Introduction

Play is critically important for the social, emotional, cognitive, and physical development of children. Play differs by context, thereby denoting a dynamic and ever-shifting phenomenon (Frost, 2012). To classify children’s play statically hinders a deep understanding of its meanings and implications (Fleer, 2021). Indeed, children’s play continuously evolves as new forms of play and tools emerge, such as digital technologies and games (Frost, 2012; Slutsky and DeShetler, 2017). Notably, while games are a major part of children’s play, the two are not synonymous, as children’s play can involve myriad informal activities (Smith et al., 1985). Throughout this paper, we intentionally maintain a broad definition of play to include various activities such as dance and singing because of their cultural resonance in early childhood across different societies (Grosso, 2009; Roopnarine and Johnson, 2001) and the ways they contribute to children’s development (Barnett, 1990; Ginsburg, 2007).

During children’s play, the boundaries between reality and imagination are blurred. Vygotsky (2004) argued that while playing, children create imaginative situations from objects and actions they observe in daily life, thereby developing abstract thinking. When children mimic aspects of reality during play, it is not an exact reproduction but a creative interpretation using imagination (Vygotsky, 2004), reflecting a unique psychological state of thinking and acting (Fleer, 2013). The merging of imagination and reality during play is considered critical for the psychological development of children, and for becoming aware of societal norms and socially acceptable behaviours (Fleer, 2013). Indeed, engaging in spontaneous and child-directed play supports social and emotional development, including fostering adaptability, flexibility, and resilience (Hewes, 2014). In this sense, learning, socioemotional and cognitive development, and play are intrinsically linked.

Children’s play is simultaneously a universal and culturally specific activity. The universal attributes of play encompass children’s drive to engage in imaginative activities, interact with peers and adults, and explore the physical environment in creative ways (Roopnarine, 2015). However, according to sociocultural theories, play cannot be considered independent of the social and cultural systems around children (Hsu, 2015). As Hsu (2015) describes, in some cultures, play may be viewed as an insignificant activity that is restricted to make way for other responsibilities, such as work. In other instances, play is tolerated but not encouraged, whereas for others, play is highly valued, including support and stimulation from adults. Culture and context influence how and with whom children play, where play occurs, and if objects are incorporated into play. For example, play intersects with culture as children draw on cultural norms and practices when constructing play, such as gender norms or in the re-enactment of cultural events. Simultaneously, children add their own elements to play, thus contributing to new imaginative constructions of culture (Hsu, 2015; Smith, 2009).

The way play is perceived, conceptualised, facilitated and valued often differs across sociocultural contexts (Roopnarine and Davidson, 2015). According to Nilsson et al. (2018), play and learning are not mutually exclusive. Play can be a product of teaching with the aim of promoting cognitive development, but may also be experienced through informal activities that children spontaneously initiate. In this way, play is not simply an activity or instrument for learning but should be viewed as learning, contributing to holistic development (Nilsson et al., 2018).

The perception early childhood educators, parents and caregivers have of play, the value they bestow on it and the approach they adopt when playing also influences children’s experiences of play (Göncü et al., 2000; Hsu, 2015). In kindergartens in Germany, playing and learning are conceived as inseparable and free play is encouraged as a learning activity (Faas et al., 2017). Conversely, in Hong Kong, play is viewed as a way for educators to teach specific lessons—i.e., for learning (Cheng and Wu, 2013).

Caregivers from individualistic cultures are more likely to encourage free play by allowing children to take the lead and play with toys in their own way to foster individuality and autonomy (Rochanavibhata and Marian, 2022). Child-controlled, group free play gives children the opportunity to explore social power dynamics, make decisions, and take risks in a safe environment (Hewes, 2014). In contrast, caregivers from collectivist cultures tend to teach children how to play with toys and often use instructions and firm rules to socialise children to follow the group dynamic and obey adults (Rochanavibhata and Marian, 2022). The latter is evident in Jamaican families, whereby child rearing centres on ensuring children learn manners and obedience, with less emphasis placed on fostering curiosity and creativity through play (Brown, 2001). Additionally, a study showed American mothers use toys as topics of communication and encouraged their children to engage in self-exploration and combinatorial play (e.g., push the bus), whereas Japanese mothers used toys to mediate person-oriented social interactions in play (e.g., feed the dolly) (Tamis-LeMonda et al., 1992). Across diverse communities and cultures, there are unique conceptualisations, meanings, and significance of play (Göncü et al., 2000).

In many societies, play continues to be viewed as distinct from and of lesser importance than more traditional forms of learning (Fleer, 2021). In these settings, caregivers are less likely to invest time in playing with children and instead encourage other values. For instance, when playing with toys, African American mothers focus mostly on teaching literacy concepts and skills (e.g., spelling words, putting words together), whereas Chinese mothers focus on instilling math concepts (e.g., block construction) (Tamis-LeMonda et al., 2013). In fact, Chinese parents’ emphasis on academic pursuits (Tamis-LeMonda et al., 2013) is evidenced in the Chinese idiom “qin you gong, xi wu yi” meaning “hard work makes the master, while play brings no good”. However, the role of caregivers is not static but subject to change alongside wider cultural and social shifts in personal circumstances, such as improved living conditions and higher levels of education (Şengönül, 2022).

