A CASE STUDY OF RESTORATIVE JUSTICE CIRCLE‟S EFFECT ON DYNAMICS
BETWEEN DIRECTORS AND ASSISTANT HALL DIRECTORS

By

Nancy Rosebush Schertzing

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Human Development and Family Studies

2011

ABSTRACT
A CASE STUDY OF RESTORATIVE JUSTICE CIRCLE‟S EFFECT ON DYNAMICS
BETWEEN DIRECTORS AND ASSISTANT HALL DIRECTORS

By

Nancy Rosebush Schertzing
This instrumental case study offers a thick and rich description of a restorative justice
circle intervention between part-time graduate assistant employees, and full-time members of the
Residence Life leadership team at a major Midwestern university implementing restorative
justice use in its residence halls. This thesis offers an in-depth, qualitative look at the experience
of the two primary characters in this conflict—a graduate student and a director. Using
Constructivist epistemology through the lenses of Conflict Theory and Feminist Standpoint
Theory, it analyzes letters, e-mails, meeting minutes and interviews done individually and jointly
to document the participants‟ transition from antagonists to colleagues as they worked through
their differences using a restorative justice process and framework. This is just one example of
how a restorative approach to conflict produced positive, lasting results where a traditional
(punitive) approach could not, yet it has implications for broader use in our society. As
Restorative Justice Coordinator and facilitator of this circle, I present this case study both to
document the resolution of this conflict and to provide a guide to other facilitators considering
using this process in their universities, schools, workplaces, homes or anywhere people interact.

Copyright by
NANCY ROSEBUSH SCHERTZING
2011

DEDICATION

I dedicate this work to my mother, Judith L. Rosebush, and all my mothers before her who
sacrificed and postponed personal goals to nurture their children‟s dreams and to support
their potential. I hope you will see your own accomplishments in this work, for it is
truly a product of all our efforts combined.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

In producing this thesis I‟ve often related my experiences to gestating and birthing my
children. Thank you, Dr. Barbara Ames, Dr. Marsha Carolan and Dr. Esther Onaga for being
wonderful midwives and coaches who have gently, but firmly helped bring this case study to life.
Thanks also to the real Susan McWilliams for taking a chance on me in so many ways, and to the
real Zoe Rose for sharing so openly and honestly. I owe a great debt to all five of these
remarkable women.
Thanks also to my husband and three children who sacrificed family outings, clean floors
and my undivided attention as I focused on my thesis and studies. Parenting with and for you
has taught me that love, hard work and passion pay tremendous dividends when focused on
serving others. Finally, I owe more than I can say to my parents who have supported me and my
efforts for nearly half a century. I am profoundly blessed to share my life with you all.

vv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii

Chapter I
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Conceptual and Operational Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Research Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1
5
8
10

Chapter II
Review of the Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Restorative Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Restorative Practices. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Circles Process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Conflict Theory. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Feminist Standpoint Theory. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Empathy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13
13
16
20
23
24
26

Chapter III
Methods. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Procedure and Data Collection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Data Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Research Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Trustworthiness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Reflexivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

29
29
31
31
32
33

Chapter IV
Case Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Key Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Circle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Post Circle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

34
34
37
40
44

Chapter V
Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Themes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Power Dynamics in the RLU Culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Power Dynamics in the Circle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Passive Aggressive Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Evolution of Communication from Harmful to Productive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Empathy: Transition from Adversary to Colleague . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Empathy: Relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
New and Improved Restorative Justice Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

50
50
50
53
55
57
60
61
62

vi
vi

Chapter VI
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

65
65
68
70

Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Appendix A Case Study Artifacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
Appendix B Thematic Analysis Graphs and Maps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

vii
vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1

Criminal Justice and Restorative
Justice Approaches Compared . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

8

Research Questions Guided by
Conflict Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

11

Research Questions Guided by
Feminist Standpoint Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

12

Figure 4

Restorative Justice Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

14

Figure 5

IIRP Social Discipline Window . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Figure 6

IIRP Restorative Practices Continuum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Figure 7

The Circles Process Described as a
Medicine Wheel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Figure 8

Case Study Timeline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Figure 9

Restorative Justice Facilitator‟s
Preparation Check List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Figure 10

AHDs‟ Letter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

Figure 11

Circle Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

Figure 12

AHDs‟ Covenant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

Figure 2

Figure 3

viii
viii

Figure 13

Minutes of Follow-up Meeting
to Sept. 14 Circle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

