1 Introduction

Play is ubiquitous among children around the world. However, this does not mean that play is a uniform and unvaried activity. Children build a new childhood, their understanding, and peer culture in connection with the cultural elements and contexts in which they live (Göncü and Gaskins 2007). Considering that play is a social activity, it reflects the symbolic and institutional processes of society (Vygotsky, 1978). Cultural beliefs and practices can lead to the emergence of differing forms and meanings of play (Roopnarine, 2012). For a long time however, play has been examined through the lens of children with privileged backgrounds mostly living in White, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant-Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich And Democratic (WASP-WEIRD) countries, without seriously considering the cultural diversity which exists throughout the world. This tendency has led to the impression that children living in different cultural contexts of low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are devoid of play as considered in the Western sense. However, the real issue that needs examination is how play differs among cultures based on the beliefs, values, and practices of the society in which the children live (Gaskins et al., 2007). For this reason, it is imperative that researchers examine the play of children living in different cultural contexts rather than primarily focusing on the play of children in WEIRD countries. As a result, this study fills an important gap regarding the understanding of children's play within a Turkish sample of low-income and socially disadvantaged families, which has often been overlooked within the literature.

Importantly, adverse social and economic contexts, deprived environmental conditions, and/or any other particular reason does not prevent children from playing (Roopnarine, 2012). For example, Roma children are possibly the most economically disadvantaged children throughout Europe. However, when we look at the play of these children, we see that contrary to their deprivation and adverse living conditions, these children experience the freedom provided through the unique characteristics of their culture as well as that the play of these children is very rich in terms of imagination and creativity (Brown, 2012). This shows that children from LMICs, rather than being deprived of play, instead adapt to the limitations and circumstances of the culture in which they live and in doing so reconstruct play through their rich imagination and creativity (Holmes, 2013). Thus, it has been revealed in past studies how cultural elements and limited economic conditions within differing contexts are reflected through children’s play. For example, Parakana children in Brazil share the responsibilities of their parents within their daily lives, and these responsibilities in turn form the backbone of their play. Kitchen chores, baby care, using a bow and arrow are not only a part of daily life but also of the children’s play (Gosso et al., 2014). Children of low-income families living in Turkey, on the other hand, cannot often go to amusement parks or buy expensive toys due to their poor socioeconomic conditions. However, these children often make their own toys using inexpensive materials such as rope, balls, twigs, and stones as well as play freely with their self-constructed materials in front of their homes, within their yards, and/or on the neighborhood streets (Bay & Bay, 2019; Cevher Kalburan, 2014; Özden Gürbüz, 2016; Ahioğlu-Lindberg, 2012; Tuğrul et al., 2014). With an increase in the number of studies conducted with children living outside Western society, we are better able to understand the play experiences of children living in non-Western diverse socio-cultural contexts, which in effect represents a significant portion of the world. Thus, in the current study, an attempt was made to shed light on Turkey, a country in LMICs category, where people from various ethnic backgrounds migrate to the country’s larger cities for economic, political, and social reasons. Even though a majority of the population in Turkey live within cities, people continue to maintain their ties with the countryside and rural life. Many people living in larger cities have migrated there due to unemployment, the political atmosphere, blood feuds, and/or the desire to have better living conditions, yet they continue to spend their weekends or holidays in the countryside and often obtain foods from the rural villages such as grain, olives, and olive oil. A majority of families live at a low-income level, either earning minimum wage or working as day laborers where they do not have job security. As of 2019, the rate of those working in Turkey at or below the minimum wage was around 42%, while the rate of those working at or around the minimum wage was 65% (Çelik, 2019). In these families, men generally work outside the home, while very few women help their spouses through outside work and instead normally fulfill the responsibilities of the home and childcare. There are some provinces within Turkey which receive high rates of internal migration due to increased employment opportunities. Mersin province, where this study was conducted, is an area which receives high levels of immigration due to the provincial capital city of Mersin being one of the largest port cities within Turkey. In particular, families from the eastern and southeastern provinces of Turkey tend to live in inner-city slums.

When studies on play are examined, numerous studies can be found regarding the importance of play, its effect on children’s development, and its place within education (Bulunuz, 2013; Durualp & Aral, 2010; Goble, 2010; Guirguis, 2018; Jean Lux, 2012; Malmberg et al., 2011; Petrovska et al., 2013; Thibodeau et al., 2016). However, instead of understanding that children from different cultures and contexts play in different ways, for a long time, a limited perception of play has prevailed as a result of predominantly focusing on the play of highly educated Euro-American children (Gaskins et al., 2007). Recently, play has begun to be understood as an activity that cannot be examined without taking the social and cultural contexts into consideration. This has led researchers to study children’s play in diverse contexts as well as to give priority to conducting studies in different cultures (Brown, 2012; Holmes, 2013; Jirata, 2019; Jirata & Kjørholt, 2015; Wong et al., 2011; Wu, 2015). Still, more research with disadvantaged children living in diverse sociocultural contexts is necessary to better determine how cultural characteristics (beliefs, values, cultural practices, and goals) and contexts influence children’s experiences and perceptions of play. Thus, the focus of this current study was to examine children’s play through the play experiences of low-income children living in families from diverse cultural backgrounds and disadvantaged contexts, a group which is often ignored in research.

