Young children’s views on play provision in two local parks: A research project by early childhood studies students and staff

Abstract

This project collected the views of young children on play provision within two local parks through research conducted by Early Childhood Studies students and academics. Findings identified that traditional playground equipment and ‘risky’ play were important for children. Natural features and semi-permanent provision were valued, alongside the provision of mixed-age fixed equipment. Children were highly aware of health and safety, and they were very risk averse. Conclusions recognised constraints and limitations of collaborative working, including eliciting authentic voices of children.

Keywords

Children’s voices play provision research with children risky play student/staff research

Introduction and background to the study

The authors of this article were approached by a local district council landscape architect who was responsible for the upgrade of two local parks in the East Midlands in the United Kingdom. The council wished to consult with children on their views of existing provision in the parks and their play interests to shape and inform the upgrade of these spaces. The authors, having gained permission to do so, provided undergraduate students on a BA (Honours) Early Childhood Studies degree with an opportunity to engage in primary research with young children in a local community to elicit their views. Collaborative research between staff and students is gaining popularity as it provides an opportunity to renegotiate power relationships and meanings between students and staff within the current climate of higher education (Bellinger et al., 2014; Jensen and Bennett, 2016). The project took place in the autumn of 2015, when the students were in the final year of their degree and all were studying an option module entitled Creative Opportunities and Possibilities; an assessed component of this module required them to evaluate an outdoor space for creative play potential.

This article aims to contribute towards the literature around the design of outdoor play spaces for children by providing insight into children’s views about local provision and their play choices and interests. The article also makes a methodological contribution, through reflection, on the complexities involved in eliciting children’s views and the limitations of involving students in research. The approach taken to hand over the methodological design to the students was innovative but not without complications and shortcomings.

Our starting point is to recognise and value the importance of listening to children’s views when designing and constructing the community spaces they inhabit. As Loebach (2011) states,

In theory, children have the right, ensconced in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, to be involved in decisions which affect their lives including the empowering experience of contributing to the design of their local environments. In practice however, providing children with this opportunity through participatory work is fraught with challenges, particularly the employment of effective methods for meaningfully involving children in the process. (p. 1)

The authors acknowledged Loebach’s concerns but nevertheless felt this was a rare opportunity to make a difference for children and to involve students in an ‘authentic task’. The perceived decline in children’s opportunities to play freely in the United Kingdom (Gill, 2008) and, also internationally (Nicholson et al., 2015), make it therefore imperative that children’s views on spaces provided for this purpose are sought.

Literature informing the project

Children’s rights and voice

Childhood is both socially constructed and non-universal (James and Prout, 1997) which complicates research that purports to elicit children’s ideas, as it can only produce a partial picture intersectioned by class, gender and ethnicity (Alanen, 2016). In addition, the power difference between adults and children makes eliciting authentic views difficult (Spyrou, 2011). Nevertheless, the rights of children to be heard in matters concerning them is pivotal to their participation in a democratic society (Carrol et al., 2017). The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) (UN General Assembly, 1989) Article 12, refers to the right of the child to express their views freely in matters affecting them; however, children are not uniformly consulted on their views in relation to the design of spaces provided for them by adults. The privileged position of adults has meant that children’s ideas are often discounted, as the ideas of adults dominate discourse and are ‘heard, privileged and counted as knowledge or truths’ whereas the voices of children are ‘systematically hidden from view, marginalised and excluded from circulation’ (Nicholson et al., 2015: 1571). Listening to the voices of young children needs careful consideration and has included the uptake of innovative approaches (Clark and Moss, 2001), but capturing children’s authentic ideas remains complex due their ‘messy, multi-layered and non-normative’ character (Spyrou, 2011: 151). The idea of children as active participants in research reflects the emergence of the social studies of childhood, and it includes contributions from disciplines such as history, anthropology and sociology (Hendrick in James and Prout, 1997; Mayall, 2002; Punch, 2002; Qvortrup, 1991). These contributions, in particular, have supported the notion of children as active citizens with their own agency and therefore worthy of study in their own right. These ideas demonstrate the shift in focus from the child as object to the child as subject within research (Gillett-Swann and Sargeant, 2018).