Figure 14

Post-Resolution Letter from Susan and
Zoe and E-mail Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

Figure 15

Power Dynamics Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

Figure 16

Mapped Sample Comments of Power
Dynamics Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

Figure 17

Power Dynamics in Circle Graphs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

Figure 18

Mapped Data Segments of Evolution of
Language from Disrespectful to Respectful . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

Figure 19

Progression of Subjects‟ Language and Interaction . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

Figure 20

Mapped Sample Comments of Language
Progression Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

ix

Chapter One

Introduction
Conflict is inherent in every society. From bullying in our schools to road rage on our
streets, conflict affects all of us. Usually in the U.S. we experience conflict by filing lawsuits,
calling the “authorities,” complaining to our friends, watching it on day-time television and
engaging in it on talk radio. Rarely in the U.S. do we bring together the people in a conflict with
the goal of helping them resolve it. The following study documents one of those rare instances
when people did come together to manage a conflict and, in the process, began to change their
workplace and themselves.
This case study is one of countless interactions undertaken in the emerging field of
restorative justice—an approach to addressing conflict and misconduct that focuses on healing
rather than punishment. In many ways restorative justice is a movement that draws from ancient
human practice and, therefore, links to a variety of academic and scientific disciplines. It
emerged in the 1970s as a response to weaknesses in the western criminal justice and legal
systems (Zehr, 2009) and was quickly adapted to student conduct administration in schools. The
vast majority of literature, therefore, analyzes its use for situations where laws or rules have been
broken.
Restorative justice‟s foundational principles of respect, accountability, healing and
empathy, however, speak to fundamental human values, ethics and experiences that apply far
beyond our courts and classrooms. This case study offers an example of how restorative justice
served members of a university department by providing a framework for addressing an
employment issue. It also provided a new tool for constructive, direct communication between
management and graduate assistants.
1

Oftentimes I have heard you speak of one who commits a wrong as though he were not
one of you, but a stranger unto you and an intruder upon your world. But I say that . . .
you cannot separate the just from the unjust and the good from the wicked; for they stand
together before the face of the sun. . . . And you who would understand justice, how shall
you unless you look upon all deeds in the fullness of light? Only then shall you know
that the erect and the fallen are but one man standing in twilight between the night of his
pygmy-self and the day of his god-self” (Gibran, 1923, pp. 40-43).

When Kahlil Gibran wrote this phrase around 1920 (Gibran, 1923), the restorative justice
movement was 50 years from birth. Yet in this excerpt from The Prophet‟s sermon on crime and
punishment, Gibran focuses on the need for a different approach to wrong-doing. Gibran teaches
that instead of rejecting and casting out those who commit harm, the community must look at
“all [wrongful] deeds in the fullness of light,” (Gibran, 1923, p. 43) recognizing that each of us
stands in that twilight between our lower and higher selves—that each has the equal ability to
harm and to heal. That, he says, is how we can come to understand justice.
Nearly a century later, the western world is coming to recognize the wisdom of Gibran‟s
teachings, which echo those of many indigenous cultures ranging from the First Nations of
Canada to the Maori of New Zealand (Braithwaite, 1996; Umbreit & Armour, 2011; Umbreit,
Vos, Coates, & Lightfoot, 2006; Zehr, 2002). These societies have traditions of addressing
misconduct from a restorative perspective—holding wrong-doers accountable by engaging them
with those they have harmed to explore the incident and identify steps necessary for healing the
harm they have caused. Then when the wrong-doers complete the prescribed steps, their
community welcomes them back, redeemed as a full member.

2

Interestingly, this also was the approach traditional English-speaking cultures followed
until the eleventh century when Britain came under the control of Norman rulers. William the
Conqueror‟s son, Henry I, reversed the traditional restorative approach when he decreed that
people who committed such crimes as robbery, arson, murder, theft and other forms of violence
should no longer pay fines to their victims, but would instead pay the king. This revenuegenerating practice soon caught on and became the foundation for our modern justice system
(Umbreit & Armour, 2011).
Under this system—what we now consider the traditional Western approach to
misconduct—one authority figure judges wrong-doers and decides their punishment—often
casting them out of their communities like “a stranger and an intruder upon [their]
world”(Gibran, 1923, p. 40). Our society is waking up to the staggering costs of this approach.
For example, in 2000, black students were 2.6 times more likely than white students to be
suspended from school (ACLUMI, 2009), and in “2006, black males in Michigan graduated at a
rate of 33%, compared to a white male graduation rate of 74%” (ACLUMI, 2009, p. 24). Today,
nation-wide, only 55% of black students and 58% of Hispanic students will graduate on time
with a regular diploma, compared to 78% of white students and 81% of Asian students
(Education, 2008).
Princeton researcher Cecilia Rouse estimates that over his or her lifetime each dropout
costs the nation approximately $260,000, and every year the U.S. has about 1.2 million students
who drop out (Education, 2008). The costs keep mounting. The Sentencing Project reports that
in Michigan there are 412 white prisoners per 100,000 white residents in the state, compared to
2,262 black prisoners for every 100,000 black residents in the state (ACLUMI, 2009). In his
proposed budget for fiscal year 2012, Governor Rick Snyder allotted $1.8 billion—about 25% of
3

