Title of the Paper: PARENTS AND RISKY PLAY, EXPERIENCES AND DILEMMAS Author’s Details: Name Surname: Martin van Rooijen Affiliation: Master thesis at the University of Applied Sciences Utrecht / Institute for Sports and Play / Utrecht, the Netherlands e-mail:
[email protected] Abstract: Focusing on the experiences that parents have with ‘risky play’ of their own children, aged five to eleven years old and living in the suburbs of the city of Utrecht, this qualitative research suggests that there are few opportunities in the neighbourhood for children to engage risks and to deal with danger and challenge. Just as parents are critical of formal recreational spaces for this purpose they also have concerns over informal play areas that their children use. Parents tend to extend the idea of risky play to include external factors such as traffic, negative influences from other children and the possibility of abduction or abuse. The percieved risks are seen as larger when children play alone and the supervision of the parent or the social environment is not there. Conversely the oversight of the neighbourhood can also be experienced negatively. Parents who find it acceptable for their children to play in informal play areas without supervision are finding themselves stigmatised by those who do not. One parent when interviewed opined: “It is not acceptable to let your children engage in risky play.” The dilemmas that parents face with risky play lies in the consideration of what is good for the child, and to what extent they want to protect the child or give it the space to deal with risks on it’s own. It is often a matter of ‘trial and error’ and searching for the middle way, which is related to the age and character of the child. Keywords: risky play, parents, play space Introduction: Parents who give their children the space and freedom to have valuable experiences on the street and in the neighborhood, have to deal with other people's comments. ‘The culture is not to let your kids takes risks while playing ', is one of the statements from a mother who describes her experiences with her children in risky play. Parents have to deal with barriers which could hinder them from letting their children undertake adventurous activities on their own, which are important for their development. Does this confirms the image of ' the last child on the street '?
Content of Paper: Risk as necessity Obviously, cildren who play outside search for challenges: toddlers balancing on the curb, older kids climbing on walls, in trees and lampposts. These activities fits the term ' risky play’ that gives a positive appreciation for this type of play where the childs itself chooses for engaging challenging situations that involve risk for physical injury. By dealing with risks children increase their resilience, something they can use in other situations. This promotes creativity, allowing a child to explores his borders and discover it’s qualities (Tovey, 2007). In interviews parents were asked what their experiences have been with the risky play of their children (Van Rooijen, 2013). These children are growing up in the suburban environment of Leidsche Rijn Utrecht, a new housing development with clear and tightly classified green areas. ' You have here a good oversight so you can see the children very well. But that is also unfortunate, ' says one of the interviewed mothers. What obstacles are they coming up against for their kids to engage in necessary risks? Barriers: play environment Climbing a tree is a good example of risky play, after all, you can fall out with the possibility of a bump. The interviews are showing that the parents have complaints about the absence of nature and informal play areas such as littles bushes. Therefore parents are forced to go out into the forest or other natural places with their children because in the neigborhood this is not present. An alternative children developed themselves is ‘freerunning’, kids use benches, bike racks, fences and walls in public spaces to climb up, jump over and doing tricks. It is remarkable that the many ditches in the area are seen as a high risk until the swimming certificate is obtained. Then children play with inflatable boats on the water and it has become a challenging play environment. Finally, the landscaped play area and little playgrounds in the neighborhood are often negatively judged. They offer no challenge and do not connect with the age of the children and they get quickly bored. Barriers: social environment Parents tend to extend the idea of risky play to include external factors such as traffic, negative influences from other children and the possibility of abduction or abuse. The percieved risks are seen as larger when children play alone and the supervision of the parent or the social environment is not there. In addition to playing with private groups of friends there is the possibility that children have to deal with others who hang out on the streets and who may have a bad influence. Incidentally, this may also seen as a positive situation: ‘So he will learn to do some more pranks', a mother says about her son. Another risk is ‘stranger danger'. Although parents indicate that stories are circulating, they have no concrete experiences. Parents give their children advice to avoid strangers but children often do not remember this wise advice: 'She still did ask a gentleman if he wanted to help her to cross over.' Something that stands out in autonomous play is the use of the 'play-outside-phone'. At the age when children can play independently and increase their actionradius, parents give them a cell phone. This is specifically for playing outdoors, so the child could call in any
event and a parent does not have to look for him when it is dinner time. The question is whether this contributes to the confidence that a child develops at the time he can play without supervision. It may be just the moment that the parent reduces control of the child and encourages its independence and responsibility. The influence of other parents Yet it is not self-evident to let your child play outside on their own. The age that children can walk to school alone or are allowed to do some shopping independently, for example, has gone up for some years in the last decades. A child whom in 1971 was seven years old would go as far as a child in the 1990s who was 9 ½ years old. The interviews show that parents mirror their concerns with likeminded parents about how to deal with this subject, by consulting for example friends or parents on the schoolyard. The social environment in the street also is important, especially the informal supervision of each other's children when playing outside. It can become inconvenient when you let your children play more freely