‘Finding the play’ – exploring with occupational therapists practice possibilities in the context of Irish schoolyards

Abstract

Background

Research has identified diverse constraints to the adoption of school-based occupational therapy approaches and a lack of attention to addressing the barriers to children’s play opportunities. Critical contextualised research is advocated to inform practice possibilities.

Aims/Objectives

This inquiry aimed to explore with occupational therapists their existing practices in Irish schoolyards to generate practice possibilities concerned with play, as an issue of occupational justice.

Materials and Methods

Using the theory of practice architectures, six occupational therapists from diverse sites of practice participated in the first phase of a critical action research process using dialogical focus group and occupational mapping methods.

Results

Three themes were generated (1) Existing practices as situated (2) (Re)mattering play and practices as occupations and (3) Practice possibilities – ‘Finding the play’ between responsiveness and responsibilities. A further interrelated dimension was how the research methods provided mechanisms of raising consciousness.

Conclusions, and Significance

Alongside constructing knowledges on existing practices in an Irish context, this inquiry contributes to understandings of practices as socially embedded generative processes of ‘finding the play’, highlighting ethical responsibilities to make visible inequities reproduced in habitual practices and engage in relationships of solidarity to (re)construct alternative shared practices.

Keywords:

• Critical action-research
• consciousness
• occupational justice
• play
• practice theories
• school-based occupational therapy

Introduction

There is increasing recognition across occupational therapy, play rights and inclusive education scholarship on the need for research to understand the diverse contextual barriers and enablers to both practices and children’s equitable opportunities to participate in schools [1–5]. In an Irish context, the emerging school-based occupational therapy service, recognised as an important contribution to the Irish School Inclusion Model, has adopted an occupational justice agenda in line with the World Federation of Occupational Therapists [6] position statement and research on school-based practices [2, 7]. However, overall, there remains limited adoption of school-based practice approaches in an Irish context to date with occupational therapists’ employment in mostly health and disability services identified as a contributing factor [7, 8]. Corresponding with international surveys [1, 9] occupational therapists also describe a lack of role clarity, limited training, and differing service demands as constraints to school-based practices [7, 8]. While there is increasing research to inform occupation-focused practices in schools [10–15] studies report a lack of evidence on inclusion and participation outcomes and critique the use of research generated in other countries [1–3, 7–11]. Moreover, alongside a reported lack of coordination across Irish health and education services, inclusive school polices have been criticised as lacking funding, remaining diagnostic-led, reinforcing societal inequities, and failing to agree on what constitutes inclusion [7, 16, 17].

Similar challenges exist in relation to occupational therapy concerned with children’s play in schools, despite Irish based research on play as occupation identifying the contribution occupational therapy can make to realising children’s equitable play opportunities and advocating for greater attention to play rights at a national policy level [18–20]. Notwithstanding a reported value on play as occupation, corresponding again with international surveys [20, 21], occupational therapists in an Irish context, continue to focus on improving performance skills with certain groups of children mostly based on medical diagnosis or reported skill difficulties [18, 20]. Similarly, while play-based pedagogies are evident within Irish primary school curricula there is limited attention in policy, research, or practice, beyond supervision guidelines to provide for children’s play rights in schoolyards [22–24]. Research on play as occupation reflects a core assumption of occupational therapy on the significance of meaningful occupation to children’s health, wellbeing, and social lives [25]. However, aligning with play rights recommendations, understanding play as occupation shifts from prioritising developmental outcomes to providing space, time, and permission for children to play what they value [5, 19, 24, 26–28]. Research with children on the diverse political, social, spatial, and cultural constraints that transact with children’s equitable opportunities for participation and inclusion in specific contexts is therefore advocated to inform occupation focused practices [19, 27, 28].

Reflecting international research there is a lack of data on how play is provided for in Irish schoolyards [5]. However, while limited, several studies have highlighted children’s value on play in Irish schoolyards particularly for fun, friendships, and belonging within schools [19, 23, 29]. Moreover, research has identified significant socio-spatial restrictions to children’s play including overcrowded schoolyards with few play options; a lack of teacher training or guidance on play, and inconsistent rules prioritising safety and litigation fears [19, 22–24, 29]. The few studies to date suggest Irish schoolyards are primarily hard surfaced, empty spaces surrounding school buildings however also draw attention to the diverse nature of school sites in Ireland whereby schools access resources such as astro turf pitches, sensory gardens, and fixed playground equipment through ad hoc grants or fundraising activities [24, 29–31]. These studies have also shed light on fighting, exclusion, and racism within play in Irish schoolyards and highlighted the inequitable play opportunities particularly for children with disabled, migrant or minoritized ethnic identities [19, 23, 24] who in related research also report significantly more bullying, exclusion, racism, and fewer friendships in Irish schoolyards [16, 32]. Russell’s [5] systematic review of research on play in schoolyards highlights the lack of research across disciplines with children with minoritized identities relative to ethnicity and race and furthermore the neglect of issues of violence and exclusion within children’s play particularly in schoolyards.