This paper’s approach to understanding play is purposively broad and contextual. We argue that play is not purely natural and inherent, but learned within a particular context shaped by familial, sociocultural, political, and economic systems (Fleer, 2021). Recognising that the global knowledge base about play in early childhood is based largely on research from Western, educated, industrialised, rich, and democratic (WEIRD) contexts, this study makes a novel contribution to the literature by synthesising the diverse qualitative perspectives of parents, other caregivers and subject matter experts from 12 low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) across Africa, Central Asia, Southeast Asia, and Melanesia. Given that play has been described as “ambiguous” and “a category of very diverse happenings” (Sutton-Smith, 2001, p. 3), we have deliberately not defined activities or behaviours that constitute play, as is often the case, particularly in quantitative studies, as we want to understand and, in turn, present play from the perspectives of the participants. This approach allows participants’ voices to drive the results. This study applies inductive thematic analysis to examine parents’ and caregivers’ perspectives on the perceptions and conceptualisations of play across diverse contexts, as well as to explore the systemic influences on play. Previous research has found that it is not possible to reach a consensus with regard to the characteristics of children’s play (Sherwood et al., 2010).

Methods

Study context

Minderoo Foundation’s Thrive by Five International Program aimed to provide parents and other child caregivers (e.g., grandparents, older siblings) with evidence-based information about early childhood development to help them support their children’s social, emotional, and cognitive development from birth to age 5 years (Crouse et al., 2023; LaMonica et al, 2022). The research team from the University of Sydney’s Brain and Mind Centre (BMC) was responsible for developing the content for the Thrive by Five Program. Importantly, Thrive by Five is not designed to be used for play by children, but rather delivers information and provides activity suggestions to parents and other child caregivers. As opposed to solely focusing on interactions within a parent-child dyad, the content actively encourages the involvement of a collective group of quality caregivers in activities to support a child’s early development. Group-based play with younger and older children is also encouraged. Notably, the content emphasises the value of unstructured, free play to help children build thinking skills, develop relationships with other children, foster empathy, explore and make discoveries, and use their imagination.

The content for the Thrive by Five International Program was co-designed for and in collaboration with parents, caregivers, and early childhood experts in 12 LMICs. Importantly, prior to commencing work in any country, Minderoo Foundation identified an in-country partner to provide on-the-ground support, guidance, and expertise throughout the duration of the project. In-country partners were made up of a variety of government and non-government organisations and were responsible for recruiting and gathering participants and translators as required for research activities (Alam et al., 2023).

Co-design methodology and data collection

The research team utilised a standardised co-design protocol centred on collaborative workshops with parents, other child caregivers, and early childhood experts (e.g., clinical psychologist, medical specialists, early childhood educators) to inform the research and development processes, ensuring the Thrive by Five content was informed by the cultural, contextual, and personal needs of the target end users (LaMonica et al., 2022). Throughout the co-design process, it was critical to recognise and consider the inherent power dynamics within workshops, particularly in relation to real or perceived differences in the attitudes, beliefs, and values of researchers and participants from the Global North and Global South, to work towards equitable collaboration. As part of this, it was important for the facilitators to explicitly emphasise to research participants that the Thrive by Five International Program could not be successful without their cultural and contextual expertise. Additionally, it was always helpful if the co-facilitator or other representative from the in-country partner reassured participants about speaking openly and honestly. While it is unlikely that this approach eliminated all power imbalances, it did help to position research participants as highly valued contributors to research and development processes.

A total of 74 co-design workshops were conducted in Afghanistan, Cameroon, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Ethiopia, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Malaysia, Namibia, Papua New Guinea (PNG), and Uzbekistan. On average, three to four workshops were conducted with parents and caregivers and two workshops were conducted with subject matter experts in each country (see Table 1). Importantly, the parents and caregivers participated in workshops separate from the experts.

Table 1 Number of workshops conducted in each country.
Full size table

As described in detail in (LaMonica et al., 2022), recruitment for all research activities was facilitated by the in-country partner in each respective country using their established networks and advertising mechanisms led by the Site Principal Investigator. The research team worked directly with the sites to discuss how best to recruit a diverse sample of participants. Whenever feasible, participants were recruited from metropolitan, regional, and rural communities, including men and women from varied demographic backgrounds.

As summarised in Table 2, a total of 285 parents and caregivers and 83 experts participated. Parents and caregivers were deemed eligible to take part if they were 18 years or older and caring for at least one child 5 years old or younger, including pregnancy. Experts were those with critical expertise in early childhood development, education, medicine, anthropology, linguistics, or public policy.

Table 2 Number of experts, parents, and caregivers from each country.
Full size table

The primary aim of these discussions was to develop and refine the content to ensure it was culturally appropriate, contextually relevant, and aligned with the users’ needs in each country. Participants primarily engaged in the workshops through prompted discussion.

