uncertainty.
Notes
• We aim to manage risk so that
whenever reasonably possible the
risk of injury children are exposed
to is proportional to the potential
benefits associated with the
situation.
• Controls will be reasonable
and realistic whilst ensuring
unnecessary risks are minimised.
• Risk management incorporates
a number of different elements
which work together to form a
continuous cycle, improving our
practice.
• Children are capable of managing
some risk for themselves and
their competency will develop as
their experience grows.
4
References
Abrams, S.E. (2011) The Children Must Play. The New
Republic 28 January 2011 [internet] Available at:
www.newrepublic.com/article/politics/82329/educationreform-Finland-US# [Accessed 2 July 2013].
American Academy of Pediatrics (2013) Policy
Statement: The Crucial Role of Recess in School,
Pediatrics 131 (1) pp. 183-188. [internet]. Available at:
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/131/1/183.
full
Armitage, M. (2004) Hide and seek – where do children
spend their time after school? Paper presented at The
Second European Conference Child in the City, London,
20-22 October 2004.
Auerbach, S. (1998) Dr. Toy’s Smart Play. New York: St.
Martin’s Griffin.
Aydt, H. And Corsaro, W. (2003) Differences in
Children’s Construction of Gender Across Culture: An
Interpretive Approach. American Behavioral Scientist,
Vol.46.10: 1306-1325.
Ball, D. (2002) Playgrounds – risks, benefits and
choices. Sudbury: HSE Books. [online] Available at:
www.hse.gov.uk/research/crr_pdf/2002/crr02426.pdf
[Accessed 6 December 2013].
Ball, D. and Ball-King, L. (2011) Public Safety and Risk
Assessment. Abingdon: Earthscan.
Ball, D. (2007) Risk and the demise of children’s play.
In: Thon, B., Sales, R. and Pearce, J. J. (eds.) (2007)
Growing up with Risk. Bristol: The Policy Press. Ch.4.
Ball, D., Gill, T. and Spiegal, B. (2013). Managing Risk
in Play Provision: Implementation Guide, 2nd edition
London: National Children’s Bureau for Play England on
behalf of the Play Safety Forum.
1
Bekoff, M. (2001) Social Play Behaviour:
Cooperation, Fairness, Trust, and
the Evolution of Morality. Journal of
Consciousness, 8(2): 81-90.
Ball, D., Gill, T. and Spiegal, B. (2012).
Comments on shaping neighbourhoods:
children and young people’s play and
informal recreation draft supplementary
planning guidance. [online].
Available at: www.playlink.org/pubs/
JointCommentonSPGApril2012v3.pdf
[Accessed 25 October 2013].
Bekoff, M. and Byers, J.A. (Eds.) (1998)
Animal Play: Evolutionary, comparative
and ecological perspectives. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Ball-King, L., Watt, J. and Ball, D. J.
(2013) The Rise and Fall of a Regulator:
Adventure Sports in the United Kingdom.
Risk Analysis 33(1). pp.15-23. Available at:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/
j.1539-6924.2012.01850.x/full [Accessed 2
December 2013].
Berlyne, D.E. (1960) Conflict, arousal and
curiosity. New York, McGraw-Hill.
Berndt, T. J. (2004) Children’s Friendships:
Shifts over a Half-Century in Perspectives
on Their Development and Their Effects.
In: Appraising the Human Developmental
Sciences: Essays in Honor of MerrillPalmer Quarterly. Ladd, G. W. (ed.) (2007)
Detroit: Wayne State University Press.
Ch.9.
Barth, R. (1991) Improving Schools from
Within. SF, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bateson, P. (2005) ‘The Role of Play in the
Evolution of Great Apes and Humans’. In:
Pellegrini, A.D. and Smith, P. (2005) The
Nature of Play. London: The Guilford Press.
Ch.2.
Beunderman, J., Hannon, C. and Bradwell,
P. (2007) Seen and Heard: Reclaiming
the public realm with children and young
people. London: Play England.
Bateson, P. and Martin, P. (2000) Design
for a life: How behaviour develops. London:
Vintage.
Blakeslee, S. (2006) The New York
Times, ‘Cells that Read Minds’ [online].
Available at: www.nytimes.com/2006/01/10/
science/10mirr.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&
[Accessed 29 May 2013].
Bergen, D. (2002) ‘The Role of
Pretend Play’. In: Children’s Cognitive
Development’. Early Childhood Research
and Practice (ECRP) v.4(1). Available
at: http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v4n1/bergen.html
[Accessed 22 May 2013].
Blatchford, P. and Sumpner, C. (1998)
What do we know about breaktime?:
Results from a national survey of breaktime
and lunchtime in primary and secondary
schools. British Educational Research
Journal, Vol.24,pp.79-94.
Bergen, D. (2009) Chaos & Complexity
Theories in Education Group, ‘Play and
Brain Development as Complementary
Nonlinear Dynamic (Chaotic/Complex)
Systems’. [online]. Available at: http://
chaoscomplexityineducation.wdfiles.com/
local- files/research:meetingsindex/play2_
bergen.pdf
Bolton, G. (2010) Reflective Practice:
Writing and Professional Development. 3rd
ed. London: Sage.
2
Bowlby, J. (1969) Attachment and loss.
Harmondsworth, Penguin.
Brown, F. (2000) Play Value Research
Project. In: PlayEducation, New Playwork –
New Thinking. Maltings Conference Centre,
Ely, Cambs, 21-22 March 2000. Ely:
PlayEducation.
Boud, D., Keogh, R. and Walker, D. (1985)
Promoting reflection in learning: a model,
In: Boud, D., Keogh, R. and Walker, D.
(eds.) Reflection: Turning Experience into
Learning. New York: Nichols: 18-40.
Brown, F. (2003) Playwork: Theory and
Practice. Buckingham: Open University
Press.
Boyd, J. (2011) Creating Sustained
Professional Growth through Collaborative
Reflection. [online] Available at: http://
julieboyd.com.au/creating-sustainedprofessional-growth-through-collaborativereflection/ [Accessed 13 November 2013].
Brown, F. (2006) Play Theories and the
Value of Play, Highlight no.223. London:
National Children’s Bureau.
Brown, F. (2007) The Venture: A Case
Study of an Adventure Playground. Cardiff:
Play Wales.
Britannica Editors (2010) ‘The Decline of
Creativity in the United States: 5 Questions
for Educational Psychologist Kyung Hee
Kim’. Available at:
www.britannica.com/blogs/2010/10/thedecline-of-creativity-in-the-united-states5-questions-for-educational-psychologistkyung-hee-kim/ [Accessed 27 May 2013].
Brown, F. (2008) The Fundamentals of
Playwork. In: Brown, F. and Taylor, C. (eds.)
Foundations of playwork. Maidenhead:
Open University Press. Ch. 1.
Brown, F. (2008) The Playwork Principles:
a critique. In: F. Brown and C. Taylor, (eds.)
Foundations of Playwork. Maidenhead:
Open University Press.
British Medical Association (BMA) (2006)
Child and Adolescent Mental Health: A
Guide for healthcare professionals. London:
BMA.
Brown, F. (2012) The Play Behaviours
of Roma Children in Transylvania.
International Journal of Play. Vol.1
Abingdon: Taylor Francis.