Occupational science research has highlighted a corresponding neglect of these substantive issues in relation to occupational therapy practices [24, 33–35]. Specific to play focused practices, Gerlach and Browne [35] problematise constructions of play as universal as reinforcing discriminatory attitudes towards different ways of playing and practices that fail to account for or address factors, such as poverty and racism that inequitably restrict certain children’s opportunities. Drawing on critical and social justice theories, wider occupational science scholarship has contested the adoption of concepts such as occupational justice in occupational therapy practices that do not examine the causes and consequences of health and social inequities and issues of power and oppression [36, 37]. Current definitions of occupational justice focus on enabling equitable opportunities and resources ‘to do, be, belong and become what people have the potential to be and the absence of avoidable harm’ [38, p.414]. Aligning with critical occupational science scholarship, research on school based occupational therapy describes a lack of shared understanding and interrogation of multidimensional constructs such as participation, inclusion, and justice in specific contexts [1, 13, 37–39]. Greater examination of how conceptual understandings interrelate with existing practices, what values are mattered and excluded and what might exist as a field of possibilities is thus advocated unsettling theory/practice divides [33–41].

Recent occupational therapy research has identified the potential in practice theories to interrogate existing practices and their consequences, support new ways of theorising occupation and enable new possibilities [41–43]. The theory of practice architectures aligns with occupational science scholarship, prioritising the need to first raise consciousness on existing situations to generate alternative possibilities [44]. Ramugondo’s [33] theorising informed by analysis of play, emphasises the resonance between concepts of occupational consciousness, collective occupations, occupational possibilities, and the advancement of occupational justice. Occupational consciousness as Ramugondo [33] defines requires developing awareness of how ‘dominant practices are sustained through what people do every day, with implications for personal and collective health’ [p. 488]. Given the challenges in an Irish context, there is a need to develop awareness of what practices come to be viewed as ideal and possible in relation to children’s play in Irish schoolyards [45]. The theory of practice architectures, enables this by offering a lens to analyse ‘how’ practices happen as particular ways of saying, doing and relating enabled and constrained by diverse socio-political, cultural-discursive, and material-economic arrangements [44, 46, 47]. In raising consciousness on what makes socially situated practices possible and holds them in place, the theory of practice architectures supports the generation of alternative practice possibilities [44, 46, 47]. Engaging in action research is justified according to Kemmis [44] if the consequences or conduct of current practices are identified as unsustainable. In an Irish context, the lack of attention to the diverse barriers to children’s play opportunities in schoolyards is clearly unsustainable considering the occupational justice ambitions of occupational therapists. However, alongside challenges translating school-based practice recommendations, multiple tensions exist in terms of what constitutes justice-focused practices. With the recent emergence of a school-based service in an Irish context, there is a need for a more critical examination of the conditions of possibilities for justice focused practices [2, 7, 8].

Using the theory of practice architectures, this critical action research inquiry aims to explore with occupational therapists existing practices to raise consciousness and generate practice possibilities concerned with play in Irish schoolyards as an issue of occupational justice. Furthermore, this inquiry is entirely situated and focused on generating alternative practice possibilities with no attempt as Galheigo [48] reminds to fix the limits of ‘best’ practice.

Methods and materials

This inquiry adopted what is termed the first phase of critical action research [49], where the focus is on developing a critical perspective of the local situation and identifying transformative practices. The methods chosen are congruent with the theoretical positions and research aims to further strengthen the rigour of this inquiry [50]. Dialogical focus group interviews have proven beneficial in previous research to generate shared understandings of the situated nature of existing practices, interrogate assumptions and concepts and construct practice possibilities [41, 51]. While the inquiry was focused on occupational therapy practices, the process-oriented method of mapping was also adopted in this inquiry, to support occupational therapists dialogue and individual reflexive processes in attempts to generate practice possibilities concerned specifically with play [5, 52, 53]. This method involves observing play in context to create a visual map that focuses on how play is happening [5, 52, 53]. Ethical approval for this study was granted by the Swedish Ethical Review Authority (Log number: 2021–0357) and the Social Research Ethics Committee, University College Cork (Log number: 2021–111).