The overarching agenda for these workshops with parents, caregivers and experts was designed to inform broader research and development processes (LaMonica et al., 2022). The specific questions asked during these workshops and drawn on, analysed, and discussed in this paper, explored factors associated with child development in each country, with a focus on play. These include: what values or morals do you want to instill in children? How do children learn about their culture and traditions (e.g., costumes, festivals, stories, plays)? What skills do you want your child to learn by the age of 5? Could you tell us about how children under the age of 5 spend their time during the day and before going to bed? What is the daily schedule of a parent or caregiver on a weekday and weekends? Do children have favourite games or activities that they do together? What is the role of television and mobile phones in children’s day-to-day activities? Notably, experts provided vital insights regarding system-level factors that shape the reality in which play occurs.

The co-design workshops were co-facilitated by representatives from the BMC and Minderoo Foundation, in collaboration with a “local champion” identified by the in-country partner. Workshops were conducted and recorded via the videoconferencing software Zoom, with in-country partners, translators and at least one facilitator present in person whenever possible. Verbatim transcriptions of all workshops were completed by the research team; however, in instances when the translator provided a translated summary of multiple responses, only a transcript of this summary was feasible. More details on the methodology used within the workshops and the topics discussed have been published elsewhere (Alam et al., 2023; LaMonica et al., 2022; LaMonica, et al., 2023; LaMonica, et al., 2025; Poulsen et al, 2024).

Data analysis

Reflexive thematic analysis using an inductive approach was utilised to analyse the qualitative workshop data (Braun et al. 2016; Braun and Clarke, 2021). NVivo 14 qualitative data analysis software was used to collate and code the data (Lumivero, 2024).

Importantly, the authors responsible for coding the data [OI and AN, in consultation with AP] only engaged with the literature after the analysis was complete so as not to be influenced in their coding decisions. To begin the analysis, three authors [OI, AN, and AP] independently read all the transcripts from one country and gathered to reflect on outstanding ideas relating to the research objective to explore how play is perceived and conceptualised across diverse contexts by parents, caregivers, and subject matter experts. The three authors independently open-coded transcripts of co-design workshops from one country (Malaysia) and met to further discuss their initial themes and their interpretation of the data. In this initial meeting, each author presented their coding framework, leading to a rich discussion on their interpretations of play and how best to define it. At this meeting, OI compiled notes on any disagreements, agreements, or general considerations on the topic. This discussion led to a wider definition of play whereby the authors included dancing and singing as examples of play, as well as more traditional components such as games and make-believe.

Two authors [OI and AN] then independently coded the co-design workshop data collected in the DRC, Indonesia, and Uzbekistan. These countries were chosen due to their cultural and contextual differences. OI and AN reconvened in consultation with AP to compare coding and begin theme development, establishing a common language and interpretation (Braun and Clarke, 2006). The authors also discussed any previous disagreements that had not been resolved and whether any additional differences of opinion had arisen from the second round of analysis.

With the initial themes established within a draft code book, OI and AN each coded four other countries, refining and expanding on the themes identified. OI and AN met weekly to compare and discuss results, reflect on the codes and themes that emerged from the remaining co-design workshop data, and resolve any differences. These discussions, uncertainties and any changes to themes and sub-themes were documented in notes. Both authors then came together for a final meeting where their final themes were presented to AP. A final discussion was held in which all authors further refined the finalised themes, and any disagreements were resolved with AP having the final say.

Results

Participants

Across the 12 LMICs, the research team conducted 74 co-design workshops with experts (n = 83) and caregivers (n = 285). Out of these 285 caregiver participants, the majority were women (n = 215, 75%), with an additional 70 men (25%).

Inductive thematic analysis

The analysis resulted in the development of two themes, namely Promoting social connection through creative, physical, and functional play activities and Play does not occur in a bubble: appreciating the familial, socioeconomic, and technological systems of influence. In the first theme, we explored the characteristics of the varied activities parents and caregivers perceived as play. The latter theme focused on the system-level factors that influence play activities and was comprised of three sub-themes: Caregivers in play, Places and instruments of play, and Technology and play. Importantly, data from experts was only included in the second theme as they provided critical insights into system-level influences on play.

Promoting social connection through creative, physical, and functional play activities

As there is no consensus as to what constitutes play (Sherwood et al., 2010), parents’ and caregivers’ responses were used to understand the activities that are conceived as play, including those described as fun or favoured by children. The cross-cultural analysis shows that play activities in different countries have a range of common components. Parents and caregivers across the 12 LMICs described play as creative, entertaining, physical, and functional. Many of the activities that parents and caregivers associate with play are similar across the countries, including singing, dancing, storytelling, drawing and sports. In some countries, including Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Kenya, play also includes helping in the kitchen or doing chores around the house. Despite these similarities, there are some differences in the characteristics of the play activities (e.g., the objects used in play) across the countries analysed. For example, in the DRC, parents must pay to access playgrounds, which is typically prohibitive. In Ethiopia, children make their own toys and games out of mud or items around the house. In Kyrgyzstan, some caregivers said they cannot afford to pay for toys, whereas others discussed having LEGO at home, but no green spaces to access with their children. Caregivers from Uzbekistan described large differences between rural and city life. In rural areas, children do not have access to swimming pools, but they can bathe in rivers, play with rocks and eat picnics outside. These differences in play are largely due to socioeconomic factors connected to poverty and/or the rural and urban locations of participants. Table 3 highlights examples of activities parents and caregivers perceived as play, with illustrative quotations from participants.

