‘Like it’s making my heart run’: A strengths-based understanding of the play of autistic children

Abstract

Play is a central feature of childhood and a fundamental right of all children. Currently, our understanding of autistic play is based on a deficit perspective, most often framed in comparison to neurotypical ‘norms’ and assumptions where the views of the players themselves have been overlooked. In moving towards a strengths-based neuroaffirmative understanding of autistic play, this study consulted with 19 autistic children (aged 5 to 13 years) using a series of semi-structured interviews and a range of creative and participatory methods. Reflexive thematic analysis generated three themes where children conceptualised: (1) enjoyment and pleasure as central to the definition of play, (2) social connections as fundamental to play and (3) play as engagement with meaningful materials and activities. Children’s autonomy and agency in play was important to all themes. These findings challenge long-standing deficit-oriented assumptions that have persisted throughout the literature for decades and have implications for future programmes of research, theory and practice, in particular on the importance of providing and facilitating authentic play experiences for autistic children in education and care contexts.

Lay abstract

Autistic play is generally described from a deficit perspective where the players themselves have been overlooked. It is important to consult with autistic children themselves about their understanding of play. We asked autistic children about their views on play using many different creative ways that were chosen by the children themselves. We analysed findings using reflexive thematic analysis. Autistic children in this research described play as involving feelings and emotions of pleasure and joy, autonomy and agency, playing by themselves and with others and engagement with materials and activities as meaningful. It is very important that we ask the players themselves what they think about play rather than relying on deficit framed, non-autistic definitions of autistic play. In this article, we will discuss how these findings will help develop future research, theory and practice in respecting children’s right to authentic play experiences.

Keywords

Autism autistic perspectives neurodiversity participatory research play

Introduction

Play is a central feature of childhood and widely recognised as essential to children’s wellbeing and overall quality of life (Howard, 2019; Whitebread et al., 2017; Wood, 2013). Furthermore, play is fundamental for children’s learning and development including cognitive skills, social skills, emotional skills, physical skills and creativity (see Zosh et al., 2022 for review of empirical evidence in the field). Play is also a right in and of itself (UNCRC, 1989). However, defining play has proved challenging for researchers over the years with much contention dominating the field in ascertaining a universal understanding of play. Traditionally, play has been conceptualised according to observable characteristics and behaviours (Krasnor & Pepler, 1980), categories or types (e.g. physical play, symbolic play or games with rules; Piaget, 1962; Whitebread et al., 2017), level of social interaction (e.g. Parten, 1932; Vygotsky, 1978), degree of adult involvement (e.g. Weisberg et al., 2016) and most recently, according to dispositional or inward qualities of the player (Bundy et al., 2001).

Despite the lack of consensus surrounding our understanding of play, there is surprising consistency across research in viewing autistic play from a deficit perspective, most often in comparison to neurotypical ‘norms’ and assumptions (Pritchard-Rowe et al., 2024; Wolfberg & Woods, 2023). Autistic play has been described as ‘abnormal’ (Jarrold et al., 1993, p. 295), ‘impoverished’ (Riguet et al., 1982, p. 440), ‘inappropriate’ (Sigman et al., 1999, p. 75), ‘deficient or disordered’ (Conn, 2015, p. 1193) and pathologised as something ‘lacking’ (Theodorou & Nind, 2010, p. 102) or ‘to be ‘fixed’ or normalised’ (Pritchard-Rowe et al., 2024, p. 3) in order to ‘better align with more ‘typical’ play characteristics’ (Morris et al., 2024, p. 12). This view is also found in autism diagnostic criteria (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th ed.; DSM-V) where ‘deficits’ in play are regarded as a defining feature of autism (American Psychiatric Association [APA], 2013). Indeed, Conn (2015) has noted that play is widely used ‘in the construction of disability where they (children) can be judged as incompetent, unskilful and ‘not typical’ as players’ (p. 1193).

This deficit focused view has very much centred on describing autistic play in terms of observable categories or ‘based on non-autistic interpretation of observable autistic behaviours’ (Pritchard-Rowe et al., 2024, p. 2). For example, ‘deficits’ have often been reported in imaginative play (Hobson et al., 2009; Wing et al., 1977) and social play (Kossyvaki & Papoudi, 2016; Restall & Magill-Evans, 1994; Wolfberg & Woods, 2023) including autistic children’s reported preferences for solitary play (Holmes & Willoughby, 2005).

Recently, however, researchers have proposed a ‘distinctive autistic play culture’ (Conn, 2015, p. 1194) with calls for the consideration of the ‘unique strengths or potential diversity of play experiences for autistic individuals’ (Morris et al., 2024, p. 12) as opposed to comparisons to non-autistic norms (Conn & Drew, 2017). Instead, researchers have described unique features of autistic play according to engagement with sensory and physical materials (Conn, 2015; Fahy et al., 2021; Wolfberg & Woods, 2023) and repetitive play behaviours (Lantz et al., 2004; Williams et al., 2001). For example, Eisele and Howard (2012) examined ritualised or repetitive behaviours as play behaviours and found many commonalities between characteristics of playful engagement and repetitive behaviours such as a sense of fun and pleasure, active engagement, challenge and risk, and persistence. These findings reaffirm the conclusions of Gibson and McNally (2024) that ‘play activities that may appear ‘purposeless’ to non-autistic adult observers often have a meaning to the player and may fulfil important self-regulation needs’ (p. 150).

In investigating autistic play, research has especially overlooked the internal and dispositional qualities that are regarded as fundamental to play (Fahy et al., 2021; Kasari et al., 2013; Luckett et al., 2007), neglecting to examine ‘the child’s playfulness and perspective in play’ (Conn, 2015, p. 1193). This is especially concerning given the notable importance of ‘inward’ characteristics of play such as intrinsic motivation and a sense of pleasure (Bundy et al., 2001; O’Keeffe & McNally, 2024a, 2024b).

Therefore, our current understanding of autistic play is predominantly based on outward observations using neurotypical frames of reference where the autistic players’ perspectives have been overlooked: ‘as well as focusing on “deficits” then, understanding of autistic play have tended to neglect autistic perspectives’ (Pritchard-Rowe et al., 2024, p. 2). We need a clear understanding of autistic play, informed by the players themselves in ‘revealing purpose, form and meaning in relation to play’ (Conn, 2015, p. 1193). Exploring these inward and dispositional qualities of autistic play is further compounded by a narrative that autistic children lack motivation or drive to spontaneously engage in and sustain play experiences (Lantz et al., 2004). Eisele and Howard (2012) express significant concern surrounding this recurring narrative as to whether ‘autistic children play’ (p. 58).

Amid increasing calls to consult with the players themselves and in keeping with the wider neurodiversity paradigm, we need an understanding of autistic play from the players themselves in moving beyond deficit-oriented, non-autistic framed descriptions that continue to dominate the literature (Conn, 2015; Pritchard-Rowe et al., 2024). This will also help overcome gaps in understanding ‘what constitutes authentic play [and] validate what is meaningful for the players’ (Wolfberg & Woods, 2023, p. 219). Furthermore, this will contribute to gaps in knowledge on the role of play in supporting the learning and development of autistic children given that play is widely regarded as a fundamental pedagogical tool (Francis et al., 2022; Whitebread et al., 2017). Indeed, much literature has focused on evaluating the current evidence base on the impact of play on the learning and development of autistic children specifically with regard to social communication skills (Gibson et al., 2021; O’Keeffe & McNally, 2021), language (Deniz et al., 2024) and mental health and wellbeing (Francis et al., 2022). Although this research highlights the potential of play as a promising intervention for autistic children, there is limited evidence on how play supports autistic children’s learning and development more generally. Moreover, for any programme of research on the play of autistic children, we first need to understand what play means to autistic children and how play is conceptualised by autistic children.