than allowed by others standards: 'Other parents have very different thoughts about this', one mother says. Also the childcare staff and schoolteachers are seen as overprotective and patronizing. In this kind of culture parents ask themselves which parental behavior is the dominant one. If parents let their children play alone in the neighborhood, they prefer to keep this approach to themselves to prevent other parents responding negatively. There seems to be a 'negative social control’, parents receive complaints when they leave their children play freely and unsupervised: 'Do you know that your child is playing there all by itself?' Occasionally other people return a child to their parents because they judge the situation as irresponsible. Negligence: on risky play or on overprotection? Parents who letting their children play risky and unattended outdoors may be afraid of the consequences. They experience people thinking or saying that they neglect their children in this way. There is even a mother interviewed, indicating that she is afraid that someone at some day is going to make a point and will report to the authorities. She asks herself: 'Am I standing in my right when I letting my children play alone somewhere, or not'. So this culture could provide that parents who let their children play risky receive complaints about their parenting style. Tovey indicates that parents who let their children play freely outside are seen as being irresponsible, or providing inadequate care. Their children, playing outside unsupervised are often viewed with some suspicion (Tovey, 2007). Another opinion brings up the question of whether overprotection of children could be seen as child abuse. Overprotection could be defined as raising a child when parents check their children too much, wanting to take too much out of their hands and giving the children too little space to do things by themselves (Geurts, 2010). They will less likely let their child be unattended by outdoor playing and discouraging it in challenging and risky play. The consequences of this practice affects children’s physical, emotional and social development and can be extensive. The self esteem suffered from this and it can lead to motoric deprivation. In this way it can be stated that overprotection is a form of child abuse, the behavior of these parents is harmful to the child’s development. Geurts argues that
overprotective parents often no longer know how they can let their child more freely or in what degree they can or may act in this way, without being addressed by other parents. Searching for the ' middle way ' These two extremes, parents who let go of their children too much and those who overprotect their children, might benefit from what parents in the study described as the search for a 'middle way '. They try to connect with the age and character of the child in the level of responsibility and autonomy which they give. Experimenting is essential: 'At some point I let go some more', and another mother talks about little trials in which the child is secretly being followed to see if it can put up with the given freedom. According to them, the dilemma is between control and trust. Parents know very well that in the end it depends on the child, in what way and to what extend reacts to the arrangements: ‘Making agreements and hope and pray they will follow them’. Risky play presumes a consideration between the responsibility for protecting the child on one hand and the encouragement to take risks on the other hand so that the child can develop his skills. Parents have an important role in supporting their children in making the right decisions in risky play (Little, 2010). Yet there is still little known about how parents can help children to distinguish between ' good ' risks and bad ones. What emerges is that whether and how parents think about engaging risks affects how they coach their children. This also applies to their own behavior when dealing with risks, if they themselves have good experiences they are also more tolerant in allowing risky play. More parents could realize what consequences their behavior has on the development of their child. Also the awareness that you cannot exclude all risks can be of a help. Professionals can play a role being sensitive to signals from both overprotection and unrestricted behaviour. Information on the consequences of their behavior and suggestions on how they can do it otherwise, can help. To change the culture the 'free' parents can talk with other parents to share their views on the need for risk. But that also is difficult, according to one of the interviewees: 'They find it something you absolutely cannot do, just letting your children play somewhere. And I think it is essential, so it’s impossible to agree about this subject'. Conclusion: The last child on the streets? It is likely that the image of playing children in the neighborhood will perish, in a risk-averse society, where children are kept far from any risk and hazard (Gill, 2007). In this research parents complain about the lack of playfriends, many children remain at the childcare or the sportsclub. If a child is encouraged to go and play outside, they complains, ‘I am told to go and search for someone on the streets but there is no one around'. It could be leading to the paradox that parents decide to bring their child to the afternoonclub to meet other children. This mother looks back on her own youth: 'In the past there was always someone outside.' Let us try not to let fear rule outdoor playing, it is this fear that leads to initiatives such as chipyourchild.nl, which turned out to be a hoax, and Kidswatcher, the smartphone telling where your child is.
References Geurts, E. (2010). Overbescherming, een vorm van kindermishandeling?(Overprotection, a from of child abuse), in: J. van der Ploeg en R. de Groot (red.), Kindermishandeling: een complex probleem (Child abuse: a complex problem). Antwerpen/Apeldoorn, Garant, p. 89106. Gill, T. (2007). No Fear, Growing up in a risk averse society. London: Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation. Little, H. (2010). Relationship between parents' beliefs and their responses to children's risktaking behaviour during outdoor play. Journal of Early Childhood Research , 8 (3), 315-330. Rooijen, M. van (2013). Ouders over Risicovol Spelen, ervaringen en dilemma’s (Parents and risky play, experiences and dilemmas). Master Thesis, University of Applied Sciences Utrecht. Available on request of the author. Retrieved at www.ruimtevoordejeugd.nl/Ontwerp-inrichting-vanspeelruimte/onderzoek-ouders-over-risicovol-spelen-ervaringen-en-dilemmas.html
Tovey, H. (2007). Playing Outdoors: Spaces and Places, Risk and Challenge. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