Children’s views and preferences on play provision

An increasing number of studies have considered children’s views on play provision in recent years, identifying children’s interest in risky play and challenge. Children’s preference for challenging equipment offering sensations of height and speed, including slides, swings, climbing equipment and monkey bars, have been identified by Little and Eager (2010). Play which allows children to feel out of control and on the edge of risk is labelled as dizzy play by Tovey (2007) but is often constrained by adult perceptions of danger or limited by the equipment itself (Wilson, 2012). Glenn et al. (2012) identify interest in the use of repurposed spaces for children’s own uses, rather than traditional fixed play provision; they suggest the key barriers to children’s play choices are parents’ risk-averse attitudes and concerns about safety. Weather was found to influence children’s choices of play, but not outdoor play itself; outdoor activities, active, movement-based activities and playing with peers were important for the children in their study (Glenn et al., 2012). In Auckland, New Zealand, children’s voices were sought on the redesign of an urban space to enable child- friendly space and open up play opportunities. The children’s contributions in the redesign resulted in a shift in the adult perceptions of a ‘child-friendly’ environment which ‘was more about providing sensory, play and socializing opportunities than restraining and constraining behaviours’ (Carroll et al 2017: 286). This suggests that adult and children’s conceptions of what constitutes child-friendly spaces differ, a view supported by Firinci Orman (2013), who reports a cross-generational difference between adults’ and children’s perspectives on playground design. Firinci Orman (2013) utilised participatory approaches using art activities in the ‘My Dream Playground Workshop’ in Bulgaria, for children to design their own playgrounds. The workshops made use of the Mosaic Approach (Clark and Moss, 2001) and were based on five playground dimensions: joy, design, safety, nature and socialisation. Firinci Orman (2013) also notes the ideology embedded in playground design in 20th-century Bulgaria, including rocket designs and double-seated swings, reflecting the social moral code of the time.

Places for climbing and places for resting were identified in Loebach’s (2011) research, as was the use of colour in the design of a wall mural. Children gained ownership of the space by contributing to the design through various art projects, such as making their own stepping stones for use within a pathway, or painting their own section of a wall mural (Loebach, 2011). Horgan et al. (2018) identify that free play was the most popular after-school activity for the 177 children aged 5–12 years within their study. Children valued being able to relax with friends in unstructured environments and being treated appropriately for their age. What is common in these studies is the opportunity for choice in activities and the ownership of space by children, which includes the repurposing of space and resources from the child’s agenda.

Risk and challenge in children’s play

Risk is socially constructed and varies according to context and culture (Tovey, 2007); however, it is agreed by contemporary authors that risk and challenge are important in children’s outdoor play spaces (Casey, 2007; Gill, 2008; Little and Eager, 2010; Tovey, 2007; Wilson, 2012). According to Wilson (2012), play spaces that do not provide choice and opportunities for creative play may result in children adding elements of risk into their play to provide challenge. In order to provide choice while limiting risk, a risk–benefit assessment approach is recommended (Shackell et al., 2008), which meets legal obligations ‘while promoting a balanced approach that considers industry standards and other guidance in the light of local circumstances, and of children’s need for more exciting and challenging play’ (p. 44). In order to learn to assess risk, children need opportunities to encounter it in their play, in addition, risky play supports children’s emotional well-being, resilience and mental health (Tovey, 2007). Little and Eager (2010) identify children’s preference for challenge and excitement in outdoor play but suggest that the equipment provided in play spaces often limits the possibilities for risk. These findings have important implications for playground design and management and the need to incorporate children’s views.

Designing spaces with and for children

While there is increasing international interest in including children in the design and construction of play spaces for their use, how best to ensure children’s participation and voice differs. Loebach’s (2011) study in Peru with (our italics) children included them in the whole process including the planning, design, choice of materials, testing, construction and implementation of the play space. She highlights the benefits of children’s participation in creating play spaces but recognises the difficulties inherent, most importantly, in the choice of effective methods for children to fully participate. Firinci Orman’s (2013) approach in Bulgaria similarly provided children with opportunities to design their play spaces using art-based activities. Research on designing spaces for (our italics) children can take a different approach, employing methods such as observation and consultation with parents to identify children’s interests and uses of existing play space to inform design (Refshauge et al., 2015). This approach identified how children used existing spaces and the affordances that equipment and space provided but did not include the children’s voices, instead relying on observations from parents. Our approach focussed on eliciting the views of the children through drawings and talk, but they were not involved in the construction or implementation of the design itself.