Brockman, R., Jago, R. and Fox, K.R.
(2011) Children’s active play: self-reported
motivators, barriers and facilitators. BMC
Public Health 2011 11: 461. [internet].
Available at: www.biomedcentral.com/14712458/11/461 [Accessed 14 August 2013].
Brown, F. (2014) Play and Playwork:
Reflections on Practice. Maidenhead: Open
University Press.
Brown, F. and Taylor, C. (2008)
Foundations of Playwork. Maidenhead:
Open University Press.
Brown, F. (2000) Compound flexibility –
SPICE revisited. In: Proceedings of 2nd
Theoretical Playwork conference, ‘New
Playwork - New Thinking?’ 21-22 March
2000 Ely: Play Education.
Brown, F. and Patte, M. (2013) Rethinking
Children’s Play. London: Bloomsbury.
3
Brown, F. and Webb, S. (2005) Children
without play, Journal of Education, no. 35:
139-158.
Carper (1978), B. Fundamental Patterns of
Knowing in Nursing. Advances in Nursing
Science 1(1): 13-24.
Brown, S. (2013) Consequences of Play
Deprivation. [internet] Available at:
www.scholarpedia.org/article/
Consequences_of_Play_Deprivation
[Accessed 11 June 2013].
Carr, A. (2013) Positive Practice. Hove:
Routledge.
Centre for Health Education, Training and
Nutrition Awareness (CHETNA) (2011) Take
a moment to Listen. [internet] CHETNA.
Available at: www.bernardvanleer.org/
files/chetna/Child_rights_booklet-8.pdf
[Accessed 21 August 2013].
Brown, S. (2009) Play: How it Shapes
the Brain Opens the Imagination, and
Invigorates the Soul. London: Penguin.
Childress, H. (2004) Teenagers, Territory
and the Appropriation of Space, Childhood
11(2): 195-205. [internet]. Available at:
http://chd.sagepub.com/content/11/2/175.
abstract [Accessed 15 August 2013].
Brown, S. (1998) ‘Play as an organizing
principle: clinical evidence and personal
observations. In: Animal Play: Evolutionary,
comparative and ecological perspectives.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ch.12.
Christie, J.F. and Johnson, E.P. (1983)
‘The Role of Play in Social-Intellectual
Development’. Review of Educational
Research v. 53(1), pp. 93-115.
Bruce, T. (1991) Time to Play in Early
Childhood Education. London: Hodder and
Stoughton.
Chugani, H.T., Behen, M.E., Muzik, O.,
Juhasz, C., Nagy, F. and Chugani, D.C.
(2001) Local Brain Functional Activity
Following Early Deprivation:
A Study of Postinstitutionalised Romanian
Orphans. NeuroImage 14,1290 –1301.
[internet] Available at: http://phy.ucsf.
edu/~houde/coleman/chugani.pdf
[Accessed 13 June 2013].
Burghardt, G. (1998) ‘The evolutionary
origins of play revisited: Lessons from
turtles’. In: Bekoff, M. and Byers, J.A. (Eds.)
Animal Play: Evolutionary, comparative
and ecological perspectives. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. Ch.1.
Burghardt, G. M. (2005) The Genesis of
Animal Play: Testing the Limits. Cambridge,
MA: The MIT Press.
Clark, A. and Moss, P. (2011) Listening to
young children. London: National Children’s
Bureau.
Byron, T. (2008) Safer Children in a Digital
World: the report of the Byron Review.
London: Department for Children, Schools
and Families, and the Department for
Culture, Media and Sport.
Cleese, J. (1991) John Cleese on Creativity
[video online] Available at: www.youtube.
com/watch?v=f9rtmxJrKwc [Accessed 5
June 2013].
Cairns, W. (2008) How to Live Dangerously:
Why we should all stop worrying and start
living. London: Macmillan.
4
Conflict Resolution Network (n.d.). CR
Kit. [online]. Available at: www.crnhq.org/
pages.php?pID=12#skill_1 [Accessed 2
September 2013].
Department for Education (2012) Statutory
Framework for the Early Years Foundation
Stage. [online]. Available at: http://media.
education.gov.uk/assets/files/pdf/eyfs%20
statutory%20framework%20march%20
2012.pdf [Accessed 24 October 2013].
Conway, M. (2003) Professional Playwork
Practice. In: F. Brown (2003) Playwork
Theory and Practice. Buckingham: Open
University Press. Ch.7.
Department for Transport (2011) Free Flow
Vehicle Speeds in Great
Britain 2011 [pdf]. Available at:
www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/
uploads/attachment_data/file/9069/freeflow-vehicle-speeds-2011.pdf [Accessed 9
July 2013].
Coplan, R.J. and Rubin, K.H. and Findlay,
L.C. (2006) ‘Social and Nonsocial Play’.
In: Fromberg. D.P. and Bergen, D. (Eds.)
Play from Birth to Twelve: Contexts,
Perspectives and Meanings. 2nd ed. New
York: Routledge. Ch.9.
Department for Transport (2012a) Reported
Road Casualties in Great Britain: Main
Results 2012 [pdf]. Available at: www.gov.
uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/
attachment_data/file/208736/reportedroad-casualties-in-great-britain-mainresults-2012.pdf [Accessed 9 July 2013].
Corsaro, W. (2003) We’re Friends Right?:
Inside Kids’ Cultures. Washington D.C.:
Joseph Henry Press.
Covey, S. (2013) The 7 Habits of Highly
Effective People. London: Simon &
Schuster.
Department for Transport (2012b) TRA99 Forecasts of traffic [pdf]. Available at: www.
gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/
tra99-forecasts-of-traffic [Accessed 9 July
2013].
CPD Institute (2013) CPD and the Institute.
[Internet] Available at: http://cpdinstitute.org/
cpd/ [Accessed 17 December 2013].
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975) Beyond
boredom and anxiety. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Damasio, A. (1994) Descartes Error. New
York: Harper Collins
Dickins, M. (2011) Listening to Young
Disabled Children. [internet] Young
Children’s Voices Network. Available at:
www.ncb.org.uk/media/74060/leadership_
for_listening.pdf [Accessed 23 August
2013].
Davidson, J.I.F. (2006) ‘Language and Play:
Natural Partners’. In: Fromberg. D.P. and
Bergen, D. (eds.) Play from Birth to Twelve:
Contexts, Perspectives and Meanings. 2nd
ed. New York: Routledge. Ch.4.
Dietz W.H. (2001) ‘The obesity epidemic
in young children,’ British Medical Journal.
Vol. 322(7282): 313-314. Available at: www.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1119564/
[Accessed 29 May 2013].
Davies, S. (2012) Play Our Way. [online].
Available at: www.bevanfoundation.org/
blog/play-our-way/ [Accessed 21 November
2013].
5
Ekeland, E, Heian, F and Hagen, K (2005)
‘Can exercise improve self-esteem in
children and young people? A systematic
review of randomised controlled trials’.
British Journal of Sports Medicine, 39: pp.
792-798.
Dolan, P., Hallworth, M., Halpern, D., King,
D. and Vlaev, I. (2009) MINDSPACE:
Influencing behaviour through public policy.
[pdf] Institute for Government. [Internet]
Available at: www.instituteforgovernment.
org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/
MINDSPACE.pdf [Accessed 11 December
2013].