2 Method

We used the phenomenological approach to examine the play experiences and perceptions of children from diverse sociocultural backgrounds: Kurdish-speaking inner-city children living in poverty, Turkish-speaking inner-city children living in poverty, and Turkish-speaking village children. Importantly, phenomenology is used to focus on how individuals perceive phenomena, how they describe it, how they feel about it, how they judge it, how they remember it, how they make sense of it, and how they talk about it with others (Patton, 2014). Additionally, the aim of phenomenology is to reach the essence of participants' experiences regarding the studied phenomenon (Creswell, 2014). In the interviews held for this purpose, opening questions were used to allow the interview to be deepened in line with the research purpose. Like 'why' 'what else'. Thus, it was possible to give examples and detail the subject in order to determine how the children made meaning while their opinions were taken. In order to ensure that the children reflect the essence of their experiences, they chatted together in a room with parents and siblings, and refreshments were accepted before the interview in order to make them feel comfortable.

2.1 Participants

In this study, the participant group consisted of 18 children (5- to 6-year-old) who were living in three disadvantaged socioeconomic and cultural contexts. There are multiple reasons for working with the participants in this age range. First, at the age of 5- to 6-year-old, children begin to have an understanding similar to adults in domains such as grammar, syntax, vocabulary, phrases, meaning and pronunciation. Children at this age range can have complex and face-to-face conversations and their attention span allows them to stay focused throughout the interview (Bredekamp, 2017; Kostelnik et al., 2019). Younger children are constantly monitered by adults and relatively have limited opportunities to play independently with their choice of playmates and playgrounds. In addition, at the age of 5- or 6 children transition from kindergarten to elementary education. Therefore, there can be many factors (such as early academic anxiety) that can affect children's perceptions of play in the context they live in. The first group was made up of Kurdish-speaking inner-city children (3 girls and 3 boys) living in poverty, the second group were Turkish-speaking inner-city children (3 girls and 3 boys) living in poverty, and the third group were Turkish-speaking village children (3 girls and 3 boys) living in a rural environment. The children were recruited through criterion sampling, which is a purposive sampling method. The context in which these children lived (inner-city or rural), the socioeconomic conditions of their families (low-income families), their ethnicity (Turkish or Kurdish) and gender were the main criteria of the sampling process. An equal number of children of both genders were included within each sub-sample group. Thus, nine participant children were girls and nine were boys. Among the participants, 67% were Turkish and 33% were Kurdish. Ten of the children were attending first grade, seven attending preschool, and one child was not enrolled in school. All of the children were living in neighborhoods with limited opportunities, and which were awaiting urban transformation. They were also from households with family incomes below the poverty line as calculated by the Research Center of Confederations of Progressive Trade Unions of Turkey (DİSK-AR) according to the Turkish Statistical Institute's item prices and household consumption survey and the DİSK-AR nutrition pattern (DISK-AR, 2014). Income relative to need within the sample (monthly income divided by the poverty threshold) had a mean of 0.32 and a median of 0.23, indicating that all the participants were living below the poverty level which was represented by an average monthly income of TRY1283 per month. Among the sample, 56% were below 23% of the poverty level (TRY950 per month), while 44% of the sample were below 42% of the poverty level (TRY1700 per month). Additionally, 83% of the mothers and 78% of the fathers reported their highest level of education as equivalent or less than the primary school level. Furthermore, 89% of the mothers were not in the labor force and were instead stay-at-home mothers. A majority of the children, 72%, lived in a one bedroom or two-bedroom home and 56% of the children had three or more siblings within the household. Detailed information regarding each group of children included in the study sample is presented in the following sections.

Kurdish-Speaking Inner-City Children

Kurdish-speaking inner-city children generally consist of families settled in neighborhoods along with families with similar subculture characteristics. These families arrived in Mersin, Turkey through internal migration from the eastern provinces of the country, and in most cases migrated for economic and social reasons (Ozbay, 2021). Participant children’s families preferred to settle in neighborhoods with other Kurdish families who had also come to the city through internal migration. In general, after one of the family members immigrates to the city, other family members follow a similar process due to economic and/or social problems. For this reason, within a same community, several relatives may live close to one other. Some adults in these families, especially women, speak little to no Turkish because they normally do not work outside the home. While some families lived together in an extended family (especially with grandparents) within the same household due to both the responsibility of taking care of elderly family members as well as economic concerns. These families often lived in one or two-story older worn-down buildings, normally with a courtyard, lined up along a narrow street with very little traffic present. In most cases, the fathers were the only source of income in these families. Additionally, a majority of the fathers worked in the service sector and another portion worked as unskilled tradesmen. In the homes, members of the family spoke Kurdish among themselves, and all of the mothers were unemployed.

Turkish-Speaking Inner-City Children

The Turkish-speaking inner-city children usually lived in inner-city slum communities with neighbors from similar ethno-cultural backgrounds as well as migrated from various provinces or from the same province within the countryside. These children were from families that predominantly migrated to Mersin from the central Anatolian region of Turkey due in most cases for economic reasons (Çatalbaş & Yarar, 2015). They lived in houses similar to those of the Kurdish-speaking inner-city children and the families’ income sources were generally from work in low paying service sector jobs or in small shops. The only source of income for these families was normally from the fathers. Whereas none of the mothers in this group worked outside the home, with the exception of one mother who helped her husband operate a local shop.

