必須「好玩」的社區設計：與小孩同行修補城市參與

Abstract

「你有多久沒在社區玩了？」小孩告訴我，玩跟自己一樣重要、跟親人一樣重要，也跟大便一樣重要，因為沒有大便的話可是會生病的。但要在社區自由玩，並不是一件容易的事情。

作為研究者，我嘗試盡可能與小孩同行，看見他們玩耍之難，還有參與之難，太多「我想參與，但我沒辦法」從小孩口中說出，映照出許多精心設計的參與現場，實際上並無法支持「不標準」的小孩現身。

責任感、地方感驅動的參與方法，或是包裝成闖關、寓教於樂的遊戲，都難以成為小孩真正投入的動力，更別說從自己有限的經驗出發去言說與行動。唯有當他們真正覺得「好玩」的時候，他們才能用自然的語言、自在的姿態、自己的經驗參與其中。因為好玩，所以會開始在意；因為好玩，所以想一起做點事情，這些社區中小小的事情，都可能是他們理解地方、向公共摸索的起點，同時也修補了參與和公共生活之間的關係。

研究過程中發現，不只是小孩需要玩，疲累的大人也需要玩。專業者需要透過玩來解放習以為常的工作方式，抵抗狹隘的專業定義；親職也需要玩，在育兒與工作的疲憊中喘口氣，關照自己的內在小孩。在這些看似不事生產、鬆散的遊戲時光中，有豐富的發現和理解，讓我得以在作為研究者和專業者的雙重身分中整理，從許多「做參與」的糾結中舒展開來，並重新珍惜「參與」的意義。

“When was the last time you played in your neighborhood?” a child once asked me. To them, playing is as important as family and as essential as pooping, because “if you don’t poop, you get sick.” Yet playing freely in public spaces is not easy.

As a researcher, I tried to walk with children, witnessing not only the difficulties they face in play but also in participation. Too often, I heard, “I want to join, but I can’t,” revealing that many well-designed participatory settings fail to support “non-standard” children in showing up. Participatory methods driven by responsibility, locality, or gamified tasks rarely become true motivations for children’s engagement—especially when detached from their lived experiences. Only when something is genuinely “fun” do children enter with natural language, embodied presence, and self-driven curiosity. Because it is fun, they begin to care; because it is fun, they want to take part. These seemingly small acts of engagement may become entry points for understanding their neighborhood and feeling their way into public life. In the process, play repairs the broken link between participation and the everyday.

This study reveals that it’s not just children who need to play—exhausted adults need it too. Professionals need play to loosen the rigidity of institutional work and resist narrow definitions of expertise. Caregivers need play to breathe amidst the fatigue of parenting and labor, reconnecting with their inner child. In these seemingly unproductive and scattered moments of play, I found rich reflections and understandings that helped me—as both a researcher and a practitioner—make sense of the tangled realities of “doing participation.” Through this, I was able to soften the knots and rediscover the generative meaning of participation.