Recruitment

The researcher’s positionality as an occupational therapist in an Irish context acknowledges the significance of relationships within critical action research where boundaries of researcher/researched are unsettled by understandings of knowledge as relational and a shared commitment to transforming practices. The inquiry thus used a purposive approach to invite occupational therapists (1) with practice experience in school settings (2) an interest in the inquiry aims, reflecting the value on participants as co-creators of knowledge and (3) representing the diverse sites of practice in which occupational therapists working in Irish schools are employed. The invitation was advertised through the National professional association via e-mail and social media and via the researchers own social media accounts and networks. Between six and eight participants was identified as an ideal number for focus group research [50]. Within three weeks, seven Occupational Therapists completed an online Microsoft Forms, confirming their experience and interest in the inquiry aims. As these initial respondents also reflected diverse practice sites, on receipt of completed consent forms from six participants and no further response from the 7^th respondent following two e-mails, recruitment was closed. Table 1 outlines participants’ site of practice and years of experience.

Table 1. Participants sites of practice and years of practice experience.

Participant	Site of practice	Service Focus	Experience
Caoimhe	Community primary healthcare service	Occupational therapy with individual children in clinic, home, and schools.	20 yrs
Fiachna Siofra	Interdisciplinary disability service	Occupational therapy with interdisciplinary team using family centred approach in clinic, home, and schools	20 yrs 15 yrs
Niamh Eithne	Private Practice	Occupational therapy with individual children in clinic and in schools.	15 yrs 3 yrs
Sadbh	School Based Service	Using a tiered level approach to occupational therapy in schools	15yrs

* Names used are pseudonyms.

Data gathering and analysis

This inquiry invited Occupational Therapists (participants) to participate in a 10-week series of action reflection cycles involving 4 focus groups facilitated by the first author and 6 individual actions/reflections as outlined in Table 2. Microsoft Teams videoconferencing software was used for the four 60-minute dialogical focus groups supporting attendance and data gathering. Three participants completed a situational mapping task of children’s play and shared this with the group in the third focus group. The focus group transcripts and informal shared analysis form the data set for this inquiry.

Table 2. Overview of 10-week action research process.

Stage	Purpose & Activities
Planning & Reflection	Individual reflexivity on information provided to support development of shared agreement on research aims & approach (information included research rationale, summary of critical action research, mapping & dialogical approaches and expectations for respectful collaborative dialogue within focus groups).
Action	Focus Group – knowledge sharing (presentation; review of occupational therapy/occupational science research relevant to play and school-based practices) and dialogue which included introductions, sharing practice experiences and reasons for participation; developing shared agreement on study aims and approach; examining existing practices and key concepts -play, occupational justice, school-based practices.
Reflection	Individual reflexivity on focus group transcript which included informal analysis identifying points of interest in dialogue, additional resources (Research review of outdoor play in schools (Russell, 2021) and Play Wales/Play Scotland schoolyard play guidance) and reminder of research aims and next session.
Action	Second Focus Group – Dialogue on previous focus group and informal analysis to date; play on schoolyards as an issue of occupational justice, practice barriers & planning of mapping task.
Reflection	Individual reflexivity on focus group transcript which included informal analysis, written guidance on mapping task & additional resources (critical cartography research; OPAL video of schoolyard play project (with permission)).
Action & Reflection	Three participants engaged with mapping children’s play in school and community spaces and creating a visual representation.
Action	Third Focus Group – Dialogue on previous focus group and informal analysis to date; mapping experiences including the process; play as an issue of occupational justice, and practice possibilities.
Reflection	Individual reflexivity on transcript which included informal analysis & resources (occupational science & occupational therapy research relevant to school-based, play focused and justice focused praxis).
Action Planning	Fourth Focus Group – Dialogue with a focus on constructing shared agreement on the analysis to date specifically on the research process, existing practices and practice possibilities generated including future involvement and commitments.
Reflection	Formal analysis – Three themes constructed shared with all participants inviting further individual reflexivity and feedback. Final written paper shared with participants inviting feedback.

A presentation on occupational therapy research relevant to play practices in schoolyards and the Irish context was completed and prompt reflexive questions were provided prior to the first focus group informed by existing research and the inquiry aims. In subsequent sessions the content was led primarily by participants dialogue together. Prior to each focus group, prompted by the dialogical session, information on the next sessions aims, articles, website/resource links, and video extracts were shared via e-mail as outlined in Table 2 to support individual reflexivity and action processes.

Data gathering and informal analysis occurred simultaneously as outlined in Table 2 iteratively informing each stage of the action research process towards completion of a final formal data analysis [41, 47, 49]. Focus group interviews were transcribed, and an informal analysis was completed by the first author highlighting references to play, practices, (in)justices, inclusion, contextual factors, and any surprising/alternative ideas. Anonymised transcriptions and informal analysis summaries were sent to participants between focus groups, and they further reflected on the issues raised particularly within their practices in school settings. A review of the informal analysis and shared meanings constructed was completed at the beginning of each focus group. E-mail feedback between focus groups was incorporated into the informal analysis process and included questions regarding the occupational mapping task, the benefits of engaging in the inquiry, and suggestions for future actions. The final focus group involved shared reflexivity and dialogue on the overall informal analysis including the research aims and processes.

