‘Restorative approaches’ is not a homogenous term. It is itself a term used to identify a spectrum of approaches. These include those identified by Hopkins (2004:32-37) as restorative inquiry, restorative discussions in challenging situations, mediation,
victim/offender mediation, community conferences and problem-solving circles, restorative conferences, and family group conferences. Restorative approaches allow for the narratives of stakeholders to be explored within a particular approach to conflict and bullying through a series of questions asked by a trained facilitator in a particular sequence, often by an adult. For example, questions which are used in restorative approaches are as follows:
1. What’s happened?
2. What were your thoughts and feelings? 3. Who’s been affected?
4. What can make things better?
This questioning process (Youth Justice Board, 2003; Hopkins, 2004; Cremin, Sellman and McCluskey, 2012; Sellman et al, 2013; Evans and Vaandering, 2016) can be thought of in terms of themes of exploration. Different authors have slight variances in the underpinning themes of storytelling, emotional effects on the individual, wider effects on the community, and option generation. These questions have formed part of the basis of restorative
approaches and represent the language process used by educational staff to begin a dialogue on the experiences of those involved in conflict and bullying situations. In addition to these there are several important definitions which seek to contextualise this approach to the field of education.
31
In order to define restorative approaches it is important to define and understand the parent concept of restorative justice (RJ) and the principles which underpin this concept. However, this is not straightforward. Criminologist George Pavlich states, ‘Restorative Justice is notoriously difficult to define’ (2002:1). This is in part due to the changing nature of the criminal justice system (CJS) in many countries, including the UK. Furthermore, restorative justice is also changing in response to researchers’ and practitioners’ exploration of its utility. Therefore, in defining restorative justice it is useful to identify three categories of definitions that have evolved to categorise RJ as a process, a means of producing outcomes and, finally, as nested in a network of values. I will now review each one in turn.
Firstly, restorative justice can be defined as a process:
Restorative Justice is a process whereby all the parties with a stake in a particular offence come together to resolve collectively how to deal with the aftermath of the offence and its implications for the future.
(Marshall, 1999:5) Marshall’s definition is often cited such as in Sherman and Strang’s (2007) extensive
overview of the restorative justice literature and focuses on the collective involvement of ‘all parties with a stake’ (2007:13) coming together in face-to-face conferences. Defining
restorative justice as a process signifies the importance of bringing parties together to interact and engage in changing the situation; this is called the ‘encounter’17 (Zehr, 1990; Van Ness,
2002). However, this definition does not indicate what the outcomes of a restorative justice process are or could be, only that there is a future benefit to be gained through a restorative process. The second cluster of definitions places the emphasis of restorative justice on
outcomes. For example, Braithwaite (1996:86) states: ‘Restorative justice means restoring
victims, a more victim-centred criminal justice system, as well as restoring offenders and restoring community’. Braithwaite’s defining characteristic is the multiple outcomes potentially available to a range of stakeholders, thus defining restorative justice as outcome- based for all those involved. Braithwaite’s definition asserts that any process could be restorative if it achieves these outcomes.
A final cluster of definitions seeks to place restorative justice within a wider framework of values. These values include:
32
…hospitable, non-alienating, victim-centred and community-orientated way to resolve conflict. Its processes are guided by values respectful to all parties to a dispute. It aims to empower victims, communities, offenders and families to repair the effects of a harmful event, using effective ‘repentance rituals’ to restore
community life. Justice is thus understood as restoring harm and hurt, reflecting a commitment to such normative values as individual empowerment, responsibility, peace, community strength, respect, compassion, agreement and so on.
