A Discourse on Restorative Practice—Participants’ Views of a Divergent Ideology

IF 1.3 Q1 LAW
Laws Pub Date : 2022-11-28 DOI:10.3390/laws11060086
Thomas Procter-Legg
{"title":"A Discourse on Restorative Practice—Participants’ Views of a Divergent Ideology","authors":"Thomas Procter-Legg","doi":"10.3390/laws11060086","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study is a discourse on restorative practice as a divergent epistemological ideology. It explores the field of restorative practice (RP) through thematic analysis of discursive captures from restorative practitioners and researchers within or associated with the Global Alliance for Restorative Justice and Social Justice. It includes elements of what could loosely be considered ethnographic research due to the time spent within restorative spaces, whilst analysing and processing the data. Methods include a restorative approach to research design, using online surveys as prerequisites to in-depth semi structured dialogic interviews. This led to reflexive thematic analysis, whereby three themes were constructed: the importance of congruence; evolution finding spaces for cultivation; and decentralising restorative practice through radical action. It is understood that this study takes a post positivist stance, designed to produce a discourse of participants’ views on RP as a divergent ideology. It is designed to highlight the perceptions of participants from a highly invested group and to promote a wider understanding of how RP interacts with dominant cultures. It would therefore be of interest to those implementing or growing restorative ideas within organisations.","PeriodicalId":30534,"journal":{"name":"Laws","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Laws","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/laws11060086","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study is a discourse on restorative practice as a divergent epistemological ideology. It explores the field of restorative practice (RP) through thematic analysis of discursive captures from restorative practitioners and researchers within or associated with the Global Alliance for Restorative Justice and Social Justice. It includes elements of what could loosely be considered ethnographic research due to the time spent within restorative spaces, whilst analysing and processing the data. Methods include a restorative approach to research design, using online surveys as prerequisites to in-depth semi structured dialogic interviews. This led to reflexive thematic analysis, whereby three themes were constructed: the importance of congruence; evolution finding spaces for cultivation; and decentralising restorative practice through radical action. It is understood that this study takes a post positivist stance, designed to produce a discourse of participants’ views on RP as a divergent ideology. It is designed to highlight the perceptions of participants from a highly invested group and to promote a wider understanding of how RP interacts with dominant cultures. It would therefore be of interest to those implementing or growing restorative ideas within organisations.
论恢复性实践——参与者对不同意识形态的看法
本研究是对作为一种不同认识论意识形态的恢复性实践的论述。它通过对恢复性司法和社会正义全球联盟内部或相关的恢复性从业者和研究人员的话语捕捉的主题分析,探索了恢复性实践(RP)领域。由于在恢复空间中花费的时间,同时分析和处理数据,它包括可以被松散地视为民族志研究的元素。方法包括研究设计的恢复性方法,使用在线调查作为深入半结构化对话访谈的先决条件。这导致了反身性主题分析,由此构建了三个主题:一致性的重要性;进化为培育寻找空间;通过激进的行动去中心化恢复性实践。据了解,本研究采取后实证主义立场,旨在产生参与者对RP作为一种不同意识形态的观点的论述。它旨在强调来自高投资群体的参与者的看法,并促进对RP如何与主流文化相互作用的更广泛理解。因此,对于那些在组织内实施或发展恢复性思想的人来说,这将是很有意义的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Laws
Laws LAW-
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
16.70%
发文量
77
审稿时长
11 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信