Recently, Pritchard-Rowe et al. (2024) interviewed 22 autistic adults (aged 18 to 57 years) regarding their perspectives on play and how their experiences differ from non-autistic play. Participants described engagement in imaginative play and experiences of flow in play. Furthermore, they valued both social connections in play and sought solitary play for recuperation and oftentimes choice depending on internal factors (e.g. tiredness, mood). These findings challenge several deficit-based assumptions of autistic play within the literature (i.e. play as solitary, lack of symbolic or imaginative play). Similarly, Conn (2015) focused on autistic adults’ autobiographical accounts of play and friendship across published literature and highlighted preferences for sensory-based activities, nature, imagination and social connections, again contradicting several preconceived notions of autistic play (i.e. play as solitary, lack of imaginative play). Other researchers have sought autistic children’s play preferences. For example, Fahy and colleagues (2021) asked five autistic children (aged 6 to 9 years) about their play preferences and noted how children’s views varied across different contexts and included preferences for imaginative and group games, sense of challenge alongside observations of flow, as conceptualised by Csikszentmihalyi (1990) regarding a state of immersion or absorption within play. Other researchers have focused on understanding autistic individuals’ perspectives in relation to specific components of play. For example, Pavlopoulou et al. (2022) interviewed 12 autistic adolescent boys (aged 13 to 15 years) regarding their perspectives of online gaming and their motivations. Participants emphasised the sense of agency in play and valued online play as a source of social connection, creativity, emotional regulation (i.e. escapism) alongside experiences of flow.

This literature addresses important gaps in challenging long-standing deficit-based norms and assumptions surrounding autistic play. However, the current evidence base predominantly reflects the views of autistic adults with the views of children and non-speaking autistic people significantly overlooked (Hancock, 2020; Papoudi & Kossyvaki, 2018).

This study

Developing our understanding of autistic play is fundamental if we are to capitalise on the potential of play to support all children’s quality of life and wellbeing (Pritchard-Rowe et al., 2024; Wolfberg et al., 2015; Wolfberg & Woods, 2023). This is especially important given reports of poorer mental health outcomes among autistic people (Benevides et al., 2020; Crane et al., 2019) and associated stigma for autistic people surrounding a deficit-oriented view of autistic play (Pritchard-Rowe et al., 2024).

Understanding how autistic children view play is essential in meaningfully ‘cocreating play spaces and play activities with children’ (Danniels & Pyle, 2023, p. 1173) in ways that truly reflect authentic play experiences and respect ‘the right of all children to play in ways that they prefer’ (Gibson & McNally, 2024, p. 151). This is especially important given ambiguity among educators surrounding how best to support inclusion in play (Danniels & Pyle, 2023). Developing a neuro-affirmative understanding of play will also inform diagnostic criteria in response to calls by Pritchard-Rowe et al. (2024) surrounding a shift away from a deficit focused frame of play, as identified in their consultations with autistic adults, towards a strengths-based perspective of play across diagnostic assessments.

This study, therefore, aimed to develop a child-centred, strengths-based understanding of autistic play, through a systematic investigation of how autistic children conceptualise play. The study was guided by one research question: how do autistic children understand and conceptualise play? This study is part of a larger project investigating a child-centred understanding of play (see link https://osf.io/mj27s/).

Methods

Researcher positionality

The research team comprised of the first author, a non-autistic primary school teacher and doctoral researcher and the second author, a non-autistic academic in psychology and education. Both researchers are interested in all children’s play in inclusive educational contexts. The authors approach this research from a neurodiversity-informed perspective that recognises and values natural diversity in human neurocognitive styles and how our brains work with no single style deemed superior to the other (see Walker, 2023). In line with this positioning, we approach this research from a strengths-based understanding of autistic play with a view to optimising autistic children’s quality of life and wellbeing (Pellicano & den Houting, 2022) as opposed to the ‘normalisation of autistic people’ (den Houting, 2019, p. 271).

Participants

Two primary schools in the Republic of Ireland (RoI) were recruited through convenience sampling and were purposively selected using the following eligibility criteria: (1) co-educational settings involving the full continuum of classes catering for children from 4 to 13 years and (2) a minimum of three autism classes, as identified in Department of Education Directory (2022) to allow for consultations with a diverse range of autistic learners. A formal diagnosis of autism is needed to access an autism class provision within the RoI. No other eligibility criteria are required for enrolment in this type of provision. However, frequently, a recommendation for placement in an autism class is sought from a professional psychologist.

A sample of 20 participants (12 boys, 8 girls), unknown to the researchers, were recruited through their school contexts. Following parent consent and children’s assent, a total of 19 children (11 boys, 8 girls) between the ages of 5 and 12 years participated in the research. A summary of participant demographic information is presented in Table 1. Data were not collected on socioeconomic status or educational attainment levels. Furthermore, no formal data were gathered on participants’ language and cognitive levels or co-occurring conditions. The majority of participants were white-Irish with some children of African and Asian heritage. The only criterion for participation was that the child had received a formal diagnosis of autism. No other eligibility criteria were used in the selection of participants for this research. This is especially important given that children with co-occurring needs and younger children are often overlooked in participatory research (Lundy, 2007).

Table 1.

Participant demographics.

Participant pseudonym	Age range (years)	Sex	School context
Kian	5–6	Male	Autism Class (Urban)
Kayden	5–6	Male	Autism Class (Urban)
Holly	5–6	Female	Autism Class (Urban)
Lisa	5–6	Female	Autism Class (Urban)
Zara	8–9	Female	Autism Class (Urban)
Bob	8–9	Male	Autism Class (Urban)
Deirdre	10–11	Female	Autism Class (Urban)
Jay	10–11	Male	Autism Class (Urban)
Joshua	10–11	Male	Autism Class (Urban)
Raven	12–13	Female	Mainstream Class (Rural)
Sandra	8	Female	Autism Class (Rural)
Charlotte	11	Female	Autism Class (Rural)
Kara	7	Female	Autism Class (Rural)
Eric	6	Male	Autism Class (Rural)
Josh	8	Male	Autism Class (Rural)
Sumlu	10–12	Male	Autism Class (Rural)
Lizzie	10–12	Male	Autism Class (Rural)
Andy	10–12	Male	Autism Class (Rural)
Donal	10–12	Male	Autism Class (Rural)

Data collection

A series of 62 qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted by the first author, an experienced primary school teacher, between March and June 2023. Each learner engaged in a minimum of three consultation sessions and sessions were recorded for accuracy with parent consent and children’s assent. The length of interviews varied from a minimum of 5 min to a maximum of 1 h with an average duration of 25 min.