Turkish-Speaking Village Children

The Turkish-speaking village children lived in close proximity to their relatives within their community. In the village setting, the houses where the children lived were surrounded by large land reserves used for agriculture. Traffic in the village was almost non-existent and the transportation to-and-from the village was provided by minibuses which visited the village two to three times per day at specified times. The village families were from nomadic cultural backgrounds, called Yörük, but at the time of this study, all of the participating families had settled down. The livelihoods of these families came from agricultural farming, animal husbandry, poultry farming, and repair work. The women in these families did not have any income-generating occupations other than gardening.

2.2 Procedure

Interviews were conducted with the participating children through visits to their families. The interviews were completed with a total of 18 children, six from each of the three identified participant groups which were part of distinct sociocultural contexts. Prior to conducting these interviews, the parents and children were informed regarding the study, their role in it, and their rights as participants. Then informed consent was obtained from each of the families as well as the assent of the children. Additionally, before conducting interviews with the children, short conversations were held to put them at ease. Interviews were started only when the children started to communicate, tended to be open about talking, and were ready for the interview. Also, the interviews were held in a place preferred by the child. During each interview, care was taken to provide an environment where there was no parent or anyone else involved, and where the children could comfortably answer the questions without hesitation. The interviews lasted approximately 13 min, and were generally held within the child's home, in a room preferred by the children, and rarely took place at school.

2.3 Measures

The data were obtained through a demographic information form and a semi-structured interview guide, constructed by the researchers. After the researchers prepared the semi-structured interview questions, they were submitted for expert panel review. Any necessary amendments were made to the interview questions in accordance with the opinions of experts. After that, a pilot study was conducted with six children. Following the pilot study, the necessary arrangements were made, and the interview questions were finalized for data collection. During the collection and recording of data, a voice recorder was used, and photographs were taken with an open assent of the children and consent of their parents. We also obtained assents of children and consents of parents to publish the blurred photographs. Additionally, to communicate with the Kurdish-speaking inner-city children, we received assistance from two people from the same cultural background as the participants, who were fluent in both Kurdish and Turkish and acted as translators during the interviews. Furthermore, a translator was only used for one participant who could not understand or speak Turkish. Interview protocol consisted of five dimensions that generate different but complementary data that facilitate disclosure of perspectives and experiences of children about the play. These dimensions were play perception, parental involvement in play, play spaces, play material and playmates. Some examples of semi-structured interview questions are given below:

  • Do you think there are more important things than the play? If so, what? What makes those things more important than playing?

  • What do you play with the most? What else do you play with?

  • Where do you usually go to play?

  • Who do you play with?

  • What do you play?

  • Where do you think are the best places to play? Why?

2.4 Analyses

The interviews were first transcribed verbatim, and then all the transcripts were read while also considering the children’s sociocultural backgrounds. Content analysis was also conducted by developing and applying representative codes, which closely reflected the expressions used by the participants. Next, the initial codes were reviewed to create preliminary clusters of similar and related codes to reach broader emerging categories. The broader categories were then used to construct framework matrices which displayed each child’s words, quotes, and/or codes around each category of interest. Looking within and across the cases and categories, several overriding patterns and themes were extracted pertaining the children’s experiences and perceptions of play (Charmaz, 2006). More specifically, we used the open, axial, and selective coding strategy because it allows for a continuous data loop in which the researcher can interact, compare data, and use data reduction and consolidation methods (Williams & Moser, 2019). Thus, at each stage of the analysis, higher levels of abstraction were achieved which continued to fit the observed data (see Table 1 an example).

Table 1 Open, axial, and selective coding
Full size table

Since the reliability among independent coders is important in terms of increasing the objectivity of research, an expert coder who was a doctoral student was included as part of the process to ensure the reliability of the research coding. For example, transcripts from seven children (39% of the participants) were coded independently by two coders. Then, the independent coders were compared and the total number of agreements for the same transcript units and divided by all the applied codes. According to this formula, the rate of agreement between coders was calculated at 98%, which according to Silverman (2015) reflects a high level of coding reliability.

One of the participant children in our sample was not enrolled in school. Before moving on to more detailed analyses, we performed an in-depth examination of this child's transcript in terms of whether not attending school would make a difference in the pattern of activities this child performs. We concluded that the transcript of the child who was not enrolled in school was not different from the responses of children who attend school.

3 Results

Research findings about the children's experiences and perceptions regarding play are presented under headings according to the children’s perception of play, play spaces, play materials, and playmates. While quoting the children’s opinions expressed during the interviews, in addition to the children’s pseudonyms, their ages, gender, ethnicity, and social context were also provided in parentheses.