Table 3 Activities perceived as play by parents and caregivers.
Full size table

As illustrated by Table 3, the activities considered to be play were varied, including those that were creative, physical, and functional. Parents and caregivers frequently associated play with joy, expressing the “love” their children had for different activities. However, what also became clear was that children were eager to find activities through which they could connect with others, including caregivers and peers. In other words, play was less about a specific activity and more about having the opportunity to be social and engage with family and friends. By capitalising on this desire for connection, parents were able to promote the developmental benefits of play in terms of language, social and emotional development. Furthermore, play activities were also identified as a vital way by which cultural history and traditions are passed on to the next generation, such as through storytelling. Therefore, on the surface, play activities may be viewed as simple ways of having fun; however, at a deeper level, they are recognised by some parents and caregivers as supporting early childhood development, promoting social skills and relationship building, and facilitating cultural transmission of values and traditions.

Play does not occur in a bubble: appreciating the familial, socioeconomic, and technological systems of influence

The second theme principally explores the system-level factors that influence play across diverse settings to build a better understanding of play in situ and how it shifts according to instrumental facets, including context, culture and person. Here, we focus on caregivers’ roles as key mediating agents in children’s play and how gender influences the way both children and caregivers play. For instance, in Cameroon, children’s dance was either encouraged or discouraged by families in accordance with differing cultural beliefs. Further examples from Kazakhstan, Ethiopia, Malaysia, Kyrgyzstan, DRC, and Uzbekistan showcase how caregivers shape the play environment according to gender. We also explore the socio-economic and regional (i.e., urban vs rural) factors impacting the places where play occurs and the instruments used. For example, in Namibia, reading books was not common, whereas in the other 11 LMICs, reading was commonplace. Toys and their availability also differed across countries and between rural and urban areas, with children in some countries, such as Cameroon, creating toys out of materials they found around the house. Finally, we examined how play is influenced by technology. Notably, participants across all 12 LMICs referenced concerns about excessive screen time and the growing use of technology in play. Participants from some countries, such as Malaysia and Indonesia, were particularly interested in identifying strategies to distance children from screens. These factors are captured by the sub-themes Caregivers in play, Places and instruments of play, and Technology and play, respectively.

Caregivers in play

At first glance, play may be considered the exclusive domain of children; however, caregivers mediate play in different ways according to their values. This can be a combination of the following cues based on their children’s interests, as well as guiding children to engage in specific activities based on the kinds of skills deemed important for their future.

“My girl of four is a dancer. When we walk down the street, and she hears music, she just starts dancing. The other children like physical activities. For example, when the girl is dancing, we clap to encourage her to dance” (Father, Cameroon, 2022).

Participants noted that culture and play exist in a reciprocal relationship. That is, culture influences play, but play also influences culture. A mother in Ethiopia shed light on how cultural norms in child rearing can be influenced by new insights into the ways caregivers guide children’s play:

“Kids have their own tendencies, their own gifts and talents, and parents unknowingly try to impose their own interests on the kid. So first, it is important to know what they really like about what they play with. In our culture, we don’t want them to break stuff and get messy; we don’t want them to play with sand […]. If we can provide certain tools to explore their creativity, they may have some interest in art, for example. If we can provide a means for such abilities, it would help them grow” (Mother, Ethiopia, 2022).

Resolving the tension between enabling a child to pursue their unique interests through play, while simultaneously attempting to guide them in a preferred direction through play according to developmental goals and parental expectations, was noted throughout the workshops. This is exemplified in comments made by a mother in Kazakhstan:

“First, I ask my child what she would like to do, and then I try to follow her interest. Secondly, we go outside, like to playgrounds to play freely, to run or play ball together. And sometimes I organise a competition among my three kids, and other times they play together by themselves. For example, I would love my child to be a footballer, that’s why I encourage him to play football. My daughter wants to be a painter, and I encourage her to draw more, to paint. My other child is three years old, and she wants to be a doctor, and we bought a doctor set” (Mother, Kazakhstan, 2023).

At times, the caregiver’s preferences and cultural beliefs limit the child’s ability to engage in certain play activities:

“I have a problem with a child of three who likes dancing. She goes to school and does other activities, but I don’t like the dancing. I don’t want her to dance; I am worried. I am a Muslim, and for me, a child being a dancer is not a career I encourage (Father, Cameroon, 2022).