The interview questions followed a semi-structured format (see Supplemental material 1), and a toolkit of multiple creative and participatory-based methods were used to elicit children’s perspectives on play, for example, teddies and puppets, draw and tell approaches, book making, walking tours, adapted pots and beans exercise, sort and rank activities and photo elicitation. (See link https://osf.io/v2ua8/ for detailed protocols and procedures). The interview guide and associated methods were developed following a rigorous review of the literature surrounding children’s views on play (O’Keeffe & McNally, 2024b) and had been piloted and subsequently adapted as part of previous consultations with neurotypical and neurodivergent children by the authors (O’Keeffe & McNally, 2024b). Children also selected between individual or group interviews with autistic peers based on their preferences and prior consultations with their teachers (Lundy et al., 2011). Interviews were tailored to each participant’s strengths, interests and individual communication styles (Blaisdell et al., 2019) in order to facilitate all children to express their views in an accessible, comfortable and engaging manner and ensure opportunities for autonomy and agency regarding the selection of methods, as recommended in previous consultations with children (O’Keeffe & McNally, 2024a, 2024b). This was especially important given that we were consulting with young children and children with additional needs who are ‘the least likely to be given the opportunity to express their views about matters which are important to them’ (Lundy, 2007, p. 935). The researcher also adopted flexible questioning throughout in terms of reformulating and re-asking questions to ensure understanding as well as providing sufficient waiting time for participants.

Ethics

Ethical approval was granted from the Research Ethics Committee at the authors’ institution on 22nd September 2022. However, ethical considerations extended beyond procedural ethics to ethics of care (Heath et al., 2007) throughout our consultations with children. Informed assent was recorded before each interview using an interactive assent book (as used in previous research, e.g. O’Farrelly & Tatlow-Golden, 2022; Pyle & Danniels, 2016) to enable children to make an informed decision surrounding the purpose of this research and what their participation entailed (see link https://osf.io/v2ua8/). However, assent was ongoing and continually negotiated as part of a relational process (Arnott et al., 2020; Dockett et al., 2012). Researchers were vigilant to both verbal and non-verbal indicators of assent or dissent alongside signs of discomfort and engagement (Cocks, 2006; Gallagher et al., 2010).

Researchers also remained conscious of unequal power relations and attempted to offset this dynamic through developing trust and rapport with children (Spyrou, 2011) and consulting with children within a familiar, safe and inclusive space (Lundy, 2007) to help them to feel comfortable in expressing their views (Hennessy & Heary, 2005). Throughout each session, children were reminded of the voluntary nature of their participation in terms of their right to withdraw from the research, in addition to opting out of specific activities as well as providing opportunities to rehearse this process, for example, through the use of a stop/pass card as well as a physical speaking object that could be ‘passed’.

Data analysis

Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using reflexive thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2019) via NVivo software (Lumivero, 2023). Analysis was primarily inductive and centred on the construction of themes driven by the data themselves (Braun & Clarke, 2006) in response to the research question: how do autistic children conceptualise play? However, analysis was also deductive whereby existing research provided a further lens through which data were analysed and interpreted (Braun & Clare, 2022). Preliminary themes were actively generated following identification of semantic and latent codes, which were subsequently re-organised and finalised using thematic mapping. This process involved in-depth consultation and critical dialogue and reflection between both authors to enhance richness and meaning (Braun & Clarke, 2019; King et al., 2019).

Reflexivity

Reflexivity, that is, ‘the researchers’ insight into and articulation of their generative role in research’ (Braun & Clarke, 2022, p. 9), is fundamental to conducting rigorous reflexive thematic analysis. This involved acknowledging the researchers’ preformed assumptions and experiences surrounding play and autistic play and how this informed the interpretation and generation of findings (Braun & Clarke, 2022; Critical Appraisal Skills Programme [CASP], 2024). Indeed, given that the primary aim of this research project focused on ascertaining autistic children’s views, it is important to acknowledge the sensitivity required between authentically respecting and reflecting autistic children’s accounts of play while also recognising the active role of researchers in this process as non-autistic adult researchers and educators in shaping the interpretation of findings (Bradbury-Jones et al., 2018; Musgrave, 2019). This involved critically reflecting on processes used to elicit autistic children’s views and attending to the contextual nature of data and questions posed by the researcher (Spyrou, 2011) and the researcher’s role in shaping research (Nind, 2014). Other strategies included critical discussions between the researchers to add depth and richness of meaning (Braun & Clarke, 2019), taking time to distance ourselves from the process in order to offer insight and reflection upon revisiting the analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2021), maintaining a reflexivity journal (Braun & Clarke, 2023) as well as cross checking findings and initial themes against children’s accounts. This process was also enhanced through prolonged engagement with children as part of the process and use of repeated interviews (Berger, 2015).

Community involvement statement

Prior consultations with neurotypical and neurodivergent learners by the authors validated the worthwhile nature of this research and were used to inform the design of the interview guide and associated methods and materials (see link https://osf.io/v2ua8/ and Supplemental material 1). Informal conversations were also conducted with educators of the participants on how best to facilitate children’s expression of views and development of rapport (e.g. preferred modes of communication, strengths, interests, sensory needs, proposed desired environment and format) to ensure interview sessions were comfortable and engaging for all participants. Educators were also provided with personalised digital social narratives (see link https://osf.io/v2ua8/) outlining key information regarding the nature of the research, what participation entailed alongside researcher details to support children’s understanding of the research, as recommended by Tesfaye et al. (2019). Educators were asked to share this material with the parents of participants prior to the commencement of interviews.

This research was centred on the co-construction of knowledge with the autistic community in informing a strengths-based neuro-affirmative understanding of play from the perspectives of the players themselves. Participants were directly involved in the design of sessions, the format of which was child-led and adapted and amended based on individual preferences to express and record their views. This included providing multiple opportunities to contribute throughout the day in whatever means children desired. The researcher also provided opportunities for member-checking to summarise key points for children and in order to minimise the risk of ‘adulteration’ of the children’s viewpoints (Flynn, 2013). This involved reiterating the researcher’s interpretations of children’s accounts at multiple time points throughout individual interview sessions to confirm they were capturing children’s views as accurately and authentically as possible. Furthermore, during the final session, key dissemination points were elicited from children using flexible and accessible means (e.g. revisiting outputs from book making activities, examining photos of outputs created during the consultation process) to support the analysis and dissemination of knowledge surrounding children’s understanding of play and to ensure interpretations were consistent with children’s perceptions (Given & Saumure, 2008). Participation of all children was facilitated with careful planning around sensory breaks, use of a wide range of engaging materials and careful attention to children’s body language.

Results

As shown in Figure 1, three themes were generated based on children’s conceptualisations of play. Participant quotes that exemplify themes are reported in children’s own words and using pseudonyms for each participant. Some minor edits were made in relation to punctuation to facilitate reading. The interviewer also used the third person at times when referring to children in conversation with them (e.g. ‘what does Josh play’ when asking Josh about his preferred play). This was to avoid confusion surrounding first- and second-person terms (Smolik & Chroma, 2023) and was used more often with early communicators and children who were minimally speaking.

Figure 1.

Thematic map of autistic children’s conceptualisations of play.

