Toward a Communication Perspective of Restorative Justice: Implications for Research, Facilitation, and Assessment

Abstract

As the research and practice of restorative justice has grown, conversations have been ongoing about how to define and evaluate such practices. In this conceptual review, we argue for the utility and importance of adopting a communication perspective (Pearce, 1989, Communication and the human condition. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale, IL.) for defining, evaluating, and practicing restorative justice. We begin by describing a communication perspective before reviewing scholarly literature regarding defining and evaluating restorative justice. We also illustrate how a communication perspective can prompt useful questions about defining, evaluating, facilitating, and administering restorative justice. We conclude with a discussion of implications for research, facilitation, and organizational administration.

Receptivity to restorative justice: A survey of goal importance, process effectiveness, and support for victim–offender conferencing

“…In some ways, the differences between how restorative and conventional processes pursue victim restoration can be traced back to basic assumptions about appropriate outcomes and processes. Rooted in an approach to justice that is largely individual and impersonal, conventional justice processes typically focus on satisfying victims' desires for offender punishment, material restitution, and perhaps offender apology to the courts (Okimoto et al, 2009;Paul & Borton, 2017;Presser & Hamilton, 2006;Zernova, 2007). However, they do not typically emphasize relationship repair.…”

“…A key focus of restorative justice (RJ) practitioners/advocates over the years has been to increase awareness, understanding, and support of RJ processes. Similarly, a sizable amount of RJ scholarship has been devoted to conceptualizing RJ (Daly, 2016;McCold, 2000;Paul & Borton, 2017;Vaandering, 2011), distinguishing it from conventional ("retributive") justice (Braithwaite, 2002;Pavlich, 2005;Wenzel, Okimoto, Feather, & Platow, 2010;Zehr, 2002), and evaluating its effectiveness (Bergseth & Bouffard, 2007;Calhoun & Pelech, 2013;Gabbay, 2005;Latimer, Dowden, & Muise, 2005). These efforts work to increase understanding and support for an approach to justice that, at least in the West, the public at large may be unaware of, uncertain about, or even resistant toward.…”

“…Research has explored public attitudes toward RJ generally, restorative processes specifically, and openness to participating in restorative processes (e.g., Ahlin, Gibbs, Kavanaugh, & Lee, 2017;Bazemore & Leip, 2000;Paul, 2015;Paul & Schenck-Hamlin, 2017;Roberts & Stalans, 2004). Such attitudes can influence behavior (Ajzen, 2011), are connected with other attitudes (Perloff, 2010), and are rooted in prior cultural socialization (Okimoto, Wenzel, & Feather, 2009;Paul & Borton, 2017). Exploring public attitudes toward RJ also can facilitate more strategic advocacy for RJ that could be more persuasive to audiences.…”

Emotion and Deception, Jewish–Arab Community Peace Building, Restorative Justice and Communication, and Anger and Attribution: An Introduction to the Special Issue on Conceptual Reviews

“…Paul and Borton () review the literature on restorative justice from a communication perspective. The authors begin by identifying different ways in which restorative justice has been defined and evaluated.…”

“…Thus, in addition to reviewing and synthesizing theory, Kuttner (2017) also provides a model for further development and empirical testing as well as ideas for a contemporary and future practice for peace in Israel. Paul and Borton (2017) review the literature on restorative justice from a communication perspective. The authors begin by identifying different ways in which restorative justice has been defined and evaluated.…”