Children as research participants

In supporting our student researchers in the development of their ideas about which methods to use, we explored with them the challenges related to undertaking research with young children. Green (2017) and Horgan (2017) note a growth in child participatory research over the last two decades and how children are now recognised as ‘actors in their own right who have diverse and often divergent opinions and views about their everyday life worlds’ (Green, 2017: 154). Punch (2002) provided useful insights into these challenges by questioning which methods suit children given their marginalised position in adult society, noting the importance of critically reflecting upon the advantages and disadvantages of ‘child-centred’ (Punch, 2002: 323) methods to avoid assumptions about what methods are more appropriate for children’s perceived competencies or lack of them. This includes acknowledging children’s position in society and how childhood is constrained and perceived by adults. Consideration of the age, competence, experience, and social status of children as participants and their cultural environments and physical settings is important. The methods utilised to elicit responses from children, therefore, need to be carefully considered, recognising that children are unused to being asked to provide their views. She notes, ‘The challenge is how best to enable children to express their views to an adult researcher’ (Punch, 2002: 325).

Listening to the child involves more than just verbal expressions and Clark and Moss (2001) and Spyrou (2011) suggest that the use of multimethod approaches encapsulate the many ways in which children communicate their idea. The Mosaic Approach (Clark and Moss, 2001) makes use of observation, child conferencing and visual images including children’s photographs, drawings and maps to create a ‘mosaic’ of the child. Punch (2002) notes that group task-based methods enable children to feel comfortable with adult researchers who are not known to them, while drawing is a particularly useful tool to use with younger children because it is familiar to them and enables children to express their ideas, noting, ‘drawings themselves are rich visual illustrations which directly show how children see their world’ (p. 331).

The challenge, however, is to take care not to misinterpret children’s drawings and impose adult interpretations upon them. Wright (2010) discusses the adult role as ‘interlocutor’ and suggests this requires a fine balance of reciprocity, with the child leading the dialogue about their drawing. Hence, a high level of sensitivity is needed by using open-ended questions and ‘tuning in’ to children’s drawings with them. However, visual methods alone may not be sufficient to elicit the authentic views of children due to the selective process they entail. Spyrou (2011) notes that ‘images are selections produced out of a number of possibilities and, like all other texts, cannot be authentic depictions of social reality’ (p. 154). He suggests instead, that we must pay attention to children’s silences as these may hold much information. Colliver (2017) also considers how research methodologies used with children often take an ‘adultist’ approach, where decisions about how children can meaningfully contribute are taken by adults who often underestimate children’s capabilities (p. 862). She further identifies ethical difficulties in relation to researching children’s authentic perspectives and points to the importance of listening to children to fully understand their views (Colliver, 2017: 855).

Horgan (2017) while acknowledging the challenges involved in working with children as research participants, argues strongly that this should not stop us involving children in research, noting ‘… child participatory research has much potential which has not yet been mined …’ (p. 256). She further asserts, we cannot eradicate power differences between adults and children, but we can acknowledge and aim to minimise them to build capacity in children to participate in the research process. Gillett-Swann and Sargeant (2018) note that school spaces and the researchers themselves can influence children’s participation, agency and voice; consequently, they highlight the importance of researcher reflexivity within this process.

Methodology

Participants

The children and the two parks are situated in a former coal mining village in the North Midlands of England, with a population of around 7500 people. It is a community with relatively high levels of deprivation and lower levels of qualifications compared to the rest of the county within which it is situated. A recent needs assessment undertaken by the local county council (McCormick et al., 2017: 57) shows that 23.1% of children in this community live in low-income families, as against 17.1% of children across the county and 19.9% of children across England.

The primary research was undertaken by 12 undergraduate student researchers with two Year 2 classes in the only two schools within the village; a Nursery and Infant School for children aged between 3 and 7 years, and a Primary School for children aged between 3 and 11 years. Year 2 children were selected to undertake the research after taking guidance from the participating schools. Year 2 is the second part of Key Stage 1 of the UK National Curriculum (Gov.UK, 2017) and children are aged 6 and 7 years. All Year 2 children present on the day in both schools took part in the research activities (60 children). The authors (two lecturers) accompanied the students to each school, to facilitate and take photographs (with informed consent). The children’s teachers were present within the classroom but did not participate.