3.1 Children’s Perceptions of Play

When asked about play, the children described it by naming the games they played as well as by bringing to the fore the emotions they felt while playing. The games that the children mostly referred to were games such as hide-and-seek and tag, which the children could play relatively freely, especially outdoors, and with minimal adult intervention. A girl from the Turkish-speaking inner-city group (Ayşe, 6 y/o) defined play as: “You put a handkerchief on a tree. A child, who is the ‘it’, comes and tries to tag other children, by saying come out, come out wherever you are. But the other children try to run away and hide immediately.”

The expressions used by children while describing play closely reflected the characteristics and affordances of the contexts in which they lived. In this sense, a child living in the village defined play as: “I am helping my mother in the garden. I'm having fun. Playing. I bring loads of dirt here with a shovel” (Levent, 5 y/o, boy, Turkish-speaking village group). The perception of what children considered more important than play was not independent of the perspectives and priorities of their parents and teachers. Children tended to attribute similar importance to what their parents and teachers believed was of high importance. One of the children from the Turkish-speaking inner-city group seemed to be undecided regarding whether there was something that he considered more important than play: “No (there is nothing more important than play). Toys… Writing… Doing my homework… I hand over my homework to my teacher” (Pars, 5 y/o, boy) (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Mother and her Children in the Courtyard

Full size image

The children stated that they could not play whenever they wanted, but they were allowed to play after fulfilling some prerequisites and responsibilities. For example, the children were required to finish their homework before they were allowed to play. Especially the children in the first grade of primary school, expressed their parents' academic expectations as an obstacle for them freely playing outside. A child who was asked whether he could play whenever he wanted and as much as he wanted, explained the situation in the following way: “No, because our mother gets angry if we don't do our schoolwork.” (Cemil, 6 y/o, boy, Turkish-speaking village group). Cemil also explained that the responsibility of homework prevented him from playing as: “For example, I play here. If I have homework, my mother lets me to play only for one minute. The teacher gives us a lot of homework. First, I do my homework and then I wander around and play.”

Some types of play were restricted or prohibited by parents. When at home, the parents prohibited their children from playing games involving high activity levels. One child justified this prohibition as follows: “It is forbidden to scatter pillows, jump on pillows, spin the glasses, climb on the table. Because they break.” (Pars, 5 y/o boy, Turkish-speaking inner-city group).

Some children also explained that their parents forbade them to participate in certain types of games because they thought the games were gender specific. As an example of this, a girl from the Turkish-speaking inner-city group (Ayşe, 6 y/o) expressed her perception as: “I will not play soccer. My father said, ‘Don't play soccer, are you a boy?’" (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2
figure 2

A Child in a Village House

Full size image

Children believed that instead of letting them play freely, their parents preferred them to take more responsibility towards their domestic chores, not to play active/rough and tumble games, do their schoolwork, and take care of their younger siblings. One child involved with the responsibilities of her parents stated: “My mom wants me to play puzzles with my little brother. My mother says: “Daughter, I will go to bed, make sure you play with your siblings”, and when my father wants to continue to sleep in the morning tells me to take my siblings and play with them somewhere else (Nur, 5 y/o, girl, Turkish-speaking village group). Another child described his parents' satisfaction with him not causing any trouble as well as sitting still: “My parents like me more if I play very well. If I behave myself. If I really behave myself very much. Like this, that is, a child sitting in his place and does nothing seen as well behaved.” (Reşit, 6 y/o, boy, Turkish-speaking inner-city group) (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3
figure 3

A Child in the Village with her Siblings and Parents

Full size image

3.2 Children’s Play Spaces

Children's play spaces varied according to the opportunities and dangers present within the physical context in which they were living. For example, depending on the context in which the child was living, if the home had a garden and/or courtyard, the house front or the streets where there was no traffic became the primary spaces for the children to play. Given that playing at home was restricted or prohibited for many children from our sample, playing outdoors seemed to be more fun and satisfying for the participant children. One child expressed her choice of play space as follows: “I like to play outside more. I have fun outside. They (my parents) let me play in the courtyard.” (Şermin, 6 y/o, girl, Kurdish-speaking inner-city group). Another child's opinion regarding her preferred play space was as follows: “The best place to play is in the garden. Because there are flowers in the garden. You fall on the grass so fast while playing. And nothing happens. When you sit on the grass, everything is soft and not hard. It is beautiful.” (Sultan, 6 y/o, girl, Turkish-speaking inner-city group) (Fig. 4).

Fig. 4
figure 4

A Play Space in Inner-City: Courtyard

Full size image

Most of the participant children lived in low-income slums in single or two-story detached houses with a courtyard or garden that they shared with their neighbors. Since the traffic was sparse in the communities where the children lived, even if the children’s home did not have a courtyard, the children were still able to go outside for play when they wanted. However, because the parents did not allow children to play in the house as well as there not being a separate play room for children within the house were among some other factors that made it necessary for children to go outside for play. For example, one child (Jale, 5 y/o, girl, Kurdish-speaking inner-city group) explained the reasons for playing outside as: “I play outside. My sister kicks us out when we play at home. Because we're cluttering the room with toys." (Fig. 5).