Elkind, D. (2007) The Power of Play. Da
Capo Press: Cambridge MA.
Easton, M., Analysis: Rearing children in
captivity. Last Updated: Monday, 4 June
2007 [internet]. Available at: http://news.
bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6720661.stm
Elkins, D. (2003) The Overbooked Child
Psychology Today. [internet] Available at:
www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200301/
the-overbooked-child [Accessed 4 July
2013].
Edmonds Community College Counselling
and Resource Center (2013) Conflict
Resolution Skills. [online] Edmonds
Community College. Available at: www.
edcc.edu/counseling/documents/Conflict.pdf
[Accessed 4 September 2013].
Elliott, L. (2010) Pink Brain, Blue Brain:
How Small Differences Grow into
Troublesome Gaps – And What We Can Do
About it. Oxford: Oneworld Publications.
Ellis, M. J. (1973) Why People Play.
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: PrenticeHall, Inc.
Edwards, C. P., de Guzman, M. R., Brown,
J. and Kumru, A. (2006) Children’s Social
Behaviour and Peer Interactions in Diverse
Cultures. Faculty Publications, Department
of Child, Youth, and Family Studies. Paper
63. Available at: http://digitalcommons.
unl.edu/famconfacpub/63/?utm_
source=digitalcommons.unl.
edu%2Ffamconfacpub%2F63&utm_
medium=PDF&utm_
campaign=PDFCoverPages [Accessed 18
September 2013].
Else, P. (1998) Practical Applications of
the Psychological Model for Play Work.
In: Therapeutic Playwork Reader one
1995-2000. Eastleigh: Common Threads
Publications.
Else, P. (1999) Seeing the Whole Picture
– Playwork Content in the Playwork
Curriculum. In: P. Else, and G. Sturrock,
(2000) Therapeutic Playwork Reader one
1995-2000. Eastleigh: Common Threads
Publications Ltd.
Education Queensland (2011) Critical
Friend Toolkit [pdf] Education Queensland.
Available at: http://education.qld.gov.au/
staff/development/performance/resources/
readings/critical-friend-toolkit.pdf [Accessed
14 November 2013].
Else, P. (2009) The Value of Play. London:
Continuum.
Feyerabend, P. K. (1960) Patterns of
Discovery. The Philosophical Review, 69(2),
247-252.
6
Gander M, (2005) Active Listening
Exercises. [internet] The McGraw-Hill
Companies, Inc.. Available at: http://
highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/dl/
free/0070876940/91744/Active_Listening.
pdf [Accessed 21 August 2013].
Fisher, K. (2008) Playwork in the early
years: working in a parallel profession, In
Brown, F. and Taylor, C. (eds.) Foundations
of Playwork. Maidenhead: Open University
Press. 174-178.
Fine, C. (2010) Delusions of Gender: The
Real Science Behind Sex Differences.
London: Icon Books.
Gardner, D. (2008) Risk. London: Virgin
Books.
Garvey, C. (1990) Play. Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University Press.
Fredrickson, B. L. (2006) ‘Unpacking
positive emotions: Investigating the seeds
of human flourishing’, The Journal of
Positive Psychology, April 2006; 1(2): pp.
57–59.
GAVO (2008) How can we help you play?
[pdf]. Available at: www.gavowales.org.uk/
Children_and_Families/Play/Report%20
Freud, S. (1974) The standard edition of the -%20English%20Version.pdf [Accessed 4
July 2013].
complete psychological works of Sigmund
Freud, 24 volumes, translated from the
Gibbs, G. (1988) Learning by Doing: a
German under the general editorship of
James Strachey, in collaboration with Anna guide to teaching and learning methods.
London: Further Education Unit.
Freud; assisted by Alix Strachey and Alan
Tyson. London, Hogarth Press, Institute of
Gibson, J. (1986) The Ecological Approach
Psycho-analysis.
to Visual Perception. New Jersey: Laurence
Friedman, D. M. (2012-2013) Why Listening Erlbaum.
is so important [internet]. Available at:
Gifford-Smith, M. E. and Brownell, C.
www.drdonfriedman.com/uploads/Don_
A. (2002) Childhood peer relationships:
LISTENING.pdf [Accessed 22 August
social acceptance, friendships, and peer
2013].
networks. Journal of School Psychology 41
(4): 235-284.
Frost, J., Wortham, S.C. and Reifel, S.
rd
(2001) Play and Child Development. 3
Gill, T. (2007) No Fear: Growing up on a
Edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson
risk averse society. London: Gulbenkian
Education, Inc.
Foundation.
Furedi, F. (2001) Paranoid Parenting:
Gill, T. (2010) Nothing Ventured …
Abandon Your Anxieties and be a Good
Balancing risks and benefits in the
Parent. London: Allen Lane The Penguin
outdoors. [pdf]. English Outdoor Council.
Press.
Available at: www.englishoutdoorcouncil.
org/wp-content/uploads/Nothing-Ventured.
Furedi, F. (2002) Culture of Fear: Risk
Taking and the Morality of Low Expectation. pdf [Accessed 4 December 2013].
Revised ed. London: Continuum.
7
Gray, P. (2011) The Decline of Play and the
Rise of Psychopathology in Children and
Adolescents. American Journal of Play 3(4):
443-463.
Gill, T. (2012) When every parent’s worst
nightmare comes true, how should we
respond? [internet]. Available at: http://
rethinkingchildhood.com/2012/10/12/
parents-worst-nightmare/ [Accessed 2 July
2013].
Gray, P. (2013) The Play Deficit. [online].
18 September 2013. Available at: www.
aeonmagazine.com/being-human/childrentoday-are-suffering-a-severe-deficit-of-play/
[Accessed 27 September 2013].
Gill, T. (2013) Play and Risk. [pdf] Cardiff:
Play Wales. Available at:
www.playwales.org.uk/login/uploaded/
documents/INFORMATION%20SHEETS/
play%20and%20risk.pdf [Accessed 28
November 2013].
Greenberg, N. (2004) The Beast at
Play: the Neuroethology of Creativity.
In Clements R.L. and Fiorentino, L. The
Child’s Right to Play: A Global Approach.
Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing
Group, Inc. Available at: https://notes.utk.
edu/bio/greenberg.nsf/0/ff73036755b14
90685256b4b000570fc?OpenDocument
[Accessed 19 May 2013].
Gilovich, T. (1991) How we know what
isn’t so: The fallibility of human reason in
everyday life. New York: The Free Press.
Gitlin-Weiner, K. (2006) ‘Clinical
Perspectives on Play’. In: Fromberg, D.P.
and Bergen, D. Play from Birth to Twelve:
Contexts, Perspectives and Meanings. New
York: Routledge. Ch.36.
Harding, E. and Stevens, J. (2012)
Concorde pilot who can’t stand the noise
of happy children bids to close down local
playground that ‘severely disrupts’ his life.
Mail Online, [internet] Updated: 13:15, 10
May 2012. Available at: www.dailymail.
co.uk/news/article-2142110/Concordepilot-stand-noise-happy-children-tries-localplayground-closed-down.html [Accessed 28
June 2013].
Gleave, J. (2009) Children’s Time to Play: A
Literature Review. London: Play England
Goodwin, M. H. (2006) The Hidden Life
of Girls: Games of Stance, Status and
Exclusion. Oxford: Blackwell.