Prior to the commencement of the research, the students attended an initial project meeting in September 2015, chaired by a representative of the district council; this meeting included representatives from a number of community groups including a community forest park trust, an Executive Head Teacher and two Head Teachers of the local schools, district councillors, representatives from the local Sure Start children’s centre and local community and youth action groups and charities working for children and young people. This provided context for the project alongside multiple voices from the local community and was a useful learning opportunity for the student-researchers.

Data collection

The students visited the two local parks in late September 2015 taking photographs and notes, after which they produced their own written evaluations of the creative play opportunities within these spaces for their assessment for the module, informed by literature. Park A included a play area which needed updating as well as a skateboard park, which attracted mainly older children (Figure 1); Park B was on the edge of the village on reclaimed colliery land, which is part of a community forest and includes a visitors’ centre and a fenced-off play area (Figures 2 and 3). Both parks were on the council’s Locality Plan and due for upgrade. Following completion of the site evaluations, the students visited the schools to undertake their primary research. This element of the research was voluntary and unassessed.

Figure 1.

Play area (Park A).

Figure 2.

Swing set (Park B).

Figure 3.

Roundabout (Park B).

Methods used by student-researchers to elicit children’s views

The students were familiar with a range of possible research methods from a core research module in the second year of their degree; therefore ownership for methodological design was handed over to students to support their learning as emerging researchers. The Mosaic Approach by Clark and Moss (2001) and the ideas of Loebach (2011) were influential in our students’ approach to the research (both were recommended reading for the module), and visual and verbal approaches were the key methods chosen (Table 1). The students were split into four groups (working in groups of 3) and methods/activities chosen by the groups are outlined below. Each set of activities was planned to fit a single school teaching session of 1 hour and took place in the school classrooms (Figure 4).

Table 1.

Methods used by student researchers.

Group 1 (School A)	Group 2 (School A)	Group 3 (School B)	Group 4 (School B)
Materials/textures for children to feel and choose favourite (wood, stone, metal, plastic)	Discussion of different types of parks	Individual drawing activity of ideal outdoor play environment	Drawing of individual resources for an ideal park
Drawing own play area (individual drawing)	Individual drawing of ideal park	Voting activity – children choose favourite resource from images presented (Figure 4)	Collage using all the drawings to make a ‘group’ park
Favourite part of play area/ requirements for play area (discussion)

Figure 4.

Voting activity.

Procedure

The students were split into four groups: groups 1 and 2 went to school A and groups 3 and 4 went to school B. The children were split by the teacher into groups for each activity, with the student-researchers using their own resources (images, examples of materials – wood, metal, stone, plastic) and drawing equipment from the schools. The project was introduced to the children by the lecturers (authors): the children were told about the plans to update the two local parks and the need to find out their views. Then each activity was explained to each group of children by the student group to which they were allocated. The students timed their activities to fill one teaching session (1 hour) and completed the activities with their individual groups in different parts of the classroom. The students’ use of data collection methods was not fully conceptualised in all cases, and as such data was not always recorded accurately (e.g. two groups chose discussion as part of their methodology but verbal responses were selectively recorded and limited). The students were encouraged to reflect upon their results and to produce a dissemination poster, but as this was voluntary and not an assessed part of their module, the results were hastily produced and limited in some cases.

Data analysis

Working in their groups, the students collated the children’s responses and drawings, noting frequency of responses to produce a poster indicating children’s choices and preferences. The posters were unassessed and were passed to the district council for display in the park community centre to disseminate results of the research to the children and the community. We the authors of this article, collated both the students’ dissemination posters and the students’ assessed written evaluations (with their permission) to produce a report of children’s views for the local district council.

Ethical considerations

All three phases of the project went through our university’s ethical approval processes and adhered to the Data Protection Act (1998) which was required at the time. This included seeking informed consent from the schools, parents, children, young people and all the adults involved in the research as either researcher, stakeholders or participants. Permission was also sought for the use of photographs from the research findings through social and local media and through publication. Children were asked to provide verbal consent for the use of their drawings and verbal responses. Consent was also sought from children to being photographed during the activities (faces were not used). Mayall points out, ‘a central characteristic of adults is that they have power over children’ (in Christensen and James, 2017: 110) and therefore the balance of power between adult researchers and children needs special attention. (Horgan, 2017). Students discussed this with their lecturers before planning their activities and attempts were made to counteract their position, for example by considering the use of open-ended questions and encouraging the children to talk among themselves.