the entire state budget—to the Department of Corrections (Levine, 2011; State Budget Director,
2011). The Center for Michigan‟s Future reports that for every dollar Michigan spends on
universities, we spend $1.19 on prisons (Bebow, 2011).
While the costs of this punitive and exclusionary approach to school-based and criminal
misconduct are well-documented, the toll it extracts as our dominant approach to general conflict
is no less devastating. We are waking up to the prevalence of exclusion through bullying in our
schools from sensational and horrific stories of bullycides—suicide attributed to bullying
victimization—and efforts of parents and children who raise our consciousness. The National
Center for School Statistics found that in 1999, 5% of middle and high school students reported
being bullied in school, but in 2005, fully 28% reported being bullied (Waters, 2011). This
awareness is growing not only in schools, but also in the workplace. For example, Cornell
University‟s School of Industrial and Labor Relations‟ research team, Green Peak Partners,
polled 72 senior executives of companies earning annual revenues of $50 million to $5 billion.
They found that, contrary to the prevailing view that bullying is an accepted management
practice, these executives believe bullying indicates ”technical incompetence, ineffective
leadership, mishandling of talent and lack of vision”(Thompson, 2011, p.26).
Now that we recognize it, we are beginning to acknowledge bullying‟s costs in health
conditions, lowered productivity, fear and mistrust related to this and other ways we view each
other as “a stranger . . . and an intruder upon [our] world”(Gibran, 1923, p. 40). As a society, we
must recognize and measure the emotional toll our approach to conflict extracts.
Our society must embrace a more humane, collaborative approach to conflict and
misconduct. We can no longer afford the costs of separating from those whom we perceive as
causing us harm and casting them out “like a stranger and an intruder upon [our] world.”

4

(Gibran, 1923, p. 40). Restorative justice offers a community-based approach focused on
understanding and healing rather than judging and casting out. It provides a structure for fruitful
and open discussion about conflict and misconduct (Braithwaite, 1996) useful not only for
criminal behaviors but also for more mundane conflicts such as those found in schools,
workplaces and universities.
While studies abound about restorative justice‟s effects on school and prison populations,
(Umbreit & Armour, 2011) few researchers have studied its effect in university settings (Karp &
Allena, 2004; Meagher, 2009). The few that relate to university populations tend to focus on
students who have violated rules then engaged in restorative justice as a discipline tool. With the
exception of the University of Vermont (J. Wachtel, 2011) few universities have applied
restorative justice principles and practices to daily living, but more are considering this approach.

Problem Statement
This instrumental case study (Cresswell, 2007) offers a thick and rich description of a
restorative justice circle intervention conducted at a major Midwestern university in the earliest
stages of adopting restorative justice in its residence halls. In addition to using restorative justice
for disciplinary issues, this university‟s Residence Life Unit (RLU) used a restorative justice
circle to address an employment issue between graduate students and organizational leadership.
This thesis examines a restorative justice circle between assistant hall directors (AHDs)
who are part-time graduate assistant employees, and members of the organization‟s leadership
team (Leadership Team) who are full time directors of the university‟s RLU. It offers an indepth, qualitative look at the experience of the two primary characters in this conflict. The AHD
graduate student we will call Zoe Rose is a white, middle class Masters-level graduate student in
5