(Pavlich:2002) Pavlich recognises that restorative justice operates as part of a broader constellation of
values, such as peace and the normative values of society. Restorative justice began as a
process that was an alternative to punitive and retributive justice in the criminal justice system but so far the quality and implementation of restorative justice has remained
spasmodic in England. Despite this, restorative justice aims to achieve more locally relevant, directly engaging processes to address harm and produce more future-orientated outcomes than those achieved through the hegemonic doctrine of the criminal justice system. The concept of restorative justice has been applied to education through its use in schools. Van Ness suggests that ‘restorative approaches to schools must include all three conceptions of restorative justice: repair of harm, encounter of the affected parties and transformation of relationships and culture’ (Sellman et al, 2013:38). This definition, whilst broadly useful, does not recognise that there are different system requirements and needs in the justice and education sectors. Van Ness is, in effect, simply transplanting the concept of restorative justice from the criminal justice system into the education system under the term ‘restorative approaches’. Restorative justice has a clear victim-offender focus which is arguably not suitable for meeting educational requirements. However, Evans and Vaandering (2016) retain restorative justice in the education sector. Consequently, restorative justice in
education (RJE) is defined as ‘facilitating learning communities that nurture the capacity for people to engage with one another and their environment in a manner that supports and respects the inherent dignity and worth of all’ (2016:8). This retains the label of restorative justice but the meaning attached by Vaandering and Evans has a greater leaning towards educational settings. Alternatively, restorative approaches have been defined by
educationalists as ‘A means of bringing young people in conflict together, to undertake a deeper inquiry of the incident, including who’s been affected, and who is obliged to make
33
amends, before agreeing their own long-term solutions’ (Sellman, et al, 2013:1). Thus, whilst restorative approaches in education have retained some of the concepts of restorative justice as described by Van Ness, restorative justice is evolving into restorative approaches in the English educational system to address a range of conflicts (Sellman et al, 2013) in school settings.
The introduction of restorative approaches to address conflict and bullying in the British educational system has a range of definitions and meanings in the research literature as a body of theory and practice (Cremin et al, 2012). To add further challenge to conceptually defining restorative approaches, the educational literature uses restorative approaches interchangeably with the term restorative practice. Skinns et al suggest:
The practices are the most public face of restorative approaches and range from the formal (e.g. conferencing) to informal (e.g. an interaction that has the intention to build, nurture or repair relationships).
(Skinns et al, 2009:10) ‘Practice’ in this definition is not focused on the skills of the practitioner but rather on the range of approaches that can be used (see also Buckley and Maxwell 2007; Cowie, 2013). Skinns et al (2009) also cite Hopkins (2004), who describes restorative approaches as ‘a set of practices, a set of skills and a set of values or a distinctive ethos’ (Skinns et al, 2009:10). These definitions encompass a broad range of activities under the banner of restorative approaches when used in educational settings. For ease of use, therefore, I shall refer to restorative approaches as:
The encounter processes used by an impartial facilitator to engage and deliver a structured dialogue (including skills, questions, risk assessing, addressing unmet needs and negotiating to reach a peaceful agreement) for those involved in a conflict or bullying situation where harm is identified to potentially reach a peaceful
resolution.
This definition encapsulates the processes and skills of restorative approaches (the what) with the delivery of practice (the how). Therefore, ‘restorative practice’ can be defined as the actions taken by facilitators between parties in conflict when using a restorative approach. An important theme that emerges in many of the definitions of restorative approaches is the need to engage stakeholders. Stakeholder engagement in the school community underpins the
34
distinctiveness of restorative approaches as a system of resolution which incorporates community members with a stake in the conflict. This resonates with the salient work of Christie (1977), coined the term ‘conflict as property’ and argued that conflict is stolen by professional and structural thieves in the criminal justice systems and what in doing so there is the loss of ‘opportunities for norm-clarification’( 1977:8) both by the individuals in conflict and society as a whole. Likewise, in education restorative approaches would ideally actively welcome participation by stakeholders to own their conflict. Primary contributors in restorative processes are asked to think about community implications in response to the central question of ‘who has been affected?’. Thus, restorative approaches elicit, through the facilitator, thoughts about the effects caused by harm to their community or other
communities by those in the meeting. By exploring the effects of harm restorative
approaches contest the individualistic perception that harm is only caused by the offender to the victim. Restorative approaches provide processes in which contributors in a conflict can co-exist in communities. Furthermore, it allows those directly involved to recognise
collective responses and responsibilities in resolving the harm (for examples, see research from New Zealand by Wearmouth, McKinney and Glynn, 2007) to enable peaceful relationships with communities such as schools.
This discussion of restorative approaches has led to an exploration of their forerunner, restorative justice, and its sibling, restorative practice, to track the journey of their
development. A central tenet of the definitions has been that restorative approaches bring participants together in an encounter18 to address harm and empower stakeholders to find
solutions through facilitated dialogue. Beyond this, however, restorative approaches have struggled to evolve beyond their criminal justice antecedents and continue to do so as they convert into education. This helps to explain some of the contestation in the literature such as the challenge integrating restorative justice, as restorative approaches must integrate into an education system which is punitive. We will now turn to considering the potential benefits of using restorative approaches (RA) in schools.