Gordon, T. (2003) Teacher effectiveness
training. First Revised Edition. New York:
Three Rivers Press.
Harker, L., Jutte, S., Murphy, T., Bentley, H.,
Miller, P. and Fitch, K., (2013) How safe are
our children? London: NSPCC.
Gottman, J. and Graziano, W. (1983) How
children become friends. Monographs
of the Society for Research in Child
Development, 48(3), 1-86.
Harris Interactive (2009) Pediatricians on
the importance of play: Access to quality
playspaces fosters healthy childhood
development. KaBOOM! [internet]. Available
at: https://kaboom.org/docs/documents/pdf/
Harris_research.pdf [Accessed 15 August
2013].
Gould, S.J. (1996) Full House: The Spread
of Excellence from Plato to Darwin. New
York: Harmony Books.
8
Higgins, M. (2002) Personal Development
Planning: A Tool for Reflective Learning
[pdf] [Internet] Available at: http://cebe.
cf.ac.uk/learning/casestudies/case_pdf/
Higginspdp.pdf [Accessed 18 December
2013].
Harris, M. (2008) After-school childcare in
adventure playgrounds. In: F. Brown and
C. Taylor (eds.) (2008) Foundations of
Playwork. Maidenhead: Open University
Press.
Hart, R. (2002) Containing children: some
lessons on planning for play from New York
City. Environment and Urbanization 2002
14: 135. Available at: http://eau.sagepub.
com/content/14/2/135 [Accessed 28 June
2013].
Hillman, A., Adams, J. and Whitelegg,
J. (1990) One False Move… A Study of
Children’s Independent Mobility. London:
PSI Publishing. [pdf] Available at:
http://john-adams.co.uk/wp-content/
uploads/2007/11/one%20false%20move.pdf
[Accessed 7 July 2013].
Health and Safety Executive (2012)
Children’s Play and Leisure – Promoting a
Balanced Approach. [pdf] [online] Available
at: www.hse.gov.uk/entertainment/childrensplay-july-2012.pdf [Accessed 9 December
2013].
Hines, M. (2004) Brain Gender. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Hofferth, S.L. and Sandberg, J.F.
(2001) ‘Changes in American Children’s
Time, 1981-1997’. In: Hofferth, S.L.
and Owens, T.J. (eds.) Children at the
Millennium: Where Have We Come
From, Where Are We Going? (pp. 1-7).
New York: JAI, 2001. Available at: www.
childrenandnature.org/research/volumes/
C42/42/#sthash.1OTLyO9A.dpuf [Accessed
14 August 2013].
Heft, H. (1988) Affordances of Children’s
Environment: A Functional Approach to
Environmental Description. Children’s
Environmental Quarterly. 5(3) 29-37.
Health and Safety Executive (2012)
Children’s Play and Leisure – Promoting
a Balanced Approach. [pdf] Available at:
www.hse.gov.uk/entertainment/childrensplay-july-2012.pdf [Accessed 9 December
2013].
Holme, A. and Massie, P. (1970) Children’s
Play: A Study of Needs and Opportuniities.
London: Michael Joseph.
Henshall, A. and Lacey, L (2007) Word on
the Street [pdf]. Available at:
www.playscotland.org/wp-content/uploads/
assets/Documents/Wordonthestreet2007.
pdf [Accessed 9 July 2013].
Hoyrup, S. (2004) Reflection as a core
process in organisational learning. Journal
of Workplace Learning. 16, 8 (2004), 442–
454 [9]. [Internet] Available at: http://pom.
ir/wp-content/uploads/PDF/Reflection%20
as%20a%20core%20process%20in%20
organisational%20learning.pdf [Accessed
15 November 2013].
Helanko, R.V.M (1958) Theoretical aspects
of play and socialisation. Turku, Finland.
Turku University Press.
Hughes, B. (1996) A Question of Quality.
London: Play Education.
9
Hughes, B. (1996) Play Environments: A
Question of Quality. Ely: Play Education.
ICM (2010) Our place. London: Playday
2010.
Hughes, B. (2001) The First Claim ... a
framework for playwork quality assessment.
Cardiff: Play Wales and Ely: Play Education
(held in trust jointly).
ICM (2011) Life Story Survey. London:
Barnardo’s.
Hughes, B. (2002) The First Claim –
Desirable Processes. Cardiff: Play Wales
and Ely: Play Education (held in trust
jointly).
Institute for Learning (2009) Guidelines for
your continuing professional development
(CPD). [pdf] Institute for Learning. [Internet]
Available at: www.ifl.ac.uk/__data/assets/
pdf_file/0011/5501/J11734-IfL-CPDGuidelines-08.09-web-v3.pdf [Accessed 18
December 2013].
Hughes, B. (2002a) A Playworker’s
Taxonomy of Play Types. 2nd Edition.
London, PLAYLINK.
Hughes, B. (2003a) ‘Play deprivation,
play bias and playwork practice’ In:
Brown, F. Playwork: Theory and Practice.
Buckingham: Open University Press. Ch.5
Hughes, B. (2003b) Play deprivation. Play
Wales information sheet. [Internet] available
at: www.playwales.org.uk/login/uploaded/
documents/INFORMATION%20SHEETS/
play%20deprivation.pdf [Accessed 10 June
2013].
Hughes, B. (2006) Play Types:
Speculations and Possibilities. London: The
London Centre for Playwork Education and
Training.
Hughes, B. (2012) Evolutionary Playwork
2nd ed. Abingdon: Routledge.
Hughes, F. P. (2010) Children, Play and
Development. 4th edition. London: Sage
Publications.
Huttenmoser, M. and Zimmermann, D.
(1995) Lebenstraume für Kinder. Zurich:
Swiss Science Foundation. Translated
summary available from NCB Children’s
Play Information Service.
Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO),
(n.d.). Charity. [online] Available at: www.
ico.org.uk/for_organisations/sector_guides/
charity [Accessed 21 October 2013].
Ipsos Mori, Nairn, A. (2011) Children’s
Well-being in UK, Sweden and Spain:
The Role of Inequality and Materialism.
[pdf] Available at: www.unicef.org.uk/
Documents/Publications/IPSOS_UNICEF_
ChildWellBeingreport.pdf [Accessed 19
September 2013].
Iwaniuk, A. N., Nelson, J. E. and Pellis,
S. M (2001) Do big-brained animals play
more? Comparative analyses of play and
relative brain size in mammals. Journal of
Comparative Psychology 2001 Mar; 115(1):
29-41.
Jackson, N., Gough, D., Dunne, E., Shaw,
M. (2004) Developing an infrastructure to
support an evidence-informed approach
to Personal Development Planning. The
Higher Education Academy. [Internet]
Available at: www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/
documents/resources/database/id550_
evidence_informed_approach_to_pdp.pdf
[Accessed 16 December 2013].
10
Johns, C (1995) Framing learning through
reflection within Carper’s fundamental ways
of knowing in nursing. Journal of Advanced
Nursing 22 (2): 226-34.
Available at: www.human.cornell.edu/hd/
outreach-extension/upload/Learning-abouthow-children-learn-Kushnir.pdf [Accessed
22 May 2013].
Johnson, J. E. (2007) Play and Creativity,
Play and Creativity Conference. May 30
and 31, Tainan, R.O.C.