A formal structured analysis was completed on all four focus group transcripts which were uploaded to NVIVO software for separate sequential line by line coding. The initial codes were transferred to an MS word table for further analysis alongside the informal analysis and using concepts from the theory of practice architectures [44, 46]. Initial themes constructed were reviewed by the research team in relation to the inquiry aims and transcript data which shed light on interrelationships between the themes and the research process. A final draft of the three themes constructed was forwarded to participants inviting further reflexive feedback. Two participants provided feedback affirming the analysis and sharing examples of continued commitments to transformative practices.

Results

The results presented are a final analysis of the knowledges generated with a focus on participants shared constructions of existing practices and practice possibilities in Irish schoolyards. The themes are interrelated, and an important dimension was how the themes reflected different stages of the research process and are presented as (1) Existing practices as situated (2) (Re) mattering play and practices as occupations (3) Practice possibilities – ‘Finding the play’ between responsiveness and responsibilities.

Existing practices as situated

This theme focuses on constructions of existing practices as situated, with tensions between habitual ways of practicing, perceived expectations, and practice ideals.

Despite significant changes to service delivery with a shift towards strengths-based, family-centred, inclusive approaches, participants experienced contrasting and often contradictory practice expectations within Irish service and societal contexts. Expectations were experienced as mediated through referrals that reflected and reproduced participants identities, as professionals concerned with remediating individual children’s performance skill difficulties rather than barriers to participation. As Fiachna reflected ‘it’s the nature of being an OT that we get asked when there’s a difficulty’. Intentions to widen their scope of practice required ongoing negotiation and compromise with experiences of limited consultation and resistances to attempts to move beyond what was perceived as the constraining influence of referrals.

Play in schoolyards was not an aspect of existing practices given that as Níamh described ‘I don’t think I’ve ever been asked in a referral around inclusive either play or inclusion in the playground’. This was relevant also for participants employed in school-based services despite greater perceived capacities to ‘push back’ against deficit-focused referrals and offer whole-school interventions. Given children’s ‘sensory needs’ were the primary reason for referral, a point of discussion was how schools reluctance to make changes within schoolyards contrasted with as Sadbh described ‘how they’’ll go and spend thousands on this SI (Sensory Integration) room that’s a very specific type of work from a therapeutic point of view’. Overall, existing practices were represented as in tension with practice ideals as articulated in Siofra’s explanation of practices as ‘very different from the work that we actually intend to do’.

Constructions of the situated nature of existing occupational therapy practices also brought to the fore participants tacit knowledges of the Irish context. This included wider factors such as litigation challenges, differing resources between schools and also culturally specific occupations, for example as Fiachna explains that ‘you can play hurling (Irish national sport) in the rain and you’re OK, but you can’t play other things’. The habitual reproduction of practices thus extended beyond occupational therapy, to certain ‘ways’ of playing within the Irish context that were represented as accepted norms.

Everything just becomes habitual and then nothing changes because everyone was like, oh, that’s the way it’s always done, and this is this is how the playground is (Sadbh).

Inclusion discourses within schools were also problematised. Collective dialogue highlighted differing understandings on the meaning of inclusion in schools to the point where participants represented the word as ‘exhausted’. Participants articulated frustrations with how schools conflated simply being in schoolyards with being included and having equitable opportunities to participate while continuing to normalise certain ways of being and doing that perpetuated exclusion. As Eithne’s ironic statement reflects,

Oh, we’re including all the children from the autistic class because they’re in the yard, but they’re absolutely traumatized because it’s just overwhelming. But ‘we’re including’ – (Eithne).

Occupational therapy interventions in schools were represented as more focused on promoting an acceptance of diverse preferences, needs, and wants, for example, participants described adapting a P.E game to use soft foam balls and advocating for a child to remain in the classroom during lunchtime. However, participants acknowledged the need to also interrogate the meaning of inclusion within their own practices. This was discussed in relation to practices that focused on remediating children’s skills to ‘fit in’ and also how providing ‘fun’ interventions with one child held the potential to further contribute to their separateness from peers. Normative ideas on inclusion alongside the positioning of occupational therapists as disability-focused professionals were represented as constitutive with the ongoing reproduction of deficit-focused practices despite intentions to focus on ideas of acceptance and participation outcomes.

In terms of impact for practice. How often do we sort of almost forget some of these bits, we’re so focused on, you know, what the referral question is and…that’s been something that I suppose that’s been triggered a little bit for me (Fiachna).