Findings and discussion

Children’s views related to fixed provision and resources

While the project foregrounded children’s ideas through consultation with them, it remains a challenge to identify with certainty that all the ideas expressed were their own. The influence of a ‘nature project’, which was part of the curriculum at the time on the children’s responses, and the presence of the teacher within the classroom cannot fully be known. Although the teacher did not engage in the activities, this presence and the school environment itself may have influenced the children’s results (Gillett-Swann and Sargeant, 2018).

Findings clearly identified that traditional playground equipment, such as climbing frames, slides and swings, were important to children as well as ‘risky’ play features such as ‘monkey bars’, ‘zip wires’ and ‘climbing walls’ (Figures 5 and 6). Little and Eager (2010) and Wilson (2012) identify children’s preference for risk and challenge within outdoor play but recognise that the equipment provided within these spaces does not always afford these opportunities. The children concurred with these ideas, and their interest in risky play features was evident within their drawings of zip wires, climbing walls and the inclusion of water in various ways. One child even included a fire underneath his zip wire drawing. At the same time, the popularity of traditional play equipment was apparent within the children’s drawings and expressions, possibly indicating their expectations of park provision or their own experiences of them (Figures 5 and 6).

Figure 5.

Children engaged in drawing activities.

Figure 6.

Children engaged in drawing activities.

Children also requested that play equipment be provided for all ages on the same site, so they could play alongside older and younger siblings. One response was ‘the big kids can play on the monkey bars and the babies can play in the flower part’, while another stated, ‘I would like my little sister to play with me’. This was also recognised as being important for adults supervising children of different ages. This is interesting, as park equipment for different age groups is often situated separately, usually for health and safety reasons. Wilson (2012) argues for equipment to be both inclusive and age-appropriate. Age or height limits indicated on signs in public parks assume a developmental view of children which limits their capabilities to specific ages and stages. As Tovey (2007) identifies, risk is variable and depends on the capabilities of the individual. In the research, children expressed a preference for equipment made of wood or stone over metal and plastic, which could be considered in any new provision. They also expressed a preference for ‘rainbow’-themed play provision. Swings and climbing frames were the most popular pieces of fixed equipment mentioned, so these need to be provided as key features and in plentiful numbers.

Flexible provision and loose materials

The responses demonstrated a very strong interest in transitory, semi-permanent provision, such as mark making, display of art work, dressing up opportunities and gardening. One child stated, ‘we should have somewhere to play dress up’, while another group identified areas to draw and display art work as being important to the children. Wright (2010: 6) notes that mark making ‘allows children to say and write what they think and feel usually without adult intrusion’, while Anning (1999, cited in Wright, 2010: 7) considers drawing and mark making as the ‘visual equivalent of dramatic play’. It is perhaps the agency that these types of activity afford children that makes them so appealing in outdoor play space, where, arguably they have more control and opportunities to make choices and decisions. Similarly, dressing up and role play allow children to use their imagination and direct the trajectory of their play, usually free from adult intervention and interference. Casey (2007) discusses the need for flexibility in play spaces using short term, semi-permanent and fixed ‘long term’ provision. Short-term features are more difficult to provide in public play spaces, but they were highly valued in the children’s responses.

Most of the children’s drawings featured flowers, and many included places to grow things as being important in their designs. Contemporary commentators (Gill, 2008; Knight, 2011; Louv, 2005; Wilson, 2012) and historical pioneers, such as Rousseau, Froebel, Macmillan and Isaacs, have identified the benefits of nature play for young children, and recent concerns about the lack of opportunities for children to engage with nature have resulted in the introduction of ‘Forest Schools’ in the United Kingdom (Knight, 2011). The children’s interest in gardening activities and the presence of flowers and animals therefore could be an indication of this lack of engagement with Nature within their own lives and increased time indoors. The preference for natural materials of wood and stone over plastic and metal was an interesting result and could be a further indication of this; however, this may have been influenced by other factors, such as the choice of samples or their own experiences of play spaces.