Ladd, G. W. (2005) Children’s Peer
Relations and Social Competence.
A Century of Progress. London: Yale
University Press.
Kane, E.W. (2013) Rethinking Gender
and Sexuality in Childhood. London:
Bloomsbury.
Lanza, M. (2012) Playborhood: Turn your
environment into a place for play. Menlo
Park, CA: Free Play Press.
Keats, J. (1817) Letter to George and
Tom, 21/12/1817. [internet] www.mrbauld.
com/negcap.html [Accessed 21 November
2005].
Lester, S. and Maudsley, M. (2007) Play
Naturally: A Review Of Children’s Natural
Play. London: Play England.
Lester, S. and Russell, W. (2002) Play
for Real. Manchester City Council,
unpublished.
KIDS (2008) All of Us – The Framework
for Quality Inclusion. [online]. Available
at: www.kids.org.uk/information/106313/
briefings [Accessed 15 November 2013].
Lester, S. and Russell, W. (2008) Play for a
Change: Play, Policy and Practice: A review
of contemporary perspectives. London:
Play England.
Kilvington, J. and Wood, A, (2010)
Reflective Playwork: For all who work with
children. London: Continuum.
Lester, S. and Russell, W. (2010) Children’s
Right to Play: An examination of the
importance of play in the lives of children
worldwide. Working Paper no.57.
The Hague, The Netherlands: Bernard van
Leer Foundation.
Kilvington, J. and Wood, A. (2011) Sex
differences, sexuality and gender identity
- what’s play got to do with it? Cardiff:
International Play Association conference.
[internet] www.playwales.org.uk/eng/
ipa2011papers [Accessed 23 July 2013].
Kipling, R. (1903). The elephant’s child.
Just so stories. London: Macmillan and Co.
Kolb, D. A. (1984) Experiential learning:
experience as the source of learning
and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Kushnir, T. (n.d.) ‘Learning About How
Young Children Learn’. [pdf]. 2013 College
of Human Ecology, Cornell University.
Lindon, J. (2012) Reflective Practice
and Early Years Professionalism 2nd ed.
London: Hodder Education.
Lippa, R. (2005) Gender, Nature and
Nurture. Oxon: Psychology Press.
Locke, J. (1690) An Essay Concerning
Human Understanding, edited with an
introduction, critical apparatus and glossary
by Peter H. Nidditch. Oxford, Clarendon
Press, 1975.
11
Marston, P. (2005) Parents drive 5,000
miles every year for children. The
Telegraph, [internet] 12:01AM GMT 14 Jan
2005. Available at: www.telegraph.co.uk/
news/uknews/1481137/Parents-drive5000-miles-every-year-for-children.html
[Accessed 12 July 2013].
Lyons, K. (2012) A Contemporary
Sensory Play Audit. In: Hughes, B. (2012)
Evolutionary Playwork, 2nd ed. Abingdon:
Routledge.
Maccoby, E.E. (1998) The Two Sexes:
Growing up apart, coming together.
Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
Martin, J. (2003) It’s not what you know,
but who you know! In: F. Brown (ed.)
(2003) Playwork: Theory and Practice.
Buckingham: Open University Press.
Ch.10.
Mackett, R. Brown, B., Gong, Y., Kitazawa,
K. and Paskins, J. (2007) ‘Children’s
independent movement in the local
environment’, Built Environment, 33, 4: pp.
454-68.
Maclean, S. (2010) The Social Work Pocket
Guide to…Reflective Practice. Lichfield:
Kirwin Maclean Associates Ltd.
Masten, A.S. and Obradovic, J.
(2006) Competence and Resilience in
Development. Annals of the New York
Academy of Science, 1094, pp. 13-27.
Maclean, S., Shiner, M. and Chapman,
M. (2013) From Birth to Eighteen Years:
Children and the Law. 7th ed. Lichfield:
Kirwin Maclean Associates Ltd.
Madge, N. and Barker, J. (2007) Risk and
childhood. [pdf] RSA Risk Commission.
Available at: www.ricercadelrischioestremo.
it/documenti/risk_and_childhood_Madge_
Baker_2007.pdf [Accessed 5 December
2013].
Manwaring, B. (2006) Children’s Views
2006: Children’s Views on Play and
Playworkers. London: SkillsActive.
Marano, H.E. (2004) A Nation of Wimps,
Psychology Today [internet] (last reviewed
on February 19, 2013) Available at:
www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200411/
nation-wimps [Accessed 10 July 2013].
Martin, R. A. (2007) The Psychology
of Humour: An Integrative Approach.
Burlington, MA: Elsevier Academic Press.
Matthews, N., Kilgour, L., De Rossi, P.,
and Crone, D. (2011). ‘Literature review
to investigate the evidence underpinning
the role of play for holistic health: Final
Report’. [pdf] Gloucester: University of
Gloucestershire and Playwork Partnerships.
Available at: www.playwork.co.uk/
media/9231/matthews_et_al__play_and_
health_report_final_report.pdf [Accessed 6
May 2013].
McIntyre, S. and Casey, T. (2007) People
Playing Together More. Unpublished
Research Report. Edinburgh: The Yard.
Meire, J. (2007) Qualitative research on
children’s play: a review of recent literature.
In: Jambor, T. and Van Gils J. (Eds.) (2007)
Several Perspectives on Children’s Play.
Antwerp: Garant. Ch.2.
12
Mental Health Foundation (2005) Up
and Running. [pdf] Available at: www.
mentalhealth.org.uk/content/assets/PDF/
publications/up_running.pdf [Accessed 21
May 2013].
Newiss, G. and Traynor, M. (2013) Taken: A
study of child abduction in the UK. [online]
PACT & CEOP. Available at: http://ceop.
police.uk/Documents/ceopdocs/TAKEN_
Final%20Copy.pdf [Accessed 15 July 2013].
Milteer, R.M. and Ginsburg, K.R. (2011)
Council on Communications and Media;
Committee on Psychosocial Aspects Of
Child And Family Health. ‘The importance
of play in promoting healthy child
development and maintaining strong
parent-child bond: focus on children in
poverty’. Pediatrics. 2012; 129(1). Available
at: www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/full/129/1/
e204 [Accessed 20 May 2013].
Newstead, S. (2004) The Buskers Guide
to Playwork. Hampshire: Common Threads
Publications.
Moon, J. (2004) Reflection in Learning
and Professional Development. 2nd ed.
Abingdon: RoutledgeFalmer.
Moss, P. and Petrie, P (2002) From
Children’s Services to Children’s Spaces.
London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Mouritsen, F. (1998) Child Culture – Play
Culture. The University of Southern
Denmark. Available at:
www.hum.sdu.dk/projekter/ipfu/ipfu-dk/
online-artikler/mouritsen-culture.pdf
[Accessed 17 September 2013].
National Institute for Health and Clinical
Excellence (2010). NICE Public Health
Guidance 29. Strategies to Prevent
Unintentional Injuries among Children and
Young People Aged under 15s [internet].
Available at: http://publications.nice.org.uk/
strategies-to-prevent-unintentional-injuriesamong-theunder-15s-ph29 [Accessed 10
July 2013].
National Statistics (2003) ‘Social capital’.
Office for National Statistics [internet].