(Re) mattering play and practices as occupations

This theme constructs knowledges on participants experience of this action research inquiry as raising consciousness on the barriers and inequitable opportunities to children’s play on schoolyards constructing understandings of play as an issue of occupational justice.

Refocusing on play as occupation was a central dimension of this process, supporting a reconnection according to participants with their practice ideals and values on participation. Experiences of engaging with or at least witnessing children’s play during the research process was perceived as increasing participants consciousness of the significance of play to children’s health, learning and social lives and furthermore what children are ‘losing by not doing it’ (Caoimhe). Mapping play situations was identified as a particularly useful tool in disrupting the boundaries of perceived practice expectations and reaffirming the centrality of occupation to practices. As Fiachna’s example shows, this also produced new realisations on the importance of attending to children’s experiences of play and on how normative assumptions on play held by adults created barriers to play opportunities.

And the only joy that I saw with the little guy and of course yes, I get it. Yes, he was tearing back the Astroturf. Yes, he was picking up worms and insects, but it actually was his play and what he was interested in. So you know, but it didn’t follow anyone else’s rules and he had broken loads of the school rules.

In shifting focus to how play happened within schoolyards, participants therefore described an increased awareness of how play opportunities interrelated with both spatial material arrangements and social discursive arrangements. Participants highlighted particularly the diverse barriers to children’s play opportunities on Irish schoolyards including the crowded spaces children were restricted to; rules to not run, climb or go on the grass; the absence of planning for wet days; the lack of play options with schoolyards affording mostly opportunities for ball play which according to participants reinforced gendered inequities given their experiences of boys play preferences.

And the one thing that struck me so much, which I’ve never really noticed before was just that how much it, well in that particular mapping how much the boys were dominating the space (Niamh).

Shared dialogue supported deeper interrogation of the interrelationships between restrictions to play opportunities in schoolyards and greater consequences for certain children. An important knowledge constructed using the concept of occupational justice was on how neglecting the barriers to children’s play in Irish schoolyards perpetuated inequities by attributing challenges within play to the child’s lack of skills.

They’re not running. That has such consequences for kids, particularly those that have high vestibular needs like you know, so like they’re the kids that are going to get the incident reports later in the day (Niamh).

Participants highlighted how this often paradoxically resulted in referrals to occupational therapy to address a child’s perceived sensory and social skill difficulties rather than restrictions on their play opportunities. The process not only as Níamh described challenged participants ‘narratives around play’, but ‘makes me think about why have, I done things the way I’ve done them as a therapist’ and emphasised again how deficit focused practices interrelate with injustices. Participants dialogued on what they experienced as a predominant neglect of particularly intersecting issue of bullying and exclusion within occupational therapy despite their experiences of children ‘surviving’ schoolyards, being relentlessly bullied, or ignored. In attempting to understand the complexities of negotiating individual and collective best interests, greater attention to the processes of play supported participants with extending beyond children’s individual skills, towards ‘the bits between the structures that were happening’ (Saoirse). This understanding suggests a potential contribution of occupational justice theorising in generating practice knowledges that can extend to addressing substantive barriers to children’s play. The usefulness of the concept was however perceived as constrained, by ‘how well understood it would be outside the context of occupational therapy’ (Saoirse).

The action research process supported occupational therapists own constructions of occupational justice as requiring consideration of all children’s equitable opportunities to play in schoolyards yet inherently situated in diverse contexts and relationships. Participants explained that in (re)mattering play as occupation, as occupational therapists their concern would be with how children play and what barriers exist in their schoolyard with a focus on promoting as Sadbh explained, ‘an acceptance of different ways of how children are playing and providing a space for them to be able to do that’. Re(mattering) play as situated within specific schoolyard contexts unsettled understandings of practices as applying existing knowledges, extending to approaching children’s play with curiosity and a desire to find out more.

Would we see different roles being taken on by different children? Would we see different children play with different children, you know, would things change, change together? (Sadbh)

Practice possibilities – ‘finding the play’ between responsiveness and responsibilities

This theme focuses on shared constructions of practice possibilities as generative social processes of ‘finding the play’, that is the spaces/times/relationships in or through which occupational therapy can address play as an issue of occupational justice. In constructing practice possibilities, participants considered existing research, theoretical concepts, practice experiences and the knowledges constructed throughout the action research process.

Raising consciousness on children’s play in schoolyards, at a national level was represented initially as most necessary highlighting relationships of power to conditions of possibility.

I think we’re going to go around in circles because we might be able to influence people per school, but I think nationally, I think. It needs to be a bigger project (Caoimhe).