Theme 1: enjoyment and pleasure as central to the definition of play

Throughout their descriptions of play, children highlighted associated positive affect with Joshua (10–11 years) reporting that ‘it makes me have like a nice feeling’. Here, children described the overwhelming sense of enjoyment and pleasure in play where ‘it just makes people happy that’s all’ (Kayden, 5–6 years), as reiterated by Bob (8–9 years) who described that ‘people like playing cause it makes them happy’.

Subtheme 1.1. play as fun

Children consistently emphasised the overriding sense of fun in play where ‘what matters is you’re having fun’ (Kara, 7 years) and ‘it has to be fun (. . .) or else you won’t enjoy it’ (Donal, 10–12 years). Indeed, fun was often used by children to justify why certain activities were play, with Zara (8–9 years) describing ‘it’s fun when I [pause] play Minecraft (. . .) like building my house’, which was further emphasised by Charlotte (11 years):

Charlotte:

Something else is [pause] the go kart

Interviewer:

The go kart cool [pause] where do you play that?

Charlotte:

At home

Interviewer:

At home right so you like playing go kart at home.

Charlotte:

Yeah

Interviewer:

What makes the go kart play?

Charlotte:

What? Em [pause] it’s fun

Subtheme 1.2. having a sense of escape and flow in play (i.e. feeling absorbed)

Some children referenced how play ‘might relieve stress’ (Joshua, 10–11 years) and associated feelings of ‘calm’ (Zara, 8–9 years) and ‘relax[ation]’ (Charlotte, 11 years) during play experiences. Indeed, several children reported a sense of ‘flow’ or feeling absorbed in play with Jay (10–11 years) describing their immersion in virtual reality play experiences where ‘I feel like it’s connected to me, like it’s making my heart run’. Sumlu (10–12 years) also recalled similar experiences describing:

because I like fiddling with things [clicks pen] which are fun (. . .) because it keeps me distracted even though there have been times we’re supposed to do work and I would do that for half an hour (. . .) pick up my pencil and I just twist it like that.

Theme 2: social connections as fundamental to play

Children emphasised social connections in play describing ‘all of us playing together’ (Charlotte, 11 years) and ‘everything is better with lots of people’ (Kara, 7 years), while also describing enjoying opportunities for solitary play with regards to meaningful materials and activities (see theme 3).

Children referenced seeking social connections with multiple play partners including adults (e.g. parents, grandparents, educators) where ‘I play with my Dad (. . .) it’s just fun’ (Donal, 10–12 years) while others such as Lisa (5–6 years) sought more adult involvement in play: ‘Mommy and Daddy do work and not play with me’. However, Sumlu (10–12 years) described the decreasing role of adults as co-players as they matured; ‘you don’t really play with grownups as you get older because you play with people around your age more than people who are like 30 years older than you’. Children also described social connections in play with siblings, cousins and pets.

Subtheme 2.1. friendships as important in play

Children emphasised connections with their friends in play and expressed ‘want[ing] to play with your friends or to make friends’ (Kayden, 5–6 years). Here, children referenced the importance of specific contexts in facilitating interactions with peers including the outdoors and ‘the yard’ (Josh, 8 years) where many children described playing structured games like ‘playing tag and cops and robbers’ (Kara, 7 years) as well as sports where ‘I adore football’ (Andy, 10–12 years) alongside interactions in the ‘digital world’ (Jay, 10–11 years). Indeed, Jay (10–11 years) emphasised the importance of social connections with friends in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Jay:

I like playing cops and robbers, cross the river. We actually used to do that, right Joshua? Until like we moved yard.

Interviewer:

Okay

Jay:

So we have a bigger yard to do it.

Interviewer:

Okay, so you’ve more space. Do you like playing those games on yard?

Jay:

And all of our friends, we were separated from them.

Interviewer:

Oh, dear, why?

Jay:

I don’t know.

Joshua:

During covid.

Interviewer:

During covid?

Jay:

Yes.

Interviewer:

Awh [pause]

Jay:

The next minute we were allowed to go to the yard. Although they’re just waiting for me and, me and Joshua-they were so happy to see us.

Interviewer:

Awh [pause]

Jay:

I will never forget that day.

Subtheme 2.2. play as involving negotiations in response to social demands

Some older children also talked about the need for negotiation and ‘compromise’ (Joshua, 10–11 years) in play with social partners: ‘Like when I’m playing stuff with friends and then they play, they want to play something which I don’t like but then they play stuff I like so it’s fun’ (Sumlu, 10–12 years) and how ‘we all kind of have a part in it [play]’ (Joshua, 10–11 years). However, success in negotiating desired play within social contexts may not always occur where ‘some people might have less success like me and Donal and Lizzie we’re not popular’ (Sumlu, 10–12 years).

Children also spoke of negotiations and constraints in play in response to social demands or rules, oftentimes which were imposed by the players, in relation to ‘play[ing] nicely (. . .) let’s say if we’re playing and someone was being rough then it, you might fall over and hurt yourself’ (Joshua, 10–11 years) and ‘sharing [with] your friends’ (Lisa, 5–6 years) and ‘rule[s] for no being mean’ (Zara, 8–9 years). Others highlighted rules surrounding inclusion where Joshua (10–11 years) described:

Joshua:

Ehm [pause] trying to include everybody.

Interviewer:

Okay, you think that’s important?

Joshua:

Yeah, because let’s say if someone asks you to play and you say, no, they could get upset.

Interviewer:

Okay.

Joshua:

And it’s not fair on that person because they might have nobody to play with.

Interviewer:

Okay, so it’s important to feel included.

Joshua:

Yeah.

Here, some children described associated challenges surrounding inclusion in play and their desire for social connections in play where ‘sometimes on yard nobody plays with me’ (Kara, 7 years). Other children referenced associated frustrations surrounding players not following the rules where ‘some people who join my party [online] and they just kick me (. . .) until you get so angry that you don’t accept them anymore’ (Kayden, 5–6 years).

Theme 3: play as engagement with meaningful materials and activities

This theme captures children’s experiences of engaging with meaningful materials and activities whereby they described play as involving sensory and physical stimulation, creativity and imagination, focused play on intense interests and preferences at times for solitary play.

Subtheme 3.1. play as sensory and physical stimulation

Children described the importance of sensory stimulation in play where ‘I like it [water] shhhh [makes water sound] (. . .) cause I can touch it and it goes whooooo’ (Bob, 8–9 years). Sumlu (10–12 years) described sensory movements in play in relation to ‘this is also play [clicks pen] (. . .) it’s satisfying to click’. Others described connections with nature such as ‘saving woodlice (. . .) I’m a big fan’ (Jay, 10–11 years), ‘looking at beetles’ (Sumlu, 10–12 years) or ‘smelling [flowers]’ (Deirdre, 10–11 years). Many children also described physical stimulation in play such as ‘bouncing [on the trampoline]’ (Deirdre, 10–11 years), or ‘like I’m really good at doing stunts (. . .) I can throw myself off a wall like you know the yellow wall in the OT room (. . .) I can throw myself off that’ (Joshua, 10–11 years). However, Kara (7 years) emphasised the recuperative nature of play describing ‘I like sitting on my bed (. . .) and snuggling with teddies (. . .) I feel calm’.