Fig. 5
figure 5

A Play Space and Play Materials in the Village

Full size image

There were some outdoor areas where the children were not allowed to play. Parents prohibited their children from playing in areas where there was a risk of accident due to heavy traffic, and also did not allow the children to play in close proximity to places which posed safety hazards such as roof tops, water wells, irrigation channels, rivers, and/or lakes. Thus, to protect their children against possible dangers from strangers, especially parents of inner-city children, they prohibit their children from playing in places far away from home. A boy living in the village described his parents' ban on play spaces with these words: "Most of all, my parents don't allow me to play close to the creek. Because the ball could go down there, and I would run behind it." (Cemil, 6 y/o, boy, Turkish-speaking village group). While a boy from Turkish-speaking inner-city group (Pars, 5 y/o) described his playground ban by stating: “I want to play with other children, but my mom doesn't allow it. She says I go too far away.” (Fig. 6).

Fig. 6
figure 6

Play Space in the Village: Front Yard and the Garden

Full size image

3.3 Children’s Play Materials

While the children commented on the things they played with the most, their siblings and friends came first for the participants within the village. After that, the children revealed that the things they played with most in their games were natural materials such as stones, sand, wood chips, tree stumps, and tree branches. For example, one child (Levent, 5 y/o, boy, Turkish-speaking village group) described the materials he played with as: “I make a gun, I play guns. I don't play anything; I just take the sand.” Although children do not have the privilege to choose from a variety of toys, they did have a limited number of toys, yet thought those toys were sufficient. Tools and materials such as wheelbarrows, hoes, shovels, hoses, and sand that their families used in the village became play items for children. For example, a girl (Fulya, 6 y/o) within the village context expressed her experiences regarding the things she played most with as: “My father bought me toys in the past. But now my toys are all broken. I play with my friends or something. We have this chicken coop over there. I play there with my friend. I become a grocer and she comes to me and buys things” (Fig. 7).

Fig. 7
figure 7

A Play Material: A Tree Stump Dressed in Children’s Clothes

Full size image

Participants living in the inner-city seemed to have easier access to factory-made toys than the children living in the village. However, in this study, most of the families of the inner-city children struggled to buy toys for their children due to adverse socioeconomic conditions. One child described the impact of socioeconomic deprivation on buying toys: “I have baby dolls, that's enough for me. My father doesn't have much money." (Şermin, 6 y/o, girl, Kurdish-speaking inner-city group). The toys children had, were either handed down to them from an older sibling or given as an old toy donated by someone outside the family. Therefore, children in the Kurdish and Turkish-speaking inner-city groups, on average, had enough play materials to fill a small laundry bin compared to their peers living in the village (Fig. 8).

Fig. 8
figure 8

A Boy and his Toys in the Village

Full size image

The factory-made play materials that the children had were mostly balls, toy cars, Legos, and dolls. Also, gender-specific orientations were observed among the participants’ toys. For example, while toy cars and toy guns were the most common toys among boys, dolls were the most common toys among the girls. It was also observed that both the girls and boys played with Lego blocks at a similar amount. Additionally, although the children rarely participated in the selection of the toys purchased for them and that they have a limited number of toys, the children did appear to find the toys that they had as being sufficient. For example, one child stated: “I have a few toys. But it's enough. It doesn't need to be more than enough. Because if I buy more than necessary, I will get bored with my toys.” (Dila, 6 y/o, girl, Turkish-speaking inner-city group). Additionally, the inner-city children in our sample seemed to have found a variety of ways to diversify their play, depending on the community they lived in, they did so by jumping rope, playing with balls and stones on the streets, and by swinging on make-shift swings set up in the courtyard (Fig. 9).

Fig. 9
figure 9

A Play Material: A Make-Shift Swing Set Up in the Courtyard

Full size image

3.4 Children’s Playmates

During the interviews, the children stated that their parents did not play with them. The reason for this, as stated by the children, was that during the day their parents were busy and had a lot of work responsibilities. Children find it quite normal that their parents did not spend time playing with them. Some children even think that play is not for adults. For example, one girl (Ayşe, 6 y/o, Turkish-speaking inner-city group) expressed the reasons why her parents did not play with her as follows: “Neither of them (her parents) play with me. My mother has a lot to do. My mother does the cleaning. But we cook with my mother, we wash the dishes with my mother. He (her father) doesn’t play with me, because he is a man. Because he goes to work. Because he makes money.” However, when asked, most children found the idea of ​​playing with their parents interesting. A few children, who reported that their parents played with them, described their interactions with their parents, such as throwing the ball with them, shooting guns, and their parents holding the rope when children wanted to jump rope: “I play ball with my father. I pass the ball to my father, and he throws it back to me. I say ‘mommy, daddy can you hold the rope?’ Then they hold the rope for me.” (Nur, 6 y/o, girl, Turkish-speaking village group) (Fig. 10).

Fig. 10
figure 10

A Child and her Mother Doing Homework Together

Full size image

The children stated that they had several playmates from both the school and neighborhood, and as long as they completed their homework and the weather was permitting, they were allowed to play with their friends in the yard, around the neighborhood, within the courtyard, and/or on the street. Compared to their peers living in the city, children living in the village were relatively free to play with their friends whenever they wanted. While some of the inner-city children were not permitted to play outside whenever they were security problems within their communities or conflicts with their peers. One child explained that she could not play whenever she wanted as: “(Talking about her mother) She sometimes lets me play, sometimes doesn't. She says you will do your homework first, then you will play” (Ayşe, 6 y/o girl, Turkish-speaking inner-city group) (Fig. 11).