Practice possibilities would require according to participants extending on existing clinical skills to recruit advocacy, change management and negotiation skills. However, the importance of forging relationships with stakeholders in government and management positions that held power both also cared was considered a lynchpin often outside participants ‘sphere of influence’ (Caoimhe). Similar practice possibilities were described as relevant at the whole school level where developing relationships with stakeholders of influence remained to the fore as Níamh explained:

You can’t actually affect any change within a school setting without having your principal on board with it… Not just the staff who will make it happen maybe on the ground when it is implemented but actually, who holds the purse strings.

However, constructing understandings of occupational therapy and school practices as interrelated with diverse arrangements prompted reconsideration of change as outside occupational therapists’ sphere of influence. Participants highlighted the complex interrelationships between wider educational policies and everyday school practices, for example, school guidelines, staff relationships and the pragmatics of organising schoolyard supervision; teachers limited interest in play in schoolyards and its absence within school policies; parents’ expectations and an overall curriculum that as Caoimhe explained doesn’t ‘equate play in the yard as teaching and learning and how beneficial that actually is’. Practice possibilities shifted from prioritising only policy change to understanding how schools were or were not considering play or as Sadbh articulated ‘maximising on opportunities’.

Similarly, while existing research recommendations on creating move diverse inclusive play friendly schoolyards offered useful points of departure, there was a need to consider these in relation to the contexts in which Irish schools operated. For example, harnessing the whole school evaluation mechanism that required schools to identify needs and develop plans accordingly or advocating for change during new builds and school renovation projects which were perceived as offering ‘a prime opportunity to ensure those things were done’ (Caoimhe). Knowledges generated on how each specific school was constitutive with practice possibilities shed light on the risks of adopting positions of advocacy based on assumptions of need. Participants shared how schools represented as disadvantaged were often in their experiences most resourced and receptive to alternative practices, As Saoirse shared,

They’ll have the different areas set up, they’ll have the Lego out and the picnic benches for the kids that kind of just want to sit and do their own thing the low-level stuff. And then they’ll have their balls and basketball games or whatever going on.

Teachers were identified as the most important influence on play within schoolyards, however participants experiences were as Sadbh reflects of teachers as ‘not involved in play at all in the yard, just supervisors… what’s missing is the adult piece, adults as playmakers’. Participants experiences of raising their own consciousness on play was evident in participants constructions of practice possibilities to create spaces for dialogue with teachers on how play was provided for; their practices; and the differing challenges, perspectives, and relationships relevant to play in schoolyards in their specific context. However, participants also described the potential to recruit school-based occupation focused approaches particularly to support schools with reframing their approach to play. As Saoirse explained, risk benefit tools could facilitate dialogue on ‘that balance of risk with your responsibilities, what does safety actually mean? .is it the short term or long term, actually thinking through the consequences of the decisions’. Participants also highlighted particularly their capacities to analyse occupations and evaluate the socio-spatial influences on play; their knowledge of universal and inclusive design frameworks, coaching and neuro-affirmative approaches.

Initially participants positioned occupational therapists’ as important advocates for children’s play opportunities based on assumptions that certain children ‘don’t have that resourcefulness maybe within them’ (Eithne). However, in constructing practice possibilities, participants emphasised as relevant the knowledges constructed on how children’s play was often in conflict with how adults wanted children to play and on the consequences of deficit-focused practices. Individual practices risked situating the problem as an individual’s child difficulty rather than as interrelated with diverse contextual and often inequitable arrangements.

Resourcefulness of children whether they’re in the most amazingly afforded environment or like bare bricks and fences, they find something to do that meets the need for them in some way, shape or form, whether it’s appropriate or not from an adult perspective, is another question (Sadbh).

Refocusing on creating conditions for children to play what they valued, would require more strengths focused approaches and the inclusion of children also in examining the barriers to existing conditions of possibility for play. In considering existing strengths rather than needs participants also drew on positive experiences of whole school interventions including co-designing initiatives with communities and parents; sharing positive practices between schools; and supervising occupational therapy students in supporting change processes centring children’s perspectives of play. Practice possibilities as generative and co-constructed unsettled ideas of responsiveness, as Fiachra explained ‘Obviously I can’t deny what the referrals are that come in, but I can probably think differently about my response’. Further dialoguing on justice focused practices identified responsibilities to raise consciousness on the inequitable consequences of barriers to play and issues of bullying and exclusion. Occupational therapy’s unique focus was however emphasised as on ‘what occupations go on there, even beyond play’ (Sadbh).

Overall practice possibilities were represented as unrealised potentials existing within schools. Practice possibilities were thus constructed as situated processes in relationships of solidarity with children, teachers, and communities that lead to shared understandings of existing social practices (including occupational therapy), make visible strengths and inequities, and co-construct alternative collective ways of doing within schoolyards.