While some caregivers were willing to observe children’s interests first and facilitate their activities accordingly, the binary opposition between learning and playing was nevertheless prominent in workshop discussions. Academic readiness continued to be highly valued over play in child rearing in LMIC contexts, as evident in the following comment from an expert in Namibia:

“They [parents] want to know the kids are doing maths, reading and writing. The things they can measure. They may not know the foundations of child development. We need to encourage imagination and creativity. Sometimes our parents and even educators don’t promote these skills because they prioritise the main skills. So allow children to express themselves, allow them to draw, explore fantasy, [and] explore roleplay” (Expert, Namibia, 2022).

However, there have also been notable intergenerational changes in child-rearing values and practices across different countries that have direct implications for play, with a standout change being greater freedom of expression and choice in activities. For example, in Malaysia, parents acknowledged that previous generations often valued academic achievements over play, as evidenced by the expert below.

“My mum or grandmother—they will say—“You are asking them to play? They are not learning (Expert, Malaysia, 2022).”

In Uzbekistan, participants observed that there was less emphasis placed on connection and bonding between parents and children in previous generations, and parents criticised and punished their children much more. It was suggested that over recent years in the country, there has also been a greater focus on children’s education and ensuring access to different kinds of activities ranging from sports to the arts. The same was observed in Kyrgyzstan where one caregiver stated:

“My parents think we allow many things as parents—I think we should give them freedom. In previous times, they were bringing us up in a different way.” (Mother, Kyrgyzstan, 2022).

Even though older generations may have had a different approach when raising their children, as described by a grandmother in Kazakhstan, they have now formed a closer relationship with their grandchildren:

“While I’m playing with my grandchildren, it creates an enormous bond between us, and they are amazing partners in games. My role is completely different compared to the parents’ role. With parents, you have to respect them, have to listen to them, but I don’t have that kind of barrier while I’m playing with the children” (Grandmother, Kazakhstan, 2023).

The location of caregivers also affects how they engage in play and the time they spend with children overall. For instance, the workshop outcomes showcased that there are differences in grandparenting across urban and rural contexts, where children living in cities tend to have more opportunities to spend time with their grandparents, who take them to different classes and outings. Grandparents in rural areas tend to work in domestic and farming activities until they are much older, meaning their interactions with their grandchildren largely revolve around those activities. In such contexts, by the age of five, children are already helping around the home. In this way, labour and family interactions tended to occur together.

While there is generally greater awareness than before of the need to spend quality time with children (primarily through play), many caregivers mentioned barriers to actualising this, including busy work schedules. Experts emphasised the importance of finding pockets of time for interaction and play. Despite understanding the importance of intentionally setting aside time for parent-child interaction, a mother from the DRC still needed to work long hours to ensure her family was fed. This made spending time with her children a challenging task:

“The big problem that women have in Congo is that they wake up very early. Not only those selling bread, but even those selling things like vegetables. They wake up at 3–4 to go and look for things. When they wake up like that, they go home very tired. And so it is very difficult to concentrate on the children because they work very hard to look for food for their children” (Mother, DRC, 2022).

Experts across different countries viewed time for spontaneous play as important for allowing children to exercise their imagination. An expert from Ethiopia stated that when caregivers also participate in imaginative play, this builds stronger bonds with children. In Uzbekistan, an expert noted that parents often did not leave enough free time in their children’s daily routines to enable spontaneous play:

“So now we see a trend of parents very much interested in developing from different angles. Parents have more requirements for children. Unfortunately, this doesn’t give children time to play. We intervene as pedagogists and say it is much too early to be occupying your child with these activities, education is good, but they also need time to play” (Expert, Uzbekistan, 2022).

Gender norms across societies shape the ways caregivers and children participate in play. Workshop participants highlighted that play largely remains divided based on gender, with differences in the types of activities boys and girls play. Gender differences can also be seen in the way male and female caregivers participate in different activities. A father from Cameroon stated:

“For me, I do more activities with my boy of four, whereas the girl is more affectionate. She is 2 years old. My son is more of a mechanic guy. He likes to dismantle and rebuild. When I am washing the car, he is there. He wants to work with cars, he is more manual than any other thing” (Cameroon, Father, 2022).

An expert from the DRC also observed a gender division in the types of activities undertaken by children and caregivers:

“Most of the boys see the activities of their fathers and do that. If their father were a carpenter, he would take sticks to build a house. When a father is in agriculture, he will try to learn that. With girls, they will learn from their mothers” (Expert, DRC, 2022).

The different roles that caregivers adopt when playing with their children also affect how they play. Indeed, these may lead children to pick up certain skills and character traits that reflect gender stereotypes and internalise these behaviours. A mother from Malaysia highlighted:

“Their father teaches them how to play outside, so they always play in the park. If they need comfort or to speak, they will look for me [mother]. The father will be the one to read the storybook. I think we share different tasks, different roles. My second one likes to use the screwdriver and fix things because she saw her father do that. She looks at the bicycle and asks me how it works, and I say, ‘I don’t know,’ but then the father will teach her. They learn more independence, and they become braver through their father. They are more caring and sensitive through the mother. (Mother, Malaysia, 2022).