Subtheme 3.2. creativity and imagination in play

Children emphasised elements of creativity and ‘get[ting] to use your imagination’ (Joshua, 10–11 years) in play, ‘pretending to be different characters’ (Bob, 8–9 years), as recounted by Kara (7 years):

Kara:

I like to play [pause] dragons.

Interviewer:

dragons.

Kara:

Like I was talking about earlier.

Interviewer:

Okay [pause] how do you play dragons in school?

Kara:

So [pause] someone pretends to be a dragon and the other person is the owner and and one person.

Interviewer:

okay the other person is the owner.

Kara:

is the person that [pause] the dragon doesn’t like and then they try to jump on them (laughs).

Interviewer:

Oh no!

Kara:

and the owner tries to pull them away from them [laughs].

Interviewer:

Oh no! [laughs] the dragon’s trying to get them!

Kara:

Yeah.

Others described opportunities for ‘animation (. . .) I’ve a YouTube channel’ (Donal, 10–12 years) and Raven (12–13 years) highlighted that ‘we’ve made all sorts of movies over lockdown (. . .) em I have great fun like (. . .) listening to the different sound effects (. . .) and working out the order that we put the videos in’.

Subtheme 3.3. focused play on intense interests

Across the consultation sessions, many children consistently described play as engagement in focused play based on personalised intense interests. Here, many children attributed a high degree of meaning to specific materials and contexts including cartoons or movies such as ‘Rainbow Dash (. . .) in My Little Pony (. . .) it makes me super happy’ (Zara, 8–9 years). Others consistently ascribed significant meaning to materials with Sumlu (10–12 years) describing that ‘I like looking at bacteria (. . .) because I like science’. For Josh (8 years) this involved numbers:

Interviewer:

Josh draw play for [interviewer name] [pause].

Josh:

Yes

Interviewer:

Play [pause], what does Josh play [pause].

Josh:

This [pause] numbers.

Interviewer:

Josh likes playing numbers [pause].

Josh:

Yeah.

Interviewer:

Josh likes playing numbers [pause].

Josh:

10 [pause as draws], 20 [pause as draws], 30 [pause as draws], 40 [pause as draws], 50 [pause as draws], 60 [pause as draws], 70 [pause as draws], 80 [pause as draws], 90 [pause as draws], 100 [pause as draws].

Interviewer:

Josh likes numbers.

Josh:

Yes ‘eeeeeeeeeeee’

Subtheme 3.4. preference at times for solitary play

Despite seeking social connections in play, some children described pursuing solitary play in order to have opportunities to meaningfully engage with their favourite activities or materials in whatever way they desired. For example, Bob (8–9 years) described ‘I play Lego with myself’ and Zara (8–9 years) recalled:

Interviewer:

Zara, who do you play baby dolls with [pause]?

Zara:

my myself

Interviewer:

yourself? [pause]. Zara likes playing by herself? [pause]

Zara:

Yeah without [pause] people saying anything

Interviewer:

without people saying anything

Zara:

Yeah

Interviewer:

Zara doesn’t like it

Zara:

No [long pause as draws]

Interviewer:

Zara likes playing by herself

Zara:

Yeah, without getting bothered

Interviewer:

without getting bothered okay Zara [pause]

Zara:

Bothering is not fun

In this sense, solitary play appeared to serve a recuperative function for some children whereby ‘sometimes I want to play alone (. . .) to calm down’ (Kara, 7 years) as well as associated agency and freedom where ‘it’s a lot of fun when you’re playing by yourself (. . .) because you get to control the whole story’ (Donal, 10–12 years).

In sum, children consistently described play as involving fun, friendships and engagement with meaningful materials and activities. It was also clear that children deeply valued a sense of freedom and choice in play, and that children’s autonomy and agency in play was important to all themes, for example, ‘I can play whatever I want (. . .) or else play just isn’t play’ (Kara, 7 years) where ‘you can do whatever you want’ (Sumlu, 10–11 years). While we did not report autonomy and agency as a separate theme, it is important to note its centrality to children’s reports of play in this study as exemplified in this excerpt from an interview with Kara (7 years):

Interviewer:

And what are you doing in the pictures [pause] What are you playing?

Kara:

Dancing

Interviewer:

You’re dancing? Do you like dancing Kara?

Kara:

Yeah

Interviewer:

Yeah, what makes dancing play?

Kara:

It’s really fun

Interviewer:

Really fun

Kara:

And there’s nothing you can do wrong

Discussion

Overall, throughout the consultations, children emphasised the value and importance of play as a fundamental childhood experience. Indeed, many children contextualised their understanding of play using personal experiences and memories. In conceptualising play, children referenced a diverse range of dimensions including both observable aspects (e.g. engagement with play partners alongside a range of meaningful materials and activities) and inward features of play such as feeling enjoyment, as well as feelings of autonomy and agency. Children’s emphasis on the inward qualities of play is noteworthy given that our current understanding of autistic play is largely based on outward features of certain categories of play (i.e. solitary play and imaginative play) (Conn, 2015; Kasari et al., 2013). This is an important finding that reinforces earlier calls to reassess how we view autistic play: ‘For a child to be described as playing, the dispositional features of play should apply regardless of the type of activity he or she is engaged in’ (Luckett et al., 2007, p. 369).

In developing our understanding of play through direct consultations with the players themselves, this research challenges long-standing deficit-oriented assumptions that have persisted throughout the literature for decades. First, many children referenced the creative and imaginative nature of play. This is in direct contrast to reports of ‘deficits’ in symbolic or imaginative play (Hobson et al., 2009; Wing et al., 1977) but in keeping with the reports of autistic adults and adolescents (Conn, 2015; Fahy et al., 2021; Pavlopoulou et al., 2022). Second, many children described seeking social connections in play which again contrasts with dominant views in the literature (Restall & Magill-Evans, 1993). Although several children highlighted a desire for solitary play, this often emerged around the importance of meaningful opportunities to engage with preferred toys or in particular activities. Importantly, some children emphasised the recuperative function of ‘alone time’ in play, as identified by Pritchard-Rowe et al. (2024) alongside associated feelings of freedom. Furthermore, it is important to recognise the reported challenges surrounding playing with others expressed by some autistic children and children’s emphasis on the importance of inclusion in play which aligns with calls to extend our focus on autistic play beyond the autistic players to all play partners within the play experience in creating inclusive and respectful play environments (Wolfberg et al., 2015; Wolfberg & Woods, 2023), in line with a neurodiversity approach. Indeed, in emphasising the need for social connections in play, one participant identified the lasting impact of their segregation from mainstream peers as part of COVID-19 restrictive measures within the school environment. This finding raises important concerns surrounding the long-standing contention and international debate regarding the segregation of learners from their mainstream peers within specialist provisions (Leijen et al., 2021; Tiernan, 2022) and how educators can facilitate opportunities for meaningful peer interactions within the school environment. Third, children emphasised an intrinsic drive to play and enduring sense of fun and pleasure which again challenges accounts where ‘the autistic child is rarely depicted as playful’ (Eisele & Howard, 2012, p. 139).

