In the concluding sections of this introductory chapter the research methodology, as well as ethical considerations surrounding interview and observational access to panel discussions and participants, is discussed. Within this section, the means by which this thesis significantly adds to pre-existing restorative justice practical and theoretical analysis can be further illustrated. The thesis will go on to show that an original concept of community has been identified within the previously under researched Irish reparation panel models. This newly identified community is specific to reparation panel procedure and has been formed around every specific panel case that is referred to both city based and town based restorative programmes. There are two elements to the reparation based community. The first is the practical, geographical community, identified by way of the panel schemes’ use of locally based services and support groups within reparation contract agreements. These agreements can include rehabilitative
Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA. Adopted October 2012. Available at eur-lex.europa.eu>EUROPA>EU
law and publications>EUR-lex.
41
measures such as attendance at locally based drug and alcohol counselling services. Furthermore, a geographical notion of community can be also evidenced by the use of locally sourced justice professionals, programme caseworkers, chairpersons and volunteer lay members around the panel table, each bringing their local knowledge and expertise to case discussions and rehabilitative options within contract agreements.
In addition to this practical, geographical reparative based community, a novel theoretical community has also been identified. This theoretical community, identified by way of a series of case observations across both programmes, can be classified as a ‘meso-community of care, concern and accountability’. It has emerged by way of the particular ‘welfare themed’ discourse employed by all panel participants during case deliberations. This ‘welfare themed’ approach involves criminal justice professionals, community based volunteers, programme representative panel members and participating offenders discussing the individual social and relational contexts of the referred crime, as well as the need for accountability and reparation for the harm caused to both direct victims and the community generally. Furthermore, these rehabilitative social and welfare based concerns are discussed both as part of contract agreements and outside contract parameters. This novel reparation based community builds on previous ‘micro’ and ‘macro’ community theories put forward by McCold.138 For McCold,
the ‘micro’ community represents the primary stakeholders within a restorative event such as the close friends and family members of victims and offenders lending support and advice. Alternatively, the ‘macro’ community represents secondary stakeholders such as state institutions, church groups, clubs and associations. It can also include community representative lay members and criminal justice professionals within restorative programmes.139
However, the novel reparation community I have identified is fundamentally different in that, first and foremost, the welfare ethos within panel case discussions has been
138 Paul McCold, ‘What is the Role of Community in Restorative Justice Theory and Practice?’ In Harry Zehr
and Barry Toews (eds.), Critical Issues in Restorative Justice (Monsey, New York: Criminal Justice Press, 2004), 155.
42
initiated by reparation panellists rather than a familial support structure.140 In essence,
the reparation case specific community can be seen to represent a novel, relational ‘macro community’ delivering the welfare based, emotional support more commonly identified as part of the familial ‘micro community’ put forward by McCold.141 Therefore, previously identified, theoretically thinner relational bonds between an offender and criminal justice professionals and restorative programme actors have now come to represent, within the reality of a reparation case event, those thicker bonds more readily evidenced between family members and close friends of victims and offenders within a restorative meeting.
Thus a novel ‘meso-community’ has been identified emerging within the previously identified micro and macro community dynamic in restorative programmes such as family group conferencing. This reparation based community has emerged in each referred case managed by panel members, and formed around each participating offender but without the direct familial support structures illustrated within larger participatory restorative models such as family group conferencing and circle sentencing programmes. Uniquely, the reparation panellists have demonstrated a series of surrogate familial relational bonds around each participating offender, in which the individual social contexts of the crime are investigated alongside more conventional factors such as accountability, non-recidivism, rehabilitation and the need to make amends for the harm caused.
Importantly, the fact that this novel community has been identified within the more confined participatory surroundings of the Irish adult based reparation panel model can serve to underline and promote the communitarian potential of restorative justice generally, and reparation panels in particular. In this regard, the reparative ‘meso- community of care, concern and accountability has added considerable value to the existing practical and theoretical restorative justice literature.142
140 Family members and/or friends do not usually attend reparation case discussions, although this is not
ruled out as a possibility depending on the case being managed.
141 Ibid.
43
1.14 Methodology
The thesis draws on an ‘across method’ triangulated research design143 involving a
desktop literature review, participant observations of both Irish reparation panel schemes and semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders within the reparation process including participating panel members from An Garda Síochána and the Irish Probation Service, as well as community representative volunteers, reparation caseworkers and reparation scheme managers. This research method was chosen so as to help improve the reliability of interpretations across a range of data sources. Moreover, it has been previously pointed out that a semi-structured interviewing method, allied with participant observations, can each compliment the other and increase data output while also enabling a better understanding of the subject at hand.144 Denzin has further argued how across method triangulation can help the
researcher to ‘achieve the best of each (method) while overcoming their unique deficiencies’,145 while for Atkinson and Coffey qualitative forms of triangulation can
increase the respective strengths of observation and interview based methods while also counteracting the potential limitations of both.146 This section will address the
challenges of conducting such a research method when investigating reparation panel practice and procedure, including ethical concerns and issues relating to access.