Available at: www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/
nugget.asp?id=286 [Accessed 10 July
2013].
Nicholson, S. (1971) How Not to Cheat
Children. The Theory of Loose Parts. In:
Landscape Architecture Quarterly. Vol 62,
No.1, October 1971, pp 30-34.
Nicols, M. P. (2009) The Lost Art of
lLstening. New York: Guilford Press.
NPFA (2000) Best Play: What play
provision should do for children. London:
NPFA, Children’s Play Council and
PLAYLINK.
NQIN (2007) Quality Improvement
Principles. London: National Quality
Improvement Network.
Office for National Statistics (2012)
Childhood, Infant and Perinatal Mortality
in England and Wales, 2010. [pdf]
Available at: www.ons.gov.uk/ons/
dcp171778_263357.pdf [Accessed 8 July
2013].
Oliver, B. and Pitt, B. (2011) Working with
children, young people and families. Exeter:
Learning Matters.
One Poll (2012) Playday 2012 1 August
2012 [internet]. Available at: www.
playday.org.uk/media/media-releases/1august-2012.aspx [Accessed 28 June
2013].
13
Play England (2008) Play Indicators
Quality Assessment Tool. London: National
Children’s Bureau.
One Poll (2013) Playday 2013 opinion poll
[internet]. Available at: www.playday.org.
uk/playday-campaigns/2013-playful-places/
playday-2013-opinion-poll.aspx [Accessed
14 August 2013].
Play England (2008) Quality in Play.
London: Play England.
Palmer, S. (2003) Playwork as Reflective
Practice. In: Brown, F. (ed) Playwork
Theory and Practice. Buckingham: Open
University Press.
Play England (2009) Play England’s
response to A Safer Way: Consultation
on Making Britain’s Roads the Safest
in the World [internet]. Available at:
www.20splentyforus.org.uk/A_Safer_Way/
Play%20England%20Response%20to%20
A%20Safer%20Way.pdf [Accessed 9 July
2013].
Palmer, M. (2008) ‘The Place We are
Meant to Be’: Play, Playwork and the
Natural Rhythms of Communities. In: F.
Brown and C. Taylor, (eds.) Foundations
of Playwork. Maidenhead: Open University
Press.
PLAYLINK (1997) Risk and Safety in
Play: The law and practice for adventure
playgrounds. London: PLAYLINK.
PLAYLINK (2006) Negligence play and risk
– legal opinion [online]. Available at: www.
playlink.org/articles/?p=8 [Accessed 21
November 2013].
Panksepp, J. (2007) Can PLAY Diminish
ADHD and Facilitate the Construction of
the Social Brain? Journal of the Canadian
Academy of Child and Adolescent
Psychiatry v.16[2]: pp. 57-66.
Pellegrini, A. (2009) The Role of Play in
Human Development. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Play Safety Forum. (2002) Managing Risk
in Play Provision: Position Statement.
London: Play England.
Pellis, S. and Pellis, V. (2009) The Playful
Brain. Oxford: Oneworld Publications.
Play Wales (2006) Pushing Eddie in the
Nettles with Connor. [DVD] Cardiff: Play
Wales.
Pellis, S.M. and Pellis, V.C. and Bell,
H.C. (2010) The Function of Play in the
Development of the Social Brain. American
Journal of Play, 2[3]: pp. 278-296.
Petrie, P. (1997) Communicating with
Children and Adults: Interpersonal Skills for
Early Years and Playwork. 2nd ed. London:
Arnold.
Pilkington, R. M., and Kuminek, P. A.
(2004). Using a role-play activity with
synchronous CMC to encourage critical
reflection on peer debate. In: Monteith, M.
(ed.), ICT for Curriculum Enhancement.
Bristol: Intellect, 83-99.
Play Wales (2012) Tips for supporting
children to play out confidently [pdf].
Available at: www.playwales.org.uk/eng/
informationsheets [Accessed 5 July 2013].
Playwork Principles Scrutiny Group (2005)
Playwork Principles (held in trust as honest
brokers for the profession by the Playwork
Principles Scrutiny Group). [Internet]
Available at: www.playwales.org.uk/eng/
playworkprinciples [Accessed 9 June 2013].
14
Power, T.G. (2000) Play and Exploration
in Children and Animals. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Priest, A. M., and Sturgess, P. (2005).
But is it scholarship? Group reflection as
a scholarly activity. Studies in learning,
evaluation, innovation and development.
2 (1), 1-9. Available at: www.sleid.cqu.
edu.au/viewissue.php?id=6 [Accessed 13
November 2013].
Prout, A. (2005) The Future of Childhood.
Abingdon: Routledge Falmer.
QAA (2009) Personal development
planning: guidance for institutional
policy and practice in higher education.
[pdf] The Quality Assurance Agency for
Higher Education [Internet] Available
at: www.qaa.ac.uk/Publications/
InformationAndGuidance/Documents/
PDPguide.pdf [Accessed 19 December
2013].
Rahim, M. A. (2010) Managing Conflict
in Organizations 4th ed. Westport, CT:
Quorum Books.
Rahim, M. A. (2002) Toward A Theory of
Managing Organizational Conflict.
The International Journal of Conflict
Management, 13 (3).
Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (2009)
The State of Play: Gallup Survey of
Principals on School Recess. Princeton,
NJ: Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.
[pdf] Available at: www.rwjf.org/content/
dam/web-assets/2010/02/the-state-of-play
[Acessed 15 December 2013].
Rogers, R. R. (2000) Reflective thinking
in professional practice: a model. CPD
Journal Vol. 3 pp129-154.
Rolfe, G., Freshwater, D. and Jasper, M.
(2001) Critical reflection in nursing and
the helping professions: a user’s guide.
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Root-Bernstein, M. And Root-Bernstein, R.
(2006) Imaginary Worldplay in Childhood
and Maturity and Its Impact on Adult
Creativity. Creativity Research Journal.
Vol.18: 4, pp.405-425.
RoSPA (2007) Children must play in
the wild, says RoSPA [online] Available
at: www.rospa.com/news/releases/
detail/?id=595 [Accessed 13 August 2013].
Rubin, K. H., Bukowski, W. M., and
Parker, J. G. (2006) Peer Interactions,
Relationships and Groups. In: Damon,
W., Lerner, R. M. and Eisenberg, N.
(eds.), Handbook of child psychology:
Vol. 3. Social, emotional, and personality
development (6th ed., 571–645). New York:
Wiley.
Russ, S. (2004) Play in Child Development
and Psychotherapy: Towards Empirically
Supported Practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Russell, W. (2006) Reframing Playwork:
Reframing Challenging Behaviour.
Nottingham: Nottingham City Council.
Rynders, G. L. (1999) Listening and
Leadership: A Study on their Relationship.
[internet] National Fire Academy. Available
at: www.usfa.fema.gov/pdf/efop/efo29219.
PDF [Accessed 21 August 2013].
Santar, J., Griffiths, C. and Goodall, D.
(2007) Free Play in Early Childhood: A
literature review. London: Play England.
15
Schaefer, C.and Cangelosi, D. (1993) Play
Therapy Techniques. Northvale, NJ: Jason
Aronson.
Shacknell, A., Butler, N., and Ball, D.
(2008) Design for Play: A guide to
creating successful play spaces. London:
Department for Children, Schools and
Families, Department for Culture, Media
and Sport and Play England.