Our findings also align with findings emerging from the autistic community based on adult retrospective accounts of play and the idea of a unique autistic play culture previously dismissed in favour of neurotypical ‘norms’ (Jordan, 2003; Wolfberg & Woods, 2023). For example, many children referenced uniquely personalised and sensory stimulating experiences (e.g. cartoons and digital materials, clicking pens, numbers, woodlice) in play similar to reports by autistic adults (Conn, 2015; Pritchard-Rowe et al., 2024), with some describing experiences of ‘flow’ and absorption in play (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). This is especially important given links between play and children’s wellbeing, as noted by Pritchard-Rowe et al. (2024) and what is often a key aim of educators, namely to facilitate play in educational contexts to support children’s development and wellbeing. This finding reaffirms calls to acknowledge autistic children’s diverse and, at times, non-conventional play (Jordan, 2003) as opposed to pathologising or minimising autistic play in favour of neurotypical norms and assumptions.

In summary, these findings offer new insight into autistic children’s conceptualisations of play and reinforce the importance of ascertaining a strengths-based, neuro-affirmative understanding of play from the perspective of the players themselves. Indeed, Luckett and colleagues (2007) have cautioned that ‘some practitioners and researchers have lost sight of what play really is’ (p. 366) for autistic children.

Implications for practice

Our findings support the development of play-based curricula, pedagogies and policies by outlining key features of play that are necessary for creating and facilitating playful conditions and environments that truly respect authentic play experiences and children’s right to play in meaningful and desirable ways (Gibson & McNally, 2024). This is important amid criticism that educators ‘have often failed to recognise the intrinsic value of play when planning programmes (. . .) and neglect quality play’ for autistic children (Theodorou & Nind, 2010, p. 104). How autistic children conceptualised play in this study also has important implications for the role of educators in play. Of note, children highlighted the value of adults as co-players in play thus reaffirming calls for practitioners to get involved in children’s play (Danniels & Pyle, 2023). However, due consideration needs to be given to children’s level of autonomy and agency, as expressed by children in this study. This is critical in education as there are reports of uncertainty among practitioners surrounding their role in play (Danniels & Pyle, 2023; O’Keeffe & McNally, 2022). We need to provide empirical evidence that will help practitioners to support autistic children and ‘frame the play in ways that are meaningful to them and reflect their subjective experience’ (Wolfberg & Woods, 2023, p. 1202).

Our findings further support concerns expressed by many researchers that the authenticity of play across play-based interventions for autistic children is problematic in particular with regards to capturing inward and dispositional features of autistic play (Jordan, 2003; Kossyvaki & Papoudi, 2016; Luckett et al., 2007; Wolfberg & Woods, 2023) that truly reflect meaningful play for children (Papoudi & Kossyvaki, 2018). We need a clear definition of autistic play in order to develop more robust theories of autistic play based on the players’ perspectives. In doing so, we can systematically investigate the role of play in autistic children’s learning and development.

Finally, given the key role of play in Autism diagnostic criteria (APA, 2013), this research supports calls by Pritchard-Rowe et al. (2024) to move beyond deficit focused standards of play across diagnostic assessments and instead acknowledge strengths and differences in play in order to capture authentic play experiences and affective dimensions that are so often overlooked here.

Limitations and future directions

This research offers important insight into understanding autistic play, which is integral in supporting children’s quality of life (Howard, 2019) and in ensuring future research, policy and practice align with a neuro-affirmative understanding of play from the perspectives of the players themselves. However, there are some limitations to this study. First, findings reflect the views of a predominately white autistic sample of children across two educational contexts within the Republic of Ireland and who primarily communicate using speech and, therefore, may not represent the views of all autistic children. Furthermore, this research did not collect formal data on participants’ socioeconomic status, educational attainment as well as data pertaining to participants’ language and cognitive levels or co-occurring conditions. Future research is needed with a more diverse sample of children and, in particular, underrepresented groups including those with co-occurring needs and intellectual disabilities who remain underrepresented in the literature. Although the sample of participants involved relatively equal numbers of boys and girls, future research would benefit from investigating gender differences in autistic children’s understanding of play in particular given reports of masking in play among autistic girls (Pritchard-Rowe et al., 2024). Despite children playing an active role in the design of interviews, findings are reported and interpreted by the authors based on reflexive thematic analysis and thus were based on adult-mediated and non-autistic interpretations of autistic children’s views of play. Future research would benefit from direct involvement from autistic children and researchers at the analysis and reporting stages. There is a dearth of literature on autistic children’s play, which elucidates its role in their learning and development, as well as research that focuses on social connections in play for autistic children. Given its significance in our findings, more research is needed on the mechanisms and contexts that can support social play, while taking into account autistic children’s preferences and experiences around social connections in play. Finally, this research was conducted in educational contexts that may have influenced children’s perspectives on play although children did describe their views on play across a diverse range of environments such as the sensory room, classroom, playground and home.

Conclusion

This research reinforces the importance of consulting with the players themselves to gain an authentic understanding of autistic play and move beyond deficit-focused, non-autistic framed assumptions of autistic play that have persisted throughout the literature for decades. Children’s conceptualisations of play extended beyond observable behaviours and emphasised the inward qualities of play that have traditionally been overlooked within research and practice.

Our findings support calls for further consultations with the players themselves in understanding autistic play and in informing future programmes of research, policy and practice. Play is an important part of children’s lives, is critical for wellbeing and development and a fundamental right (UNCRC, 1989). This study extends our understanding of autistic play from the perspective of the players themselves and highlights key characteristics that must be recognised by educators and carers when facilitating autistic children’s rights to play.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-aut-10.1177_13623613251315985 – Supplemental material for ‘Like it’s making my heart run’: A strengths-based understanding of the play of autistic children

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-aut-10.1177_13623613251315985 for ‘Like it’s making my heart run’: A strengths-based understanding of the play of autistic children by Christina O’Keeffe and Sinead McNally in Autism

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank the autistic children who participated in this research, and the teachers and school principals who facilitated the consultations.

Author Contributions

Christina O’Keeffe: Conceptualisation; Data curation; Formal analysis; Investigation; Methodology; Project administration; Resources; Software; Validation; Visualisation; Writing – original draft; Writing – review & editing.

Sinead McNally: Conceptualisation; Methodology; Supervision; Validation; Visualisation; Writing – original draft; Writing – review & editing.

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 authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The authors wish to thank the DCU Educational Trust who generously funded the data collection for this study through a doctoral scholarship to the first author.

ORCID iDs

Christina O’Keeffe

Sinead McNally

Supplemental material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM– V.

Arnott

Martinez-Lejarreta

Wall

Blaisdell

Palaiologou

(2020). Reflecting on three creative approaches to informed consent with children under six. British Educational Research Journal, 46(4), 786–810. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3619

Benevides

T. W.

Shore

S. M.

Palmer

Duncan

Plank

Andresen

M. L.

Caplan

Cook

Gassner

Hector

B. L.

Morgan

Nebeker

Purkis

Rankowski

Wittig

Coughlin

S. S.

(2020). Listening to the autistic voice: Mental health priorities to guide research and practice in autism from a stakeholder-driven project. Autism, 24(4), 822–833.