Fig. 11
figure 11

Play in the Neighborhood

Full size image

While most of the children living in the village stated that they did not have friends that their parents have forbade them to play with, the inner-city children did state that their parents have forbidden them to play with children they did not know or their peers who fought or misbehaved. For example, one child (Eren, 5 y/o, boy, Kurdish-speaking inner-city group) living in the inner-city expressed the restrictions imposed on him by his parents regarding his choice of playmates with the following words: “(My parents) do not allow me to play with foreign children. They only let me play with my friends here”. While children in the village reported that their parents did not interfere when they played with friends of the opposite gender, the inner-city children stated their parents did not let them to play with children of the opposite gender. When asked about the reasons why their parents did not let them to play with peers of the opposite gender, the girls usually explained that the boys were aggressive towards them and that they were two different genders. Similar to the girls, the boys stated that they could not play with girls because their genders were different. One child, (Şermin, 6 y/o, girl, Kurdish-speaking inner-city group) explained the reason why she was not allowed to play with the opposite gender as: “My mother does not allow me to play with boys. She says you are a girl, don't play with boys. Besides, I don't like boys. They are boys, and I am a girl”.

4 Discussion and Conclusions

In this study, the play experiences and perceptions of 18 children five to six-year-olds from three disadvantaged socioeconomic and cultural contexts were examined. As a result, it was observed that the experiences and perceptions of these children from low-income families regarding play, play materials, play space, and playmates were not independent of the context in which they lived, but were shaped, in part, by the perceived affordance of the context.

4.1 Children’s Perception of Play

According to one definition, play is a set of self-initiated activities in which children have the right to choose as well as own the play materials (Theobald et al., 2015). In this study, children defined play by listing the names of games they freely played outdoors. In their definitions, children used the expression "having fun" the most to describe play, and most frequently provided the examples of hide-and-seek and tag as their favorite games. Also, very few children used the word toy when discussing play. Thus, the children's perceptions of play were predominantly based on the games they played while interacting with their friends in the courtyard, in front of the door of their homes or within their neighborhood. Also, participating in the daily routines of adults, especially with their parents, was a type of play for children who were living in the village. As a result, children's perception of play was far from being based on store bought toys, which offered a limited and predetermined use-cycle. Instead, the participant children's perception of play tended to reflect their context-specific outdoor play spaces as well as the local games the children played within those spaces. As in the current study, the description of play among children from different parts of the world bear traces of the culture in which they live. For example, in a study conducted of the Chinese culture, children describe play as self-initiated fun and creative activities with intrinsic motivation (Wong et al., 2011). While in another study from the same culture, due to the effect of important cultural values within the society, respect and obedience, the Chinese children described play as cooking for their families. On the other hand, German children associated play with learning as well as described play as how to do somersaults and what to do during role play (Wu, 2015, 2019). Furthermore, studies on children's play in different cultures reveal that western middle-class families appear to be protective of their children playing outside with their peers due to a variety of risk factors associated with the outdoors. Thus, children are generally directed to spend time playing with their toys in their own room of the home. On the contrary, it has been determined that the children of low-income Turkish families allowed their children to play more freely with their friends in the outdoors, since city life in Eastern society was considered less dangerous. For this reason, for most of their playtime, the children played outside with their peers, and instead of using factory-made toys, they used real objects found within their environment for play materials (Göncü et al., 2007).

4.2 Play Time

Regarding play time, most of the children stated that they could not play any time they wanted. In this study, as in most of the world, it was seen that the academic concerns of the adults were reflected in the play time of children, which was especially true for those children attending primary school. For example, if the children’s homework has been completed, then they were allowed to spend the rest of their time playing. Similarly, in another study, if the children had not fulfilled their other responsibilities such as completing their homework, the parents frequently halted the children’s play time and reminded them about their homework (Ahioğlu-Lindberg, 2012).

Thus, in every culture, the expectations of parents regarding their children's play are shaped according to the characteristics, value judgments, and socialization practices of that specific culture. For example, in the perception of Indian mothers, play is preferred because it helps provide behavioral control of children which is considered of importance in Indian culture. While in German society, mothers prefer spontaneous games because independent education is a priority (Keller et al., 2010). Whereas in the current study, children stated activities such as taking responsibility for domestic chores, not playing active or rough and tumble games, doing their homework, and taking care of their younger siblings were types of play that made their parents happy. Similarly, in other low socioeconomic societies, children are usually required to take part in the daily routines of their family, such as caring for younger children, cleaning around the house, and/or gardening (Brown, 2012; Gaskins et al., 2007; Watson-Gegeo, 2001; Wu, 2015).