Schön, D. (1988) Coaching Reflective
Teaching. In: Grimmett, P. and Erickson,
G., Reflection in Teacher Education (pp.
19-29). New York: Teachers College Press.
Shaw, B., Watson, B., Frauendienst, B.,
Redecker, A., Jones, T. with Hillman, M.,
(2013) Children’s independent mobility: a
comparative study in England and Germany
(1971-2010). London: Policy Studies
Institute.
Schön, D. A. (1984) The Reflective
Practitioner. Basic Books: New York.
Schulz, L., and Bonawitz, E.B. (2007)
Serious fun: Preschoolers play more when
evidence is confounded. Developmental
Psychology, July Vol.43(4), pp.1045-1050.
Scottish Commissioner (2007) Adult
attitudes to contact with children and young
people [pdf]. Available at: www.sccyp.
org.uk/uploaded_docs/adult%20reports/
adult%20attitudes%20to%20contact%20
with%20children%20and%20young%20
people%20200710.pdf [Accessed 9 July
2013].
Scottish Government (2013) Play Strategy
for Scotland: Our Vision. [pdf] Scottish
Government. Available at: www.scotland.
gov.uk/Resource/0042/00425722.pdf
[Accessed 22 November 2013].
Scottish Parent Teacher Council Grounds
for Learning (2010) Outdoor learning and
play: parental survey report [pdf]. Available
at: www.playscotland.org/wp-content/
uploads/assets/Outdoor-Learning-and-Play.
pdf [Accessed 6 July 2013].
Sentamu, J. (2012). Edward Rudolf
Lecture. [internet] The Children’s Society.
Available at: www.childrenssociety.org.
uk/sites/default/files/tcs/edward_rudolf_
lecture_presented_by_the_archbishop_of_
york.pdf [Accessed 23 August 2013].
Shibley-Hyde, J. (2005) The Gender
Similarities Hypothesis. In: American
Psychologist, 60(6): pp. 581-592.
Simply Play (2013) Simply Play. [online].
Available at: www.simplyplay.org.uk
[Accessed 25 October 2013].
Singer, J.L. (1995) ‘Imaginative Play
in Childhood: Precursor of Subjunctive
Thoughts, Daydreaming, and Adult
Pretending Games’. In: The Future of Play
Theory: A Multidisciplinary Inquiry into the
Contributions of Brian Sutton-Smith. Albany,
State University of New York Press. Ch.9.
Singer, J.L. and Singer, D.G. (1976)
Imaginative play and pretending in early
childhood: Some experimental approaches.
In: A. Davids (ed.) Child Personality and
Psychopathology (Vol. 3). New York: Wiley.
Singer, D.G. and Singer, J.L. (1990)
The House of Make-Believe: Children’s
Play and the Developing Imagination.
Washington, DC: APA Books.
Sherod, L. and Singer, J. (1976) The
development of make-believe play. In: J.
Goldstein (ed.) Sports, games and play:
Social and Psychological Viewpoints 2nd
ed., Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Ch.1.
16
Skenazy, L. (2009) Free Range Kids:
How to Raise Safe, Self-Reliant Children
(Without Going Nuts with Worry). San
Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Sturrock, G., Russell, W. and Else, P.
(2004) Towards Ludogogy, Parts l, ll and
lll. The art of being and becoming through
play. In: Sturrock, G. and Else, P. (eds)
Therapeutic Playwork Reader 2, Sheffield:
Ludemos.
Slovic, P., Finucane, M., Peters, E. and
MacGregor, D. G. (2002) The Affect
Heuristic. In: T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, and
D. Kahneman, (eds.) Intuitive Judgment:
Heuristics and Biases. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. Ch.23.
Suomi, S. J. and Harlow, H. F. (1971)
Monkeys Without Play. In: Bruner, J.
S., Jolly, A. and Sylva, K. (1976) Play:
Its Role in Development and
Evolution. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Ch.48.
Smith, P. and Dutton, S. (1979) Play and
training on direct and innovative problem
solving. Child Development, 50: pp. 830836.
Sutton-Smith, B. (1997) The Ambiguity of
Play. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University
Press.
Smith, P. K. (2010) Children and Play.
Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
Smyth, J. (1989) Developing and sustaining
critical reflection in teacher education.
Journal of Teacher Education 40(2) 2‐9.
Spiegal, B. (2013) The limitations of
training. [online]. Available at: http://
bernardspiegal.com/2013/01/17/thelimitations-of-training/ [Accessed 3
December 2013].
Spinka, M., Newberry, R. C. and Bekoff, M.
(2001) Mammalian Play: Training for the
Unexpected in The Quarterly Review of
Biology. 76(2): 141-168.
Sturrock, G. and Else, P. (1998) The
Playground as therapeutic space: playwork
as healing. In: Proceedings of the IPA/
USA Triennial National Conference, Play
in a Changing Society: Research, Design,
Application. June 1998, Colorado, USA.
Sturrock, G. and Else, P. (1998)
Therapeutic Playwork Reader one 19952000. Eastleigh: Common Threads.
Sutton Smith, B. (2002) Recapitulation
Redressed. In: Roopnarine, J. L. (ed.)
Conceptual Social-Cognitive, and
Contextual Issues in the Fields of Play. Play
and Culture Studies, 4. Westport: Ablex.
Ch.1.
Sutton-Smith, B. (2003) Play as a Parody
of Emotional Vulnerability. In: Roopnarine,
J. L. (ed.) Play and Educational Theory
and Practice, Play and Culture Studies, 5.
Westport, Connecticut: Praeger.
Sutton-Smith, B. (2008) Beyond Ambiguity.
In: Brown, F. and Taylor, C. (eds.) (2008)
Foundations of Playwork. Maidenhead:
Open University Press.
Suzuki, M. (2013) Hey kids, keep it down —
graying Japan annoyed by children’s noise.
The Japan Times [internet]. (Updated 4
June 2013). Available at: www.japantimes.
co.jp/news/2013/06/04/national/hey-kidskeep-it-down-graying-japan-annoyed-bychildrens-noise/#.Uc2eEOvnw4Y [Accessed
28 June 2013].
Sylva, K. (1977) ‘Play and Learning’, In:
Tizard, B. and Harvey, D. (eds.), Biology of
Play. London: Heinemann. Ch.6.
18
Tarrant, P. (2013) Reflective Practice and
Professional Development. London: Sage.
Trevlas, E., Grammatikopoulos, V.,
Tsigilis, N. and Zachopolou, E. (2003)
Evaluating Playfulness: Construct Validity
of the Children’s Playfulness Scale. Early
Childhood Education Journal, Vol.31(1),
pp.33-39
Tarullo, A.R. and Gunnar, M.R. (2005)
Institutional rearing and deficits in social
relatedness: Possible mechanisms and
processes. Cognition, Brain, Behavior
Vol. IX(3), 329-342. [internet] Available at:
www.bu.edu/beelab/files/2012/05/TarulloGunnar-2005.pdf [Accessed 8 June 2013].
The Children’s Society (2011) 4 in Every
10: Disabled children living in poverty. [pdf].
Available at: www.childrenssociety.org.uk/
sites/default/files/tcs/4_in_10_reportfinal.pdf
[Accessed 9 July 2013].