Berger

(2015). Now I see it, now I don’t: Researcher’s position and reflexivity in qualitative research. Qualitative Research, 15(2), 219–234. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794112468475

Blaisdell

Arnott

Wall

Robinson

(2019). Look who’s talking: Using creative, playful arts-based methods in research with young children. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 17(1), 14–31. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1476718X18808816

Bradbury-Jones

Isham

Taylor

(2018). The complexities and contradictions in participatory research with vulnerable children and young people: A qualitative systematic review. Social Science & Medicine, 215, 80–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.08.038

Braun

Clarke

(2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Braun

Clarke

(2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 11(4), 589–597. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806

Braun

Clarke

(2021). One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis? Qualitative Research in Psychology, 18(3), 328–352. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2020.1769238

10.

Braun

Clarke

(2022). Conceptual and design thinking for thematic analysis. Qualitative Psychology, 9(1), 3–26. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/qup0000196

11.

Braun

Clarke

(2023). Toward good practice in thematic analysis: Avoiding common problems and be(com)ing a knowing researcher. International Journal of Transgender Health, 24(1), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1080/26895269.2022.2129597

12.

Bundy

A. C.

Nelson

Metzger

Bingaman

(2001). Validity and reliability of a test of playfulness. The Occupational Therapy Journal of Research, 21(4), 276–292. https://doi.org/10.1177/153944920102100405

13.

Cocks

A. J.

(2006). The ethical maze: Finding an inclusive path towards gaining children’s agreement to research participation. Childhood, 13(2), 247–266. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0907568206062942

14.

Conn

(2015). ‘Sensory highs’, ‘vivid remembering’ and ‘interactive stimming’: Children’s play cultures and experiences of friendship in autistic autobiographies. Disability & Society, 30(8), 1192–1206. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2015.1081094

15.

Conn

Drew

(2017). Sibling narratives of autistic play culture. Disability & Society, 32(6), 853–867. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2017.1321526

16.

Crane

Adams

Harper

Welch

Pellicano

(2019). ‘Something needs to change’: Mental health experiences of young autistic adults in England. Autism, 23(2), 477–493. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361318757048

17.

Critical Appraisal Skills Programme. (2024). CASP checklist: For qualitative research. https://casp-uk.net/casp-checklists/CASP-checklist-qualitative-2024.pdf

18.

Csikszentmihalyi

(1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. Harper & Row.

19.

Danniels

Pyle

(2023). Inclusive play-based learning: Approaches from enacting kindergarten teachers. Early Childhood Education Journal, 51(7), 1169–1179. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-022-01369-4

20.

Den Houting

. (2019). Neurodiversity: An insider’s perspective. Autism, 23(2), 271–273. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361318820762

21.

Deniz

Francis

Torgerson

Toseeb

(2024). Parent-mediated play-based interventions to improve social communication and language skills of preschool autistic children: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Review Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40489-024-00463-0

22.

Dockett

Einarsdottir

Perry

(2012). Young children’s decisions about research participation: Opting out. International Journal of Early Years Education, 20(3), 244-256. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669760.2012.715405

23.

Eisele

Howard

(2012). Exploring the presence of characteristics associated with play within the ritual repetitive behaviour of autistic children. International Journal of Play, 1(2), 139–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/21594937.2012.692202

24.

Fahy

Delicâte

Lynch

(2021). Now, being, occupational: Outdoor play and children with autism. Journal of Occupational Science, 28(1), 114–132. https://doi.org/10.1080/14427591.2020.1816207

25.

Flynn

(2013). The transformative potential in student voice research for young people identified with social, emotional and behavioural difficulties. Trinity Education Papers, 2(2), 70–91. https://www.tcd.ie/media/tcd/education/research/trinity-papers/TEP-vol2.pdf#page=77

26.

Francis

Deniz

Torgerson

Toseeb

(2022). Play-based interventions for mental health: A systematic review and meta-analysis focused on children and adolescents with autism spectrum disorder and developmental language disorder. Autism & Developmental Language Impairments, 7, 23969415211073118. https://doi.org/10.1177/23969415211073118

27.

Gallagher

Haywood

S. L.

Jones

M. W.

Milne

(2010). Negotiating informed consent with children in school-based research: A critical review. Children & Society, 24(6), 471–482. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1099-0860.2009.00240.x

28.

Gibson

J. L.

McNally

S. M.

(2024). Play in the education and care of young autistic children. In Nikiforidou

Anderson

Robles-Melendez

(Eds.), Resilience and wellbeing in young children, their families and communities (pp. 147–158). Routledge.

29.

Gibson

J. L.

Pritchard

de Lemos

(2021). Play-based interventions to support social and communication development in autistic children aged 2–8 years: A scoping review. Autism & Developmental Language Impairments, 6, 23969415211015840. https://doi.org/10.1177/23969415211015840

30.

Given

L. M.

Saumure

(2008). Trustworthiness. In Given

L. M.

(Eds.), The Sage encyclopedia of qualitative research methods (pp. 895–896). Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412963909

31.

Hancock

C. L.

(2020). We don’t play that way, we play this way: Functional play behaviours of children with autism and severe learning difficulties. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 103, 103688. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2020.103688

32.

Heath

Charles

Crow

Wiles

(2007). Informed consent, gatekeepers and go-betweens: Negotiating consent in child and youth-orientated institutions. British Educational Research Journal, 33(3), 403–417. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920701243651

33.

Hennessy

Heary

(2005). Exploring children’s views through focus groups. In Greene

Hogan

(Eds.), Researching children’s experience: Approaches and methods (pp. 236–252). Sage.

34.

Hobson

R. P.

Lee

Hobson

J. A.

(2009). Qualities of symbolic play among children with autism: A social-developmental perspective. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 39, 12–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-008-0589-z

35.

Holmes

Willoughby

(2005). Play behaviour of children with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability, 30(3), 156–164. https://doi.org/10.1080/13668250500204034

36.

Howard

(2019). Securing the future of play in early childhood education: Journeying with children toward the essence of play to evidence its function and value. In Whitebread

Pino-Pasternak

Kumpulainen

McClelland

Perry

Grau

(Eds.), The Sage handbook of developmental psychology and early childhood education (pp. 201–222). Sage.

37.

Jarrold

Boucher

Smith

(1993). Symbolic play in autism: A review. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 23, 281–307. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01046221

38.

Jordan

(2003). Social play and autistic spectrum disorders: A perspective on theory, implications and educational approaches. Autism, 7(4), 347–360.

39.

Kasari

Chang

Y. C.

Patterson

(2013). Pretending to play or playing to pretend: The case of autism. American Journal of Play, 6(1), 124. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4662258/

40.

King

Horrocks

Brooks

(2019). Interviews in qualitative research. Sage.

41.

Kossyvaki

Papoudi

(2016). A review of play interventions for children with autism at school. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 63(1), 45–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2015.1111303

42.

Krasnor

L. R.

Pepler

D. J.

(1980). The study of children’s play: Some suggested future directions. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 9, 85–95. https://doi.org/10.1002/cd.23219800908

43.

Lantz

J. F.

Nelson

J. M.

Loftin

R. L.

(2004). Guiding children with autism in play: Applying the integrated play group model in school settings. Teaching Exceptional Children, 37(2), 8–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/004005990403700201

44.

Leijen

Ä.

Arcidiacono

Baucal

. (2021). The dilemma of inclusive education: Inclusion for some or inclusion for all. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, Article 633066. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.633066

45.