Taken together, parents and caregivers highlighted the multifaceted nature of play activities, including how they are involved as participants, cheerleaders, limit-setters, and role-models. Parents universally spoke about supporting their children, referring to their current development as well as safeguarding their likelihood of future success. In relation to the latter, some parents were described as being preoccupied by the child’s future, placing little value on play activities in the present. Experts cautioned that play would continue to be devalued in some families without a greater understanding of its developmental benefits, particularly in relation to future academic and professional opportunities.

Participants also highlighted the interplay between children’s preferences or talents and what they, as the parent, perceive as appropriate behaviour or activities, which was typically shaped by cultural and gender norms. Furthermore, in some circumstances, grandparents were noted to try to limit children’s play, implying this was a frivolous activity. However, in other situations, it was recognised that play was a valuable way to bond and form strong emotional ties between children and grandparents. In this way, grandparents were often characterised as being more flexible in what they condoned for their grandchildren as opposed to what they had found acceptable when they were raising their own children. In conjunction, participants frequently highlighted that their own parenting style, including their approach to play, was informed by their reflections on what they had not liked about their own upbringing. Finally, time was an ever-present constraint on play as many parents struggled to find a balance between the demands of work and parenting. Importantly, by examining the role of caregivers in children’s play, it became readily apparent that all parents sought to support their child’s future; however, the way in which this occurred was influenced by a myriad of factors, only one of which was culture. Indeed, personal experiences, parenting expectations, work responsibilities, and family supports were also critical influences on perceptions of play.

Places and instruments of play

The different roles undertaken by caregivers in play also correspond with the places in which play manifests. The Places and instruments of play sub-theme elucidates the types of physical environments children inhabit daily, and the forces and conditions that shape their play in these spaces and the instruments they use. When considering play through a social justice and equity lens, it is clear that political and economic conditions directly impact children’s play. This is evident when looking at the access to safe outdoor play spaces or playing instruments. This was a salient topic in workshops held in Afghanistan and the DRC, where political and societal instability led to unsafe conditions and a lack of appropriate places for outdoor play. During workshops in Afghanistan, some of which were conducted shortly after the regime change in 2021, participants shared that children were spending their days at home, unable to visit parks or other outdoor spaces due to safety concerns and newly imposed social restrictions. In this context, indoor play was the only viable option. In Kinshasa, DRC, there is a fee to use a playground, leaving many families unable to access these play spaces. Due to the absence of safe and free outdoor play spaces, children in the DRC reportedly often played on busy roads, leaving them at risk for accidents.

Workshop outcomes revealed marked differences in urban and rural places of play. Among participants based in cities, those who could visit parks and gardens allowed children to engage in outdoor play and immerse themselves in nature. Rural locations, on the other hand, allowed children to engage in outdoor play more widely. As evident in the following description from a father in the DRC, many activities were inextricably connected to farming:

“I am a farmer with a fish farm. The children really like to see the fish. Going to the first pond and spending time around there running and playing. I really love that” (Father, DRC, 2022).

Play also occurs in places between the home and outdoors, such as cars and gatherings. Experts noted that intermediate places of play are crucial as they allow for spontaneous interactions, which may not occur at home or school, where there are established routines that potentially restrict playtime.

“What we encourage is to interact and communicate with the children while they are travelling in the car—because they are travelling from one point to the other, so we always give this window of time in the car- they can actually do some activities in the car.” (Expert, Malaysia, 2022).

The instruments of play, in other words, the instruments through which children engage in play, are also influenced by both sociocultural and economic factors. Indeed, many children across the 12 LMICs played ball games, which in some instances, like PNG, were culturally significant. Indeed, experts, parents and caregivers in PNG all alluded to rugby being a strong part of the country’s culture. Some games, such as jumping rope, chess, hide and seek, and peekaboo, were played across cultures, but some games or some instruments that facilitated play (e.g., story books) were not universal due to sociocultural and economic factors:

“Namibia does not have a big reading culture. There is almost no literature for children below 5, and they are only shown books in grade one. They are not even storybooks; they are school workbooks. The majority of Namibians never had access to storybooks” (Expert, Namibia, 2022).

In instances when parents did not have the means to buy games or toys, children would utilise available materials to create toys (e.g., plastic bottles to make toy cars, as described by a mother in Cameroon). Storytelling also represented a cost-effective option for caregivers who otherwise could not buy and read books to their children because they are either not available to them or too expensive.

“For many parents, they think rather than buying books, perhaps it is better to buy food for my child. So the alternative is singing songs and storytelling” (Expert, DRC, 2022).

Again, time was reflected on as a marked constraint with regards to play; however, here parents consistently highlighted the potential to embed play within routine activities (e.g. farming, driving), thus maximising the potential for engagement and enjoyment despite everyday demands. Interestingly, some participants focused on the lack of instruments to facilitate play, whereas others emphasised the creative ways in which play could occur using found objects, make-your-own instruments, and oral storytelling. While it is likely that the latter approach has evolved out of necessity in many cases, this also underscores how many parents prioritise play as a means to engage their children, regardless of the constraints they face. With this in mind, it was interesting to hear one expert comment that reading was not a popular activity in Namibia. This raises a chicken-and-egg question—i.e., would a reading culture exist if children and families had access to appropriate resources? In other words, does a lack of engagement in certain play activities reflect culture, disinterest, or a more general failing of the system to provide adequate resources to support different aspects of play?