The Children’s Society, University of York
(2013) The Good Childhood Report 2013.
[pdf] The Children’s Society. Available at:
www.childrenssociety.org.uk/sites/default/
files/tcs/good_childhood_report_2013_final.
pdf [Accessed 14 September 2013].
The National Institute for Play (2009) Play
Deprived Life - Devastating Result. National
Institute for Play. [internet] Available at:
http://nifplay.org/whitman.html [Accessed 12
June 2013].
Thorne, B. (1993) Gender Play: Girls and
Boys in School. New Brunswick: Rutgers
University Press.
Tranter, J. and Doyle, J. W. (1996)
‘Reclaiming The Residential Street As Play
Space’, International Play Journal 1996,
4, 91-97. Available at: http://ecoplan.org/
children/general/tranter.htm [Accessed 28
June 2013].
Trevarthen, C. and Malloch, S. (2002)
Musicality and Music Before Three: Human
Vitality and Invention Shared with Pride.
Zero-to-Three, September 2002, Vol. 23,
No. 1, Washington: National Center for
Infants, Toddlers, and Families.
Trezza, V., Baarendse, P.J.J. and
Vanderschuren, L.J.M.J. (2010) The
pleasures of play: Pharmacological Insights
into Social Reward Mechanisms. Available
at: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/
PMC2946511 [Accessed 28 May 2013].
Tukey, J. W. (1979) Methodology and the
statistician’s responsibility for both accuracy
and relevance. Journal of the American
Statistical Association 74:786–793.
UNCRC (2008) United Nations Committee
on the Rights of the Child: Forty-ninth
Session:Consideration of Reports
Submitted by States Parties Under Article
44 of the Convention – Concluding
Observations: United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland. United
Nations: Geneva, 2008.
UNCRC (2013) General comment No.
17 (2013) on the right of the child to rest,
leisure, play, recreational activities, cultural
life and the arts (art. 31). CRC/C/GC/17:
United Nations Committee on the Rights
of the Child. Available at: www.playwales.
org.uk/eng/generalcomment [Accessed 14
October 2013].
UNICEF (1991) United Nations Convention
on the Rights of the Child. Svenska:
UNICEF Kommitten.
19
UNICEF (2011) Children’s Well-being
in the UK, Sweden and Spain: The
Role of Inequality and Materialism.
[report]. Available at: www.unicef.org.uk/
Documents/Publications/IPSOS_UNICEF_
ChildWellBeingreport.pdf [Accessed 11
October 2013].
Walsh, G., Taylor, D., Sproule, L. and
McGuinness, C. (2008) Debating the
transition from play-based to formal
practice: implications for Early Years
teachers and policymakers [pdf]. Available
at: www.nicurriculum.org.uk/docs/
foundation_stage/eye_curric_project/
evaluation/Transition_Report.pdf [Accessed
22 August 2013].
Valentine, G. (2004) Public space and the
Culture of Childhood. Aldershot: Ashgate
Publishing Limited.
Ward, C. (1990) A child in the city. London:
Bedford Square Press.
Valentine, G. and McKendrick, J. (1997)
‘Young People’s Outdoor Play: Exploring
Parental Concerns About Young People’s
Safety and the Changing Nature of
Childhood’, Geoforum, 28 (2): 219-35.
Warrell, M. (2013) Want to build more trust
in your relationships? [internet] Available
at: http://margiewarrell.com/trust-inrelationships/ [Accessed 28 August 2013].
Valli, L. (1997). Listening to other voices:
A description of teacher reflection in
the United States. Peabody Journal of
Education, 72 (1), 67-88.
Van der Hoek, T. (2005) Through Children’s
Eyes: An Initial Study of Children’s
Personal Experiences and Coping
Strategies Growing Up Poor in an Affluent
Netherlands. Innocenti Working Papers
2005-06. Florence: UNICEF Innocenti
Research Centre
Vellacott, J. (2007) Resilience: A
Psychoanalytical Exploration. British
Journal of Psychotherapy, Vol.23(2):
pp.163-170.
Voce, A. (2006) Where do the children
play? The Guardian, 2 August 2006
[internet]. Available at: www.guardian.co.uk/
society/2006/aug/02/childrensservices.
comment [Accessed 14 August 2013].
Vogler, P., Crivello, G. and Woodhead, M.
(2008) Early childhood transitions research:
A review of concepts, theory, and practice.
Working Paper No. 48. The Hague, The
Netherlands: Bernard van Leer Foundation.
Weller, S. and Bruegel, I. (2007)
‘Children’s “Place” in the Development
of Neighbourhood Social Capital’ Urban
Studies 46(3), 629-643 [pdf]. Available at:
www.brown.uk.com/brownlibrary/weller.pdf
[Accessed 5 July 2013].
Weller, S. and Bruegel, I. (2007) Children’s
‘Place’ in the Development
of Neighbourhood Social Capital. Urban
Studies 46(3) 629-643.
Welsh Government (2006) Play Policy
Implementation Plan. [pdf] Cardiff: Welsh
Government. Available at: http://wales.
gov.uk/dcells/publications/policy_strategy_
and_planning/early-wales/playpolicy/
implementationplane.pdf?lang=en
[Accessed 2 December 2013].
Welsh Government (2009) Creating an
Active Wales. [pdf] Welsh Government
(Cardiff). Available at: www.wales.nhs.
uk/documents/100121activewalesen.pdf
[Accessed 27 May 2013].‎
20
Welsh Government (2010) Children and
Families (Wales) Measure. Cardiff: Welsh
Government.
Welsh Government (2012) Creating a Play
Friendly Wales: Statutory Guidance to
Local Authorities on assessing for sufficient
play opportunities for children in their areas.
Cardiff: Welsh Government.
Welsh Government (2012) Foundation
Phase. [online]. Available at: http://
wales.gov.uk/topics/educationandskills/
earlyyearshome/foundation_
phase/?lang=en [Accessed 21 November
2013].
Wheway, R. and Millward, A. (1997) Child’s
Play: Facilitating Play on Housing Estates.
Coventry: Chartered Institute of Housing.
Whitebread, D., Basilio, M., Kuvalja, M. and
Verma, M. (2012) The importance of play.
[pdf] Toy Industries of Europe. Available
at: www.importanceofplay.eu/IMG/pdf/
dr_david_whitebread_-_the_importance_of_
play.pdf [Accessed 2 December 2013].
Wilson, P. (2008) ‘…and inclusion’. In:
F. Brown and C. Taylor, (eds.) 2008.
Foundations of Playwork. Maidenhead:
Open University Press. Ch.50.
Winnicott, D.W. (2001) Playing and Reality.
Hove: Brunner-Routledge. (Original work
published 1971).
Wohlwend, K. (2004) Chasing friendship:
Acceptance, rejection and recess play.
Childhood Education, 81(2), 77-82.
Young (2010) Common Sense Common
Safety. [pdf] HM Government. Available
at: www.gov.uk/government/uploads/
system/uploads/attachment_data/
file/60905/402906_CommonSense_acc.pdf
[Accessed 27 November 2013].
Youngminds.org.uk. 1967. Transitions.
[internet] Available at: www.youngminds.
org.uk/training_services/young_minds_in_
schools/wellbeing/transitions [Accessed 19
August 2013].
21