Broadening the evidence base
for practice in the future
Restorative Justice: How Does it
Work?
Dr. Juliet Starbuck
jcs 01/13
Restorative Justice
To show that:
zEP research can lay the basis for
improving the ways in which schools
respond to tension and conflict
zcase study research methods can be
deployed in rigorous and persuasive ways
jcs 01/13
Restorative Justice
z How
H
d
do restorative
t ti jjustice
ti conferences
f
work?
k?
Can the impact of an RJ Conference be
explained by Causal Attribution Theory?
z How
H
and
d why
h d
do stakeholders’
t k h ld ’ causall
attributions for aggressive/violent/conflict
situations differ before and after a restorative
justice conference?
jcs 01/13
Causal Attribution Theory (Weiner
(Weiner, 2006)
zan understanding about cause and
perceptions
p
p
of intent
zto inferences about personal responsibility
zto
t emotions
ti
off anger and
d sympathy
th
to soc
social
a reactions
eact o s which
c might
g t include
c ude
zto
help-giving, reprimand, aggression and
retaliation.
retaliation
jcs 01/13
The Restorative Justice Conference
z a meeting
ti which
hi h ffollows
ll
a structured
t t d fformatt
z the same set of questions is always asked by a
t i d ffacilitator
trained
ilit t
z both parties in a conflict must be there
z they can bring ‘supporters’ (parents if youths)
z everyone sits in a circle
z all parties are helped to reflect on their actions
and how these have impacted on others
z an agreement is reached about what needs to
be done to repair the harm caused
jcs 01/13
Propositions
z Proposition 1: It is predicted that the harmed (and their
supporters) will describe feelings of anger and thoughts
of reprimand and/or other negative reactions following an
initial harmful act against them.
z Proposition 2: It is predicted that the wrongdoer who
perceived the harmed as responsible for an act of
antagonism will, during the pre-conference interview,
describe feelings of anger and thoughts of reprimand in
response to an initial ‘antagonistic act’ from the harmed.
jcs 01/13
Propositions
z Proposition
P
iti 3
3: It iis predicted
di t d th
that:
t
(i): The wrongdoer will make fewer inferences of hostility
and intention when asked what ‘X’
X thinks (in response to
a series of hypothetical vignettes) following attendance
at an RJ conference.
(ii): The wrongdoer will react less angrily and propose
fewer hostile behavioural responses when asked what
‘X’
X feels and does (in response to a series of
hypothetical vignettes) after attendance at an RJ
conference.
z Proposition 4: It is predicted that the harmed will make
fewer inferences of hostility and intention when asked
what ‘X’
X thinks (in response to a series of hypothetical
vignettes) prior to attendance
jcs 01/13 at the RJ conference than
the wrongdoer.
Propositions
z Proposition 5 (i): It is predicted that analysis of the conference
transcripts will show that during the RJ conference the wrongdoer
will confess. This will be according to Weiner’s (2006) description of
confession.
z Proposition 5 (ii): It is predicted that during the post - conference
interview the harmed and their supporters will report that they
perceive that the wrongdoer is not an inherently bad person and that
th are nott lik
they
likely
l tto commit
it the
th causall actt again.
i
z Proposition 5 (iii): It is predicted that the victim and their supporters
will have a more positive moral impression of the wrongdoer
following the conference
conference.
z Proposition 5 (iv):It is predicted that the victim and their supporters
will have reduced feelings of anger and increased feelings of
sympathy when interviewed before attendance at a conference
compared with after attendance at a conference.
jcs 01/13
Propositions
z Proposition 6: It is predicted that a comparison
of the wrongdoer’s pre-conference interview and
post - conference interview responses will show
that the wrongdoer feels better about
themselves and will feel that they are not a bad
person following participation in the conference.
jcs 01/13
Design – a case study
A case study is an empirical enquiry that:
zinvestigates a contemporary phenomenon
within
ithi itits real-life
l lif context,
t t especially
i ll when
h
t e boundaries
bou da es bet
between
ee p
phenomenon
e o e o a
and
d
zthe
context are not clearly evident (Yin, 2003).
jcs 01/13
Design
z The
Th restorative
t ti justice
j ti conference
f
was th
the case
study.
z The attributions made by each stakeholder
involved in the conference were the unit of
analysis.
y
z A multiple-case design was adopted. Two cases
were studied.
z A replication strategy was used: it was hoped
that similar results would be found in each case.
z Multiple sources of evidence were drawn upon
to produce the data for analysis.
jcs 01/13
Participants
Only
O
l those
th
people
l (th
(the stakeholders)
t k h ld ) who
h
were directly involved in the Restorative
Justice Conference were included in the
study:
y
z harmed
z wrongdoer
z school representative
z harmed
harmed’s
s supporter
z wrongdoer’s supporter
jcs 01/13
The cases
The cases were regarded
Th
d d as ttypical
i l att th
the point
i t off
selection because they met the following criteria:
z a specific (aggressive) act had occurred
between two members of the school community
z a specific wrongdoer had been identified
z the wrongdoer had acknowledged some degree
of responsibility and they were willing to take
part in the conference
z the harmed was willing to take part in the
conference.
jcs 01/13
Propositions
z A series of propositions was developed which
‘directs attention to something that should be
examined within the scope of the study’.
g
as ‘a ((hypothetical)
y
) story
y
z Each can be regarded
about why acts, events, structure and thoughts
occur’ (Sutton and Straw, 1995 in Yin, 2003).
z The propositions guided decisions about what
data to collect and how to analyse this data.
jcs 01/13
Data collection
zPre and post conference interviews
zPre and post conference vignettes
zdirect observation
zdocumentation
jcs 01/13
Results
zpattern matching logic was used to
y the data collected: “Such a logic
g
analyse
compares an empirically based pattern
with a predicted one (or with several
alternative predictions)” (Trochim, 1989 in
Yin 2003
Yin,
2003, p
p.116).
116)
p
zrival explanations
zcross case analysis
jcs 01/13
Results
zproposition 2 validated in both cases
zproposition 3 was validated in both cases
zproposition 5(i) was validated in both
cases
p opos t o 5(
5(v)) was
as validated
a dated in bot
both
zproposition
cases
zproposition 6 was
as validated
alidated in both cases
jcs 01/13
Results
z proposition 1 partly validated in both cases
proposition
p
1 was revised:
zp
It is predicted that the harmed (and their
supporters) will describe feelings of anger and
thoughts of reprimand, and/or other negative
reactions, following an initial causal act against
them if they perceive the act to have been
hostile and the wrongdoer to be responsible
for that act.
jcs 01/13
z proposition 4 was validated in one case only
proposition
p
4 was revised:
zp
it is predicted that any young person who has a
bias to interpret ambiguously hostile events as
hostile will make fewer inferences of hostility and
intention when asked what ‘X’
X thinks (in
response to a series of hypothetical vignettes)
following attendance at an RJ conference than
before attendance at the conference.
jcs 01/13
Conclusions
zd
demonstrates
t t th
thatt causall attribution
tt ib ti th
theory, iin particular
ti l
Weiner’s Theory of Social Motivation, Justice and the
Moral Emotions – an attributional approach,
pp
, can explain
p
the impact that attendance at a conference has on its
stakeholders
z shows
h
why
h RJ might
i ht work
k
z identifies potential areas for intervention when
supporting young people to avoid conflict situations in
school
z development
p
of a monitoring
g and evaluation tool to
ensure that RJ conferences are carried out properly and
that they have an impact
jcs 01/13
Any questions?
jcs 01/13