Luckett

Bundy

Roberts

(2007). Do behavioural approaches teach children with autism to play or are they pretending? Autism, 11(4), 365–388. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361307078135

46.

Lumivero. (2023). NVivo (Version 14) [Computer software]. www.lumivero.com

47.

Lundy

(2007). ‘Voice’ is not enough: Conceptualising Article 12 of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child. British Educational Research Journal, 33(6), 927–942. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920701657033

48.

Lundy

McEvoy

Byrne

(2011). Working with young children as co-researchers: An approach informed by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Early Education & Development, 22(5), 714–736. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2011.596463

49.

Morris

Havlucu

Oldfield

Metatla

(2024, May). Understanding neurodiverse social play between autistic and non-autistic children. In Mueller

F. F.

Kyburz

Williamson

J. R.

Sas

Wilson

M. L.

Dugas

P. T.

Shklovski

(Eds.), Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1–16). Association for Computing Machinery. https://dl.acm.org/doi/full/10.1145/3613904.3642809

50.

Musgrave

(2019). Reflexivity in educational research. In Brown

Perkins

(Eds.), Using innovative methods in early years research (pp. 7–18). Routledge.

51.

Nind

(2014). What is inclusive research? Bloomsbury Publishing.

52.

O’Farrelly

Tatlow-Golden

(2022). It’s up to you if you want to take part. Supporting young children’s informed choice about research participation with simple visual booklets. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 30(1), 63–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2022.2026434

53.

O’Keeffe

McNally

(2021). A systematic review of play-based interventions targeting the social communication skills of children with autism spectrum disorder in educational contexts. Review Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 10, 51–81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40489-021-00286-3

54.

O’Keeffe

McNally

(2022). Teacher experiences of facilitating play in early childhood classrooms during COVID-19. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 20(4), 552–564. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476718X221087064

55.

O’Keeffe

McNally

(2024a). It’s one of your main things in life like”: How children’s conceptualisations of play can inform educational practice’. Education, 3–13, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2024.2405638

56.

O’Keeffe

McNally

(2024b). ‘Understand more what we do’: A review of children’s perspectives of play in education. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/bgt42

57.

Papoudi

Kossyvaki

(2018). Play and children with autism: Insights from research and implications for practice. In Smith

Roopnarine

J. L.

(Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of play: Developmental and disciplinary perspectives (pp. 563–579). Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology, Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108131384.031

58.

Parten

M. B.

(1932). Social participation among pre-school children. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 27(3), 243. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/h0074524

59.

Pavlopoulou

Usher

Pearson

(2022). ‘I can actually do it without any help or someone watching over me all the time and giving me constant instruction’: Autistic adolescent boys’ perspectives on engagement in online video gaming. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 40(4), 557–571. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjdp.12424

60.

Pellicano

den Houting

(2022). Annual research review: Shifting from ‘normal science’ to neurodiversity in autism science. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 63(4), 381–396. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.13534

61.

Piaget

(1962). Play, dreams and imitation. Norton.

62.

Pritchard-Rowe

de Lemos

Howard

Gibson

(2024). Diversity in autistic play: Autistic adults’ experiences. Autism in Adulthood, 6(2), 218–228. https://doi.org/10.1089/aut.2023.0008

63.

Pyle

Danniels

(2016). Using a picture book to gain assent in research with young children. Early Child Development and Care, 186(9), 1438–1452. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2015.1100175

64.

Restall

Magill-Evans

(1994). Play and preschool children with autism. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 48(2), 113–120. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.48.2.113

65.

Riguet

C. B.

Taylor

N. D.

Benaroya

Klein

L. S.

(1982). Symbolic play in autistic, down’s, and normal children of equivalent mental age. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 11, 439–448. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01531618

66.

Sigman

Ruskin

Arbelle

Corona

Dissanayake

Espinosa

Kim

Lopez

Zierhut

Mervis

C. B.

Robinson

B. F.

(1999). Continuity and change in the social competence of children with autism, down syndrome, and developmental delays. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 64(1), 1–114. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3181510

67.

Smolik

Chroma

(2023). About me, you and her: Personal pronouns are developmentally preceded by mental state language. Journal of Child Language, 50(3), 537–554. https://doi.org/10.1017/S030500092100091X

68.

Spyrou

(2011). The limits of children’s voices: From authenticity to critical, reflexive representation. Childhood, 18(2), 151–165. https://doi.org/10.1177/0907568210387834

69.

Tesfaye

Courchesne

Yusuf

Savion-Lemieux

Singh

Shikako-Thomas

Mirenda

Waddell

Smith

I. M.

Nicholas

Szatmari

Bennett

Duku

Georgiades

Kerns

Vaillancourt

Zaidman-Zait

Zwaigenbaum

Elsabbagh

(2019). Assuming ability of youth with autism: Synthesis of methods capturing the first-person perspectives of children and youth with disabilities. Autism, 23(8), 1882–1896. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361319831487

70.

Theodorou

Nind

(2010). Inclusion in play: A case study of a child with autism in an inclusive nursery. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 10(2), 99–106. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-3802.2010.01152.x

71.

Tiernan

(2022). Inclusion versus full inclusion: Implications for progressing inclusive education. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 37(5), 882–890. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2021.1961197

72.

United Nations. (1989). The United Nations convention on the rights of the child. Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations

73.

Vygotsky

L. S.

(1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.

74.

Walker

(2023). Neurodiversity: Some basic terms and definitions. Neuroqueer, The writings of Dr. Nick Walker. https://neuroqueer.com/neurodiversity-terms-and-definitions/

75.

Weisberg

D. S.

Hirsh-Pasek

Golinkoff

R. M.

Kittredge

A. K.

Klahr

(2016). Guided play: Principles and practices. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 25(3), 177–182. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721416645512

76.

Whitebread

Neale

Jensen

Liu

Solis

S. L.

Hopkins

Hirsh-Pasek

Zosh

(2017). The role of play in children’s development: A review of the evidence. The LEGO Foundation. https://cms.learningthroughplay.com/media/esriqz2x/role-of-play-in-childrens-development-review_web.pdf

77.

Williams

Reddy

Costall

(2001). Taking a closer look at functional play in children with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 31, 67–77. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005665714197

78.

Wing

Gould

Yeates

S. R.

Brierly

L. M.

(1977). Symbolic play in severely mentally retarded and in autistic children. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 18(2), 167–178. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1977.tb00426.x

79.

Wolfberg

DeWitt

Young

G. S.

Nguyen

(2015). Integrated play groups: Promoting symbolic play and social engagement with typical peers in children with ASD across settings. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 45, 830–845. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-014-2245-0

80.

Wolfberg

Woods

G. L.

(2023). Reimagining autistic children’s independent and social play with peers. Psychoanalytic Inquiry, 43(3), 215–231. https://doi.org/10.1080/07351690.2023.2185067

81.

Wood

(2013). Play, learning and the early childhood curriculum (3rd ed.). Sage.

82.

Zosh

J. M.

Hassinger-Das

Laurie

(2022). Learning through play and the development of holistic skills across childhood. The LEGO Foundation. https://cde-lego-cms-prod.azureedge.net/media/kell5mft/hs_white_paper_008-digital-version.pdf

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

6.22 MB