4.3 Play Space

In the play spaces at home, the parents often prohibited their children from playing active games within the home. The primary reasons for prohibiting children from playing inside of the house was to protect the children as well as the household items from being broken. Also, the houses were often too small for inside play and the children may make too much noise while playing. Therefore, depending on the physical characteristics of the context in which children lived, their play spaces were most often gardens, courtyards, doorways, and/or streets when there is no traffic, and in front of children's homes. In these designated areas, the children were normally allowed to move about and play freely with their friends. For this reason, the children preferred to play in the area they were allowed from sun up to sundown. In the inner-city, the participants homes had courtyards, and these courtyards were usually open areas with concreted surfaces which separated the house from the street. The courtyards were often used as spaces where children could play games with their friends such as jump rope, throwing the ball, and playing house. The courtyards were used as a safe place for children to play away from the danger of the inner-city. Whereas in the village, the children could comfortably and safely play in larger spaces, except for any place that was considered to be dangerous such as a water canal, water well, and/or roof top. In another study conducted in Australia, it was also observed that children living in the city have more restricted boundaries for play in comparison to children living in the countryside (MacDougall et al., 2009). Similarly, compared to their peers living in the city, children in rural Mayan society, were not confined to their houses and restricted to playing with toys due to the security threats, instead these children are observed playing with their peers in gardens and/or open play spaces which where enclosed by walls such as courtyards, yet within hearing distance of their mothers (Gaskins et al., 2007). Importantly, children living in the city must pay attention to risks and dangers other than traffic. For example, being away from home can carry more risk for children living within a city in comparison to children living the village. As a result, parents living in the city often have to be more alert regarding safety, for example, excessive traffic as well as various type of strangers. In the current study, despite the disadvantaged socioeconomic conditions, children from all three of the participating groups seemed to utilize advantages from the contexts in which they lived to the fullest extent such as playing in the courtyards, gardens, rural areas, in front of their homes, close by in the neighborhoods and streets. Thus, it was found that the children spent most of their time outdoors involved in exploratory play and unstructured games with their friends.

4.4 The Things Children Play With

When the children pointed out the things they played with the most, for the participants in the village they mentioned siblings and friends. Next, regarding play materials, they named natural materials which they used in symbolic play such as stones, sand, wood chips, and branches. It was very difficult for children living in the village to acquire manufactured toys due to living in low socioeconomic conditions, the distance of their village from the city center and having inadequate public transportation. Thus, the limited number of manufactured toys they did have, such as balls, dolls, and toy cars, were often old items handed down from their older siblings. Additionally, gender-specific tendencies were observed in children's toy preferences. For example, the boys played with toy cars, guns, and Legos most often, while the girls tended to play with dolls and Legos. Likewise, it is revealed in other studies that gender differences within children's play and their play material selection does occur in a variety of cultures (Fabes et al., 2003; Todd et al., 2018; Wong & VanderLaan, 2020). When the children pointed out the things they played with the most, for the participants in the village they mentioned siblings and friends. Next, regarding play materials, they named natural materials which they used in symbolic play such as stones, sand, wood chips, and branches. It was very difficult for children living in the village to acquire manufactured toys due to living in low socioeconomic conditions, the distance of their village from the city center and having inadequate public transportation. Thus, the limited number of manufactured toys they did have, such as balls, dolls, and toy cars, were often old items handed down from their older siblings. Additionally, gender-specific tendencies were observed in children's toy preferences. For example, the boys played with toy cars, guns, and Legos most often, while the girls tended to play with dolls and Legos. Likewise, it is revealed in other studies that gender differences within children's play and their play material selection does occur in a variety of cultures (Fabes et al., 2003; Todd et al., 2018; Wong & VanderLaan, 2020). Many studies have examined the gendered nature of preschool children's preferences for toys and activities. Studies investigating the effect of biological predisposition on the choice of children refer to boy's gross motor abilities, high activity levels, and low impulse control (Benenson et al., 2011; Else-Quest et al., 2006). Studies indicate that girls' interest in social stimuli and their advantage in fine motor control affect toy preference (Leeb et al., 2004; Nagy et al., 2007). Some of the studies emphasizing environmental factors also state that parents prefer to play different games with boys and girls and that these play patterns shape the toy preferences of children. In addition, the choice of toys and the reactions of the parents towards the child playing with the toy are important factors in the gender socialization of children (Boe et al., 2018; Kollmayer et al., 2018). Despite this, children in the current study, found their toys sufficient even though they were not given the opportunity to choose the toys and had a limited number of toys. In the village, the children often used their families’ tools and work materials, such as wheelbarrows and sand, as their play materials. Additionally, the children were observed constructing play materials from natural materials within their play environment. For example, a piece of tree stump was used as a baby, and a piece of twig was used as a toy weapon. It did seem easier for Kurdish and Turkish-speaking inner-city children to have toys, this was due to having greater access to a variety of lower quality less expensive toys at local markets. However, because of the families’ low level of income, they were often prevented from purchasing these toys. While children from all the participating groups reported that even though they had very few toys to play with, they believed the numbers of toys they had to be sufficient. The reason for this may have been related to the meaning the children attributed to play. Children instead turn to friends, rather than toys, for play. For example, when the children had friends, they seemed to have everything they needed for play. In the presence of a friend, a ball, rope, stone, sand, bucket, shovel, and/or tree branch, were all used by children immersed in play. Research examining the play of Roma children, considered the poorest community in Europe, has produced similar results. These children often live in a one-bedroom homes made of mud and wood, without running water, heat or sanitation as well as are in need food assistance. The toys these children usually have, are limited and most often obtained from a charity or salvaged from trash. As a result, this study highlights the contrast between poverty and children's happiness by revealing that children can play anywhere and with anything. Importantly, the play of the Roma children was found to be rich in imagination and creativity (Brown, 2012).