Specific reference was made to the inclusion of water, in the form of a paddling pool (in one case under the zip wire) and a ‘mud kitchen’. Nicholson (1971), Wilson (2012) and Zamani (2016) highlight the value of loose materials in children’s play spaces, as they provide flexibility and can be used according to children’s own agendas unlike ‘fixed provision’. Glenn et al. (2012) similarly note children’s interest in repurposing spaces to meet their own play agendas. Natural living features in outdoor environments, such as animals and plants, can provide flexibility but are often excluded from these environments or are ‘fenced out’. It is interesting to note that children were aware of both the risks and benefits of keeping animals out of play spaces. Also mentioned were a toy shop and a sweet shop, both of which reflect children’s specific concerns but may not fit with an adult health agenda often embedded in outdoor play space design within the United Kingdom. Firinci Orman (2013) similarly, refers to embedded ideology within playground design in Bulgaria.

Children’s views on health and safety

One of the findings of the project was the children’s awareness of health and safety and the frequent references to this within the responses. Many of the children’s drawings included fences around the play areas, and the importance of safety and signs was clear in their designs. It is impossible to know if this reflects the children’s own concerns or if this reflects adult anxieties about the risks associated with outdoor play that have been internalised by children (Blundell, 2016: 103), but they clearly indicated their knowledge and awareness of a health and safety agenda including the need to keep animals out of play spaces. This could suggest that the health and safety agenda expressed may be an indication of the embedded adult ideology identified by Firinci Orman (2013) in playground design that the children have internalised. Conversely, the children’s interest in animals and wildlife was also clear, with one response stating, ‘animals live outdoors; they should be in the park too’. Olsen et al. (2010) identify that including children in the planning process of outdoor environments for children is fundamental and can result in lower maintenance costs, increase imagination and creativity and can also reduce injury.

Limitations

While this project foregrounded children’s ideas through consultation with them, it remains a challenge to identify with certainty that all the ideas expressed were their own. The influence of the ‘nature project’ and the presence of the teacher within the classroom cannot fully be known. Similarly, critical reflection on the methodology used, the interpretation of the data and the power imbalance between the student researchers and the children may also have influenced children’s responses. Colliver (2017) reminds us that it is vital for researchers to challenge assumptions about key concepts, measures and scales within research design to ensure they are not ‘adultist’. She warns we need to move beyond ‘listening’ to children and into ‘understanding’ children (Colliver, 2017: 862). In this project, the methodologies utilised by the students were in some cases not fully conceptualised and much of the data collected was based on adult interpretations of the children’s drawings.

Consulting children in the design process is recognised as being relevant in ensuring that their voices are heard (Horgan, 2017), but this is a complex process as the staff and students engaged in the project found out. Engaging children in participatory design and building projects requires thoughtful and time-consuming pre-planning to ensure successful outcomes (Loebach, 2011). This project attempted to position children as designers and decision makers affording them the opportunity ‘to have a voice and an active hand in the development of their community environment’ (Loebach, 2011: 1). In respect of this, children were asked to share their ideas through a range of activities; however, the scope of those activities were limited, and many of the choices had already been made for them by the student-researchers through the design of their ‘adultist’ (Colliver, 2017: 862) research instruments. Loebach (2011) suggests that control over activities and decision making is often curtailed (unknowingly) by adults, who underestimate children’s capacity for authentic and meaningful decisions. Similarly, Alanen (2016) notes that ‘children’s lives are intersectionally structured’, so we cannot be sure how other factors may have influenced their responses (p. 159). The students in this project were constrained by inexperience in relation to research methodologies and time limits imposed upon them by the higher education institution. Consequently, there may have been better ways to elicit more ‘authentic’ voices of the children than the methodologies chosen.