Discussion

This critical action research inquiry using dialogical focus group and occupational mapping methods co-constructed knowledges on existing occupational therapy practices in Irish schoolyards and transformative practice possibilities. The themes emphasise three important dimensions. Firstly, examining occupational therapy practices as socially situated, generated understandings of how habitual practices were reproduced despite being in tension with practice ideals. Secondly, (re)mattering both play, and occupational therapy as practices raised consciousness on the inequitable consequences of barriers to play in Irish schoolyards, as an issue of occupational justice. Finally, occupational therapy practice possibilities were constructed as collaborative generative ethically responsible processes of ‘finding the play’. Occupational therapy practices as processes of ‘finding the play’ are focused on transforming the practices and interrelated arrangements that sustain inequities towards reconstructing alternative ways of playing and practicing within shared schoolyards. While focused on the first phase of critical action research, the inquiry process represented an enactment of the potential mechanisms proposed for occupational therapy practices. Given the critical intentions of this inquiry and calls to move beyond polarised debates categorising practices as outcome focused or emergent [25, 33] this discussion concentrates on these potential mechanisms, these practice possibilities, in relation to school-based practices concerned with play as an issue of occupational justice in the Irish context.

In attempting to generate practice possibilities, this critical action research inquiry inhabited the intersections between research, theory, and practice. While reflexivity is identified as a necessary step in praxis [54], participants associated dialogue and mapping as most useful within this inquiry. As Albuquerque and Farias [41] similarly demonstrated, dialogue supported participants with connecting individual reflections and experiences with the concept of occupational justice and extending to construct new shared knowledges relevant to the context. This process reflects conceptualisations of theorising which according to Ramugondo [33] is essential to progress occupational justice. The active process of (re)mattering occupations was also central to constructing understandings of what constitutes (in)justice within Irish schoolyards. Aligning with research on mapping as effective in examining the situatedness of occupations [52] mapping and wit(h)nessing how children’s play happened and what was made possible or closed down within the schoolyard highlighted barriers to all children’s play, such as limited spaces and restrictive rules prioritising safety. However, it was in moving to interrogate how certain ways of play were represented as more ideal than others that made visible the inequitable consequences of barriers for certain children. Addressing the causes and consequences of inequities is identified as necessary in critiques of the performative use of concepts particularly occupational justice [33, 35, 36]. Practice possibilities constructed thus drew on the combination of methods used in this inquiry process as potential mechanisms for raising consciousness with children, teachers, and communities on creating equitable conditions for play in schoolyards. However importantly, raising consciousness was identified as equally relevant for occupational therapists.

The theory of practice architectures offered a useful analytical framework to interrogate existing occupational therapy practices. Using this theoretical lens, the inquiry highlighted tensions between practice traditions and practice ideals and furthermore the centrality of practices (what therapists do), in the (re)production of social worlds [44, 46]. In considering the diverse sites of practice from which occupational therapists work with schools in an Irish context, the inquiry shed light on interrelationships between practices, service structures with differing foci, discourses of disability focused professionals and practice possibilities. Examining how existing practices create practice traditions [46] raised consciousness on how responding to the constraining arrangements of referrals and ‘doing’ deficit focused practices reinforced professional identities as disability experts that constrained alternative possibilities. Most importantly, by shedding light on how ‘responsive’ practices interrelate with normative ideas contributing to the (re)production of social constraints to children’s equitable play opportunities in schoolyards, this inquiry supports a shift from deficit-focused school-based practices.

In further interrogating normative ideas of inclusion as ‘fitting in’, the individualising of problems and limited attention to issues of bullying and intersectional exclusions, this inquiry resonates with critical scholarship including critiques of Irish inclusive educational policy [16, 17, 24, 35]. While the emerging Irish school-based occupational therapy service adopts an occupational justice agenda and tiered approach to prioritise participation and inclusion for all children [2, 7], this inquiry thus highlights the potential risks of being situated within inclusive education policy structures [55]. As Chester et al. [43] have suggested, professional codes which in an Irish context align with an occupational justice agenda [56], can be harnessed to enact what Sonday et al. [54] have conceptualised as professional role transgressions to move beyond certain practice traditions and enact alternative practice possibilities. Moreover, this inquiry’s focus on practices as socially situated highlights how societal, service, and diverse local school practices (children’s, teachers, occupational therapists, principals, families) interrelate to (re)produce certain arrangements and conditions of possibility for equitable opportunities to play on schoolyards. Reflecting the flat ontology proposed by the theory of practice architectures, understanding practices as both localised and culturally shared [44] unsettles as Bueger and Gadinger.[57] articulate the social and strategic constructions of micro-meso-macro or local and global categorisations including ‘at risk’ categories. Practices are then focused as Kemmis [44] proposes, on how ‘ecologies of practices’ work in particular sites and for whom. Shifting to constructions of occupational therapy practices as socially embedded offers an alternative lens to consider levels of school-based interventions [10] that resonates with research on justice focused practices and collective occupations [24, 33–40].