Technology and play

The prevalence of gadgets in households across the world has impacted the conceptualisation and enactment of play. Workshop participants consistently highlighted that children’s excessive gadget time is a problem they want to address, often considering different ways to manage access. Some opted for a complete ban on gadgets, whereas others, like this mother in Indonesia, allocated a specific time for gadget use:

“I have a two-year-old at home. Whenever I am at work, they are not exposed to cell phones in day care. When they come home, they look for the smartphone. If I don’t use the cell phone, the child doesn’t use it. Depends on the parents - if they want free time, they would give the phone over to their child. Smartphones are good to stimulate their attention […] When they get home, they would play and do activities, and in the evening, they would go to the TV or phone as allocated screen time” (Mother, Indonesia, 2022).

Parents also expressed that their children would get bored with reading and prefer to play with gadgets instead. Experts noted that in many households, mobile phones are usually handed to children to keep them busy and to enable parents to have some free time. Experts indicated that parents and caregivers also encourage screen time when they are unsure of how to interact and play with their children or, at times, because they consider screen time to be important for their development:

“What happens now, most of the time the parents give the phone to the child, and they play by themselves or watch certain cartoons. I don’t know. Perhaps change the mentality of the parents” (Expert, Malaysia, 2022).

In some cases, parents and caregivers considered screen time and technology to be beneficial for their relationship with their children, as it gave them something to discuss and bond over:

“She is hardly interested in going to her dad, but there’s one thing that will coax her to go to him, and it’s watching videos on his phone. The thing he likes most about that is that once she watches some of those videos, she always tries to put them into practice and sing songs back to her dad or in front of her grandmother” (Mother, PNG, 2022)

Participants also discussed limiting the use of technology to entertain their children and instead using it in a way that facilitates interactions between children and their caregivers:

“Parents are sometimes very tired, and there is no contact between parent and child. We say to them, please pay attention to the child, get to know what they are doing, what they like and dislike […] What happens now is that most of the time the parents give the phone to the child, and they play by themselves or watch cartoons. Perhaps change the mentality of the parents. So when we introduce the phone, the phone must come with an app for the parent to do the activity with the child” (Expert, Malaysia, 2022).

Interestingly, technology was consistently described as an effective way to give time back to parents by entertaining and engaging the child in play without the need for a caregiver to be involved. In other words, the device broke the link between play and social connectedness within families, allowing the child to be occupied alone. It is perhaps the potential for this disruption that made many parents feel conflicted about allowing their children to engage with screens. It appeared that some participants were exploring ways to use screens to effectively foster social connections; however, this was a rarity. In thinking about how the availability of instruments of play may have shaped play activities, it is possible that a shift is in motion with regard to children’s play as a mechanism for socialisation and connection, with technology serving as a moderator.

Discussion

This paper explores the multifaceted ways in which play is perceived and conceptualised, as well as the systems that impact how play is enacted across diverse contexts. Commonalities included the types of activities children partake in across countries, such as storytelling, singing, dancing, physical games, and playing while helping caregivers with chores. As a group, these activities facilitate socialisation and connectedness while being enjoyable and are stimulating for the imagination and relevant to early childhood development, all of which have previously been identified as characteristics of children’s play (Sherwood et al., 2010). Interestingly, play activities often stemmed from or aligned with key cultural and contextual factors of a community (e.g., gender roles, commonality of music, economic situation). Differences in parents’ and caregivers’ perspectives on play were largely based on socio-economic factors such as access to resources (e.g., storybooks) and location (i.e., urban vs. rural play). Concerning the location of play, outdoor play in playgrounds, schools and neighbourhood locations continued to be the main way through which children interacted with their peers. However, socio-economic inequalities impacted children’s experiences of play, as some could not access safe places for play. Notably, the absence of outdoor play spaces is a global trend due to modern development and urbanisation (Nicholson and Wisneki, 2017).

While play is clearly influenced by infrastructural and socio-economic factors, the workshop findings also highlighted the powerful mediating role of parents and caregivers with regard to children’s play. Indeed, play generally as well as specific play activities were valued and thus supported differently by participants. Consistent with the literature, most parents considered play to be an important tool for connecting with children (Fleer, 2021). Some participants highlighted creative ways to incorporate play into busy schedules, including while completing routine household chores or in intermediate places such as on car rides. Furthermore, social interactions through play enabled cultural knowledge, practices and values to be passed down to children in direct and indirect ways. In this sense, play is the way through which children are enculturated into their native cultural context (Chaudhary and Shukla, 2014). In the process of socialising through play, children learn to incorporate the rules and etiquette of social interaction into their behaviour and speech (Vygotsky, 1978). For instance, in countries such as Malaysia, where there are many ethnic groups, play in public community spaces and classrooms allows children to observe and learn the social norms and the social etiquette essential for thriving in a multicultural context.