4.5 Parents and Play

The children believed that their parents were not playing with them because their parents were too busy in their daily routines, yet the children accepted this as quite natural. Also, the children stated that their mothers were too busy doing housework, while their fathers were busy earning money. Interestingly, the children did not mind that their parents were unable to play with them, and thought play was not for adults. Despite these thoughts, the children wished that their parents would play with them. Similar results emerged in other studies of parents working long hours for low wages who did not have time to play with their children (Ihmeideh, 2019; Ivrendi & Isikoglu, 2010; Jiang et al., 2016). As a result, parents from low SES backgrounds report that play was something which occurs between children and thought that adults do not even need to spend time talking about play (Göncü et al., 2007). The fact that children do not expect their parents to play with them also reveals the role of culture and physical context in shaping children's play experiences and perceptions. Studies examining parents' beliefs regarding play show that if parents believe it is beneficial for their children’s development, they are more willing to incorporate some types of play (academic learning) into their daily routines. That is, parents are more likely to support their children’s play if they believe that play can be instructive for their children (Harkness et al., 2011; Lin & Li, 2018; Parmar et al., 2008; Roopnarine et al., 2015). In this case, parents tend to be children's teachers rather than their playmates. However, it is indicated in other studies that when parents play with their children, this process strengthens the parent–child relationship, supports growth and development as well as alleviates the negative effects of adverse socioeconomic conditions (Bulotsky-Shearer et al., 2016; Hughes & Fleming, 2015; Lin & Yawkey, 2013).

4.6 Play Mates

It was found that the children's playmates were siblings, schoolmates, and friends from their neighborhood. The first requirement for children to be able to play with their friends was to complete their homework. It is also shown in other cross-cultural studies that children have less time to play with their friends, and that play is sacrificed due to adult supervision, concerns regarding risk, and doing homework (Elkind, 2008; Gleave & Cole-Hamilton, 2012). Another condition related to playing with friends was not to go too far from home. However, it is observed in another study that most children prefer to play outdoors in the natural environment which carries some risk but is still attractive to children (MacDougall et al., 2009). In this study, another limitation for children living within the city was that their family did not want them to play with unfamiliar children. Since the people living in the village knew each other better, there were not as many strangers coming and going within the village, so the danger for the village children from strangers was limited, and as a result, the parents imposed less restrictions on their children's play. Parental intervention regarding children's play with friends of the opposite gender was more evident among the inner-city group. The children explained gender segregation by emphasizing what their own gender was and using expressions such as "I am a girl, I am a boy…", which showed that the inner-city children’s gender stereotypes began from an early age. Although the influence of peers, media and school increases with age, nothing can replace the role of parents in children's lives (Baumrind, 2005). Studies show that parents' behaviors and gender ideologies are strong predictors of children's gender role attitudes. In addition, parents play unique roles in helping children learn about social stereotypes (Halpern et al., 2016; Marks et al., 2009). This situation can be effective in developing an understanding of gender inequality (gender bias and discrimination), as well as being acceptable in the child's development, as well as learning about gender-specific roles. Studies show that gender-based prejudice and discrimination start from the preschool period (Martin et al., 2010). In contrast, the children living in the village stated that their parents did not prevent them from playing with the children of the opposite gender. This may have occurred because most of the families within the village were related. In support of the present findings, Fishbein et al. (2009) find that preschool children's playmate preferences may be based on race, gender, and perceived physical attractiveness, which can affect the maintenance of boundaries between social groups. Thus, the most significant obstacle in children's choice of playmates was the gender biased perspective of their parents.

4.7 Limitations and projections

In addition to Turkish and Kurdish children living in inner city, this study also included Turkish children living in villages. Due to transportation problems and geographical limitations, children of Kurdish origin living in villages could not be reached. This is an important limitation in understanding the perspectives and experiences of disadvantaged children from different ethnic backgrounds living in various contexts. In this study, only child interviews were conducted to understand children's perspectives and experiences of play. Children's play observations were not conducted, which may create a limitation in corroborating the information we obtained through the interviews.

It is noteworthy that the number of studies on the perception of play in the cultural context is limited. There is a need for more comprehensive studies on this subject with people (adults-children-educators) from different cultures, different socioeconomic levels, and contexts around the world. With such studies, we can appreciate more deeply how various factors impact children's play differ from culture to culture or in different contexts, and the reasons for this differentiation. In addition, such multidimensional studies will strengthen the fact that every child plays within the framework of her/his culture and will provide important data in combating the sociocultural barriers (such as gender and academic concerns) faced by children’s rights of play, which has an important role in the development of the child. Since this study focused only on the play perceptions of disadvantaged children in general, it was not possible to delve too deeply into the findings on different topics such as gender and parental attitudes. These issues require a large number of well-designed studies and in-depth study in different contexts, different socioeconomic levels and with a variety of participants.