(Re)mattering play as occupation aligns with scholarship on the importance of focusing on how play happens and centering children’s diverse perspectives to identify and address the barriers to equitable play opportunities [19, 26–28]. However, dialoguing on how occupational therapy practices can contribute to acceptance, equitable opportunities, and occupational justice within shared spaces resonates particularly with research on play using relational and collective concepts [24, 28, 33–35]. Constructing understandings of play as socially situated extends the focus on rights to how collectives do together, and as Sadbh describes to consider occupations ‘beyond play’ in the schoolyard. Moving beyond the individual child and occupation is relevant to the ongoing dilemma within inclusive education scholarship on how to negotiate individual and collective rights and responsibilities and the problematising of inclusion as ‘normalising’ [4, 17]. Conceptualisations of collective occupations and socially embedded practices emphasise the centrality of intentionality and the negotiation of a shared purpose on as Kemmis [44] articulates creating worlds worth living in. This inquiry thus proposes that refocusing on collective occupations may also contribute as advocated in recent research to the construction of democratic schools and ideas of education as learning to live in communities [4, 39].

Practice possibilities as ‘finding the play’ recognises as Bonjte et al. [58] suggest concepts of potentiality in understanding occupational therapy practices as negotiated and emergent rather than fixed ten-step plans. Practice possibilities proposed, move to create spaces that centre reciprocity as increasingly advocated within occupational science [33, 36, 48, 59] to raise consciousness on collective practices. As occupational therapists in this inquiry emphasised, while ‘finding the play’ can harness existing skills and tools such as risk reframing, coaching and inclusive design approaches, the focus is on (re)mattering occupations. Raising consciousness on how existing ways of playing interrelate with diverse enabling and constraining arrangements on the schoolyard can importantly support the identification of occupational injustices. Examining how issues such as bullying, racism and exclusion interrelate within play will undoubtedly expose inequities, however greater attention to these substantive social issues is crucial to advancing justice focused practices [33–40]. Highlighting the importance of sharing and extending on positive examples of creating equitable play opportunities within schools also resonates with occupational justice scholarships focus on strengthening collectives’ inherent capabilities [40, 59] and as Ramugondo [33] suggests making visible ‘acts of resistance already in existence’ [p 492]. Focusing on co-constructing understandings of existing collective occupations in schoolyards affirms as Pentland et al. [25] reminds the central occupational therapy assumption that occupation holds transformative possibilities and that reconstructing alternative ways can create healthier, more equitable worlds worth living in for all.

Methodological considerations

This inquiry constructed knowledges with a small group of occupational therapists from diverse practice sites within an Irish context, who given the expectation to engage in group dialogue and commit to transformative practices, importantly held an interest in play in schoolyards. Nevertheless, it is important to reemphasize that the inquiry was not focused on generalisability but rather possibilities for ‘better’ practices in participants specific contexts. The theoretical congruence with the methods chosen as necessary in contributing to trustworthiness has been discussed as have the benefits of the theoretical lens and methods chosen. Sharing the focus group transcripts with participants to support engagement in iterative informal analysis aligned with a critical action research design towards co-constructing knowledges. Analysis of the initial interpretations by the entire research team further supported critical reflexivity processes highlighting potential assumptions, points of resonance and differences. The challenges completing the mapping task for three participants due to time constraints and limited practice opportunities was a limitation.

Implications for occupational therapy

• Occupational therapists can use the theory of practice architectures and theorising on occupational justice praxis to examine and disrupt existing deficit focused practices in schools.

• Using situational mapping to observe how play happens (with)in schoolyards can support occupation focused practices. Extending to consider collective occupations provides an alternative lens to examine how diverse enabling and constraining arrangements interrelate with socially embedded practices and all children’s equitable opportunities to participate in schoolyards and other shared spaces (with)in schools.

• Combining situational mapping with dialogical approaches provides a potential mechanism of raising consciousness with teachers, children, and communities on how collective occupations create conditions of possibility for occupational (in)justice.

• Further research using the second phase of critical action research is recommended to explore the implementation of practice possibilities generated.

Acknowledgements

The authors sincerely want to thank the participants for their shared time and insights.

Disclosure statement

This article refers to the fourth study of the PhD-project of the first author. Herewith the authors of this article vouch for the accuracy of the manuscript according to the guidelines given by the Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy. The material or parts of the material have not been published elsewhere.

Additional information

Funding

This project has received funding from the European Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Sklowdowska-Curie grant agreement No: 861257.