The research aimed to position students as researchers and partners within the process and to hand over control and decision making to them as far as was possible. As a result of this approach, responsibility for the design and implementation of the research methodology was handed over to the students, and the authors purposefully positioned themselves as facilitators. These were purposefully chosen opportunities for deep and authentic learning, and this indeed did happen. (Explored further in another paper by Yates and Oates under submission). However, there are constraints to this approach, as the students were inexperienced researchers resulting in limited depth, complexity and recording of the data. Improvements could have been made to the methods used to capture children’s voices. Children’s drawings were used as a key approach by each group, which according to Spyrou (2016) may not have been sufficient. He suggests that we need to pay more attention to ‘the silent, the unclear and incoherent, the perplexing and the contradictory’ (Spyrou, 2016: 14), which was not emphasised enough within the research methodologies. Wright (2010) identifies the fine balance needed when undertaking the role of ‘interlocutor’ with the child leading the dialogue in child conferencing. This is a difficult role and one that requires experience. This approach could have been further explored by the staff and students within the project. Positioning students as researchers necessitated their control of the primary research methods. Despite this, there are lessons to be learned in relation to the preparation of the student-researchers, and critical reflection on the content of their research module will be taken forward by the authors.

Conclusion

The children’s enthusiasm and desire to share their ideas and views were clear to the researchers throughout, and they appeared to enjoy the process. They expressed their preference for traditional play equipment, alongside risky adventurous play and engagement with animals and Nature through their drawings and verbal responses. Semi-permanent and transitory features were also valued, perhaps as a way of retaining ownership of their play activities. It is acknowledged that involving children needs careful planning, and researchers need to be mindful of how children’s authentic voices can be heard and how they are positioned within the research.

The student-researchers were surprised by the children’s knowledge and abilities to express insightful and valuable ideas. This reinforced the value of outdoor play spaces in children and young people’s lives and in supporting their well-being; it also reinforced the need for children to be consulted and involved in the decision making and design of spaces intended for their use.

In January 2018, we were informed that the local council had responded to the findings and had designed a new layout for one of the parks (Park B – see Figure 7 –9). The new fixed provision, of a timber construction, was installed in the spring of 2018 within the woodland area, consisting of more adventurous play equipment. The park is now very well used by local children in all weathers as observed by the authors. This validates the project, and we hope that the children’s involvement in the design will, as Olsen et al. (2010) suggests, encourage ownership and pride in their local environment and will contribute to the maintenance of these spaces on a long-term basis. While the authors are very pleased with the changes to the play park, and the new design incorporates some of the children’s ideas, it must be acknowledged that many of the children’s ideas have not been implemented. This raises questions about how far children’s views are taken seriously by adults, reminding us of the power differences between adults and children. Factors such as economics and ideology continue to shape provision for children.

Figure 7.

New Play provision (Park B).

Figure 8.

Climbing equipment with natural elements (Park B).

Figure 9.

Challenging fixed equipment (Park B).

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Ellen Yates

Ruby Oates

References

Alanen

(2016) ‘Intersectionality’ and other challenges to theorizing childhood. Childhood 23(2): 157–161.

Bellinger

Bullen

Ford

(2014) Practice research in practice learning: Students as co-researchers and co-constructors of knowledge. Nordic Social Work Research 4(Suppl. 1): 58–69.

Blundell

(2016) Rethinking Children’s Space and Places. London: Bloomsbury.

Carroll

Witten

Stewart

(2017) Children are citizens too: Consulting with children on the redevelopment of a central city square in Auckland, Aotearoa/New Zealand. Built Environment 43(2): 272–289.

Casey

(2007) Environments for Outdoor Play – A Practical Guide to Making Space for Children. London: Paul Chapman Publishing.

Christensen

James

(eds) (2017) Research with Children: Perspectives and Practices. London: Routledge.

Clark

Moss

(2001) Listening to Young Children: The Mosaic Approach. London: National Children’s Bureau.

Colliver

(2017) From listening to understanding: Interpreting young children’s perspectives. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 25(6): 854–865.

Firinci Orman

(2013) My dream playground workshop: Involving children in participatory design. In: ARCHHIST’13 conference – Politics in the history of architecture as cause and consequence, Istanbul, 24–27 April 2013. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/search.Search.html?type=researcher&query=My%20Dream%20Playground

10.

Gill

(2008) No Fear: Growing Up in a Risk Averse Society. London: Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation.

11.

Gillett-Swann

Sargeant

(2018) Unintentional power plays: Interpersonal contextual impacts in child-centred participatory research. Educational Research 60(1): 1–16.

12.

Glenn

Knight

Holt

, et al. (2012) Meanings of play among children. Childhood 20(2): 185–199.

13.