However, the question of how play is valued is a complex matter. It is not simply about individual caregivers, but also about cultural child rearing practices, understandings of childhood and the child-adult relationship, the economic conditions of caregivers and their associated impacts (Roopnarine and Davidson, 2015). The dualism between academic readiness and play effectively represents the notion of value in play. Many experts in workshops expressed a need for a greater understanding of the benefits of play for early development among caregivers and early childhood educators who often prioritise literacy and numeracy skills over play. Indeed, in some contexts, time for free play for children has been reduced to make room for academic preparation (Ginsburg, 2007). Educating parents, caregivers and educators on the various benefits of play, including how these can help children face future challenges, is therefore extremely important (Ginsburg, 2007).

Moreover, social norms around gender continue to influence child rearing beliefs and practices and are often accentuated in play activities and the ways in which caregivers are involved in play (Smith, 2009). Workshop discussions revealed that fathers mainly participated in physical and/or outdoor play activities, while mothers tended to engage in indoor play activities. This gender divide was mirrored in children, where boys tended to participate in physical play, while girls tended to participate in more creative activities such as singing, dancing, drawing and storytelling. A survey of children’s play in 16 countries similarly revealed that physical play is more common among boys, whereas girls more frequently partake in roleplay games (Singer et al., 2009).

Importantly, beliefs and practices around child rearing, such as gender roles, are always subject to revision as people encounter new knowledge and practices (Roopnarine and Davidson, 2015). Digital technology, for example, is reshaping children’s play across all genders. Children’s games, books and entertainment are now widely available online through apps on mobile and tablet devices. Digital objects can also be used in play, such as in pretend play using mobile phones or recreating digital characters in imaginative play (Marsh et al., 2018). The use of mobile touch screen devices such as smartphones and tablet computers has the potential to influence parent-child interactions and thus, future child developmental outcomes (Hood et al., 2023).

There is mixed evidence on the effects of interactive digital devices on children’s development (Arabiat et al., 2023). Indeed, data presented in this paper and the literature on digital technology and play reveal a complex picture of the interaction between the two. A recent systematic review found that the use of digital devices may be negatively associated with language, executive function, and motor skills development (Arabiat et al., 2023). However, other studies showed that the use of interactive digital technology was positively related to receptive language and executive function (Arabiat et al., 2023). Despite this debate, organisations have emphasised the importance of child-parent shared media consumption while also limiting children’s screen time, particularly when they are younger, so that children also engage in other developmentally healthy activities, including hands-on exploration and social interaction (Council on Communications and Media et al., 2016).

Although technology can never replace human interaction, in the absence of safe physical places and instruments for play in low-resource contexts, as referenced in this study, technology can provide a new digital infrastructure for play. Indeed, digital technologies may extend play and play opportunities in new and creative ways, while facilitating bonding as the medium through which children and caregivers play. In the same way that digital platforms helped people stay connected during COVID-19, digital technologies may encourage social interaction amongst children and caregivers by allowing children to compete in a game or take turns to collaborate on different projects (Hirsh-Pasek, et al., 2015). Or it may allow them to engage in interactions through video teleconferencing platforms (e.g., Zoom or FaceTime) or exchange creative ideas (Hirsh-Pasek, et al., 2015). Digital technologies, therefore, if leveraged strategically, have the potential to encourage play as learning and, in turn, positively impact children’s development.

Limitations

This paper has some limitations. Firstly, the researchers acknowledge that due to their cultural background, there may be a risk of bias in the data analysis and development of themes, specifically relating to the conceptualisation of play across diverse cultures. However, it is important to note that the subjectivity of researchers is inherent within the interpretative analysis, which is analysed and confronted in the discussions.

Additionally, within the workshop participants, fathers accounted for only a quarter of the participants. Unfortunately, a lack of fathers’ involvement in studies on early childhood development is common and well established in the literature. In their systematic review of parenting interventions, Jeong et al. (2021) found that fathers were engaged in only 7 of the 111 studies reviewed.

As the co-design workshops were conducted over Zoom, internet connectivity problems resulted in sound quality issues. This, at times, influenced the transcriptions’ quality and the possibility of verbatim transcriptions. This, in turn, influenced the quality and accuracy of the data.

Conclusion

In this paper, we have emphasised that across diverse contexts, play in early childhood is not defined by any one activity but rather appears to be best characterised by activities that are pleasurable and foster social connections within families and between peers. While cultural and gender norms shape what is considered appropriate or desirable activities for children’s play, the systemic influences on play are far more multifaceted and dynamic, including the family and political, economic, and technological systems. Notably, within and across LMICs, fun play-based activities are considered by some participants to be mutually exclusive from more academically oriented approaches to development, lessening the willingness of parents and caregivers to promote play or consider play as learning. Therefore, to realise the developmental benefits of play for children, early childhood practitioners (e.g., early childhood educators, paediatricians) may need to work backwards with parents, first identifying the desired childhood outcome and then linking that goal to different possible play activities. This approach may help rebrand play as purposeful and future-focused without excluding opportunities for unstructured fun.