Gov.UK (2017) The national curriculum. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-curriculum-in-england-framework-for-key-stages-1-to-4/the-national-curriculum-in-england-framework-for-key-stages-1-to-4 (accessed 29 September 2017).

14.

Green

(2017) If there’s no sustainability our future will get wrecked’: Exploring children’s perspectives of sustainability. Childhood 24(2): 151–167.

15.

Horgan

(2017) Child participatory research methods: Attempts to go ‘deeper’. Childhood 24(2): 245–259.

16.

Horgan

O’Riordan

Martin

, et al. (2018) Children’s views on school-age care: Child’s play or childcare? Children and Youth Services Review 91: 338–346.

17.

James

Prout

(eds) (1997) Constructing and Reconstructing Childhood: Contemporary Issues in the Sociological Study of Childhood, 2nd edn. London: Falmer.

18.

Jensen

Bennett

(2016) Enhancing teaching and learning through dialogue: A student and staff partnership model. International Journal for Academic Development 21(1): 41–53.

19.

Knight

(2011) Risk and Adventure in Early Years Outdoor Play. London: SAGE.

20.

Little

Eager

(2010) Risk, challenge and safety: Implications for play quality and playground design. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 18(4): 497–513.

21.

Loebach

(2011) The magical park of aviacion: Lessons from a participatory design project with the children of Aviacion, Peru. Play Rights, September. Available at: http://www.thrivedesignconsulting.ca/uploads/9/9/3/1/99311452/playrights_mag_11_-_magical_park_of_aviacion_-_final_-_web_version.pdf (acessed 11 September 2014).

22.

Louv

(2005) Last Child in the Woods. London: Atlantic Books.

23.

McCormick

Aderson

Kightley

, et al. (2017) Joint Strategic Needs Assessment: The People of Nottinghamshire (Full Report ID /d/190085). Nottingham: Nottinghamshire County Council. Available at: http://www.nottinghamshireinsight.org.uk/research-areas/jsna/summaries-and-overviews/the-people-of-nottinghamshire-2017/ (accessed 12 November 2018).

24.

Mayall

(2002) Towards a Sociology of Childhood: Thinking from Children’s Lives. Buckingham: Open University Press.

25.

Nicholson

Kurnik

Jevgjovikj

, et al. (2015) Deconstructing adults’ and children’s discourse on children’s play: Listening to children’s voices to destabilise deficit narratives. Early Child Development and Care 185(10): 1569–1586.

26.

Nicholson

(1971) How not to cheat children: The theory of loose parts. Landscape Architecture 62(1): 30–35.

27.

Olsen

Thompson

Hudson

, et al. (2010) Creating outdoor early childhood environments: Design strategies and resources. Design Principles and Practices: An International Journal 4(4): 345–360.

28.

Punch

(2002) Research with children: The same or different from research with adults? Childhood 9(3): 321–341.

29.

Qvortrup

(1991) Childhood as a Social Phenomenon – An Introduction to a Series of National Reports (Eurosocial Report 36/1999). Vienna: European Centre.

30.

Refshauge

Stigsdotter

Lamm

, et al. (2015) Evidence-based playground design: Lessons learned from theory to practice. Landscape Research 40(2): 226–246.

31.

Shackell

Butler

Doyle

, et al. (2008) Design for Play: A Guide to Creating Successful Play Spaces. Nottingham: DCSF Publications for Play England.

32.

Spyrou

(2011) The limits of children’s voices: From authenticity to critical, reflexive representation. Childhood 18(2): 151–165.

33.

Spyrou

(2016) Researching children’s silences: Exploring the fullness of voice in childhood research. Childhood 23(1): 7–21.

34.

Tovey

(2007) Playing Outdoors Spaces and Places, Risk and Challenge. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

35.

UN General Assembly (1989) The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. New York: UN General Assembly.

36.

Wilson

(2012) Nature and Young Children: Encouraging Creative Play and Learning in Natural Environments. Abingdon: Routledge.

37.

Wright

(2010) Understanding Creativity in Early Childhood: Meaning-Making and Children’s Drawings. London: SAGE.

38.

Zamani

(2016) ‘The woods is a more free space for children to be creative; their imagination kind of sparks out there’: Exploring young children’s cognitive play opportunities in natural, manufactured and mixed outdoor preschool zones. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning 16(2): 172–189.