her second year with the RLU. The Leadership Team member, Susan McWilliams, is an African
American female who holds a Masters in Student Development. Zoe is a single woman in her
twenties and Susan, in her thirties, is a mother of two elementary age children and wife whose
husband works outside academia. Both have earned the respect of their peers and supervisors.
Every August, the RLU hosts orientation training to prepare AHDs and other staff for
students‟ arrival on campus. In 2010, internal power struggles over RLU resources combined
with possible miscommunication to exclude restorative justice from these trainings. Some RLU
staff members recall resistance to Susan‟s request for two days of restorative justice certification
training. Others claim to have forgotten the request until the AHD training calendar and content
were set. As a result, Susan and her colleagues (including me) worked late in the training cycle
to schedule the AHD restorative justice training, fitting it in around other time-intensive events
happening on campus. The only open days she could find were Friday and Sunday of the second
week of classes.
Though the AHDs had been told at various times throughout their orientation trainings
that they would need to attend RJ certification training, they only received written notification of
the restorative justice training days, times (and 10-hour time commitment) on Tuesday before the
training. Some expressed deep concern over the amount of time it required, especially since they
were facing class and work demands, and they had just completed the intensive orientation
training. The time factor and lack of advance notice prompted displeasure within the AHD
cohort. One member, Zoe Rose, protested to her supervisors, who had no power to change the
training circumstances. In frustration, she wrote a scathing letter of protest to the Restorative
Justice Committee Chair, Susan McWilliams. Zoe circulated the letter among her 40-member

6

AHD cohort, inviting them to sign on. Many declined. Six of Zoe‟s colleagues did sign the
letter, however, and she delivered it to Susan‟s mailbox two days after the training.
Having attended both sessions of the restorative justice training, Zoe outlined the AHDs‟
perspective and demands using some restorative justice terms, but missing many of its guiding
principles of respect and collaboration. Instead, the letter indicated the AHDs saw the
Leadership Team as “strangers and intruders,” (Gibran, 1923, p. 40) and its scathing tone
provoked reciprocal feelings from Susan and other members of the RLU Leadership Team.
As Restorative Justice Coordinator, I urged Susan and all AHD signatories to address this
issue in a restorative justice circle. The AHDs who signed the letter and Zoe‟s direct supervisor
accepted the invitation along with Susan and two other Leadership Team members, including
Susan‟s supervisor. Conflict dominated preparatory discussions, conversation during the circle
and the post-circle meeting, with AHDs raising concerns about the perceived power differential
and Leadership Team members protesting the inappropriate nature of the letter. This situation of
competing interests and power dynamics offered an opportunity for social change, (Chibucos &
Leite, 2005) which I hoped to foster in the circle and document in this study.
This circle changed the perspectives of some participants by providing all those affected
with a means for working through their conflict directly, respectfully and collaboratively. The
study documents the transition from a conflict-based perspective in which staff-members from
each side saw the other “like a stranger and an intruder upon [their] world” (Gibran, 1923, p. 40)
to a cooperative, empathetic perspective which enabled the key participants—Susan and Zoe—to
work together constructively thereafter.
By qualitatively analyzing this circle and its participants‟ experiences through the lenses
of Conflict and Feminist Standpoint Theories, I hope to show how this restorative justice circle
7

instituted an alternative to oppositional and highly negative communication practices that
plagued the department. I examine this situation through the eyes of the two women central to
this conflict, using the lens of Feminist Standpoint theory to help explain and begin to transform
departmental culture. I also offer this case study as a reference for emerging practitioners as they
facilitate circles in their workplaces.

Conceptual and Operational Definitions
Restorative Justice
Seventy years after Gibran wrote the sermon on crime and punishment cited above,
another revolutionary book, Changing Lenses: A New Focus for Crime and Justice, called for a
different approach to misconduct and conflict. This book‟s author, Howard Zehr, proposes an
approach based on the community identifying the harm resulting from the misconduct, then
supporting and holding accountable those who are responsible for making it right. This concept
traces its roots to traditional societies that base their philosophies and practices on the
assumption that all are interconnected (Zehr, 2002). On page 21, Zehr distills the differences
between today‟s criminal justice and the restorative justice approaches.

Figure 1:

Criminal Justice and Restorative Justice Approaches Compared
Criminal Justice Approach

Restorative Justice Approach

Crime is a violation of the law and the state.

Crime is a violation of people and
relationships.
Violations create obligations.
Involves victims, offenders and community
members in an effort to make things right.
Central foci are victim needs and offender
responsibility for repairing harm.

Violations create guilt.
Requires the state to determine blame (guilt)
and impose pain (punishment).
Central focus is offenders getting what they
deserve.

8

The Circle Process
Adapted from Canadian First Nations and various American Indian practices, the circle
process has become an essential restorative justice tool. It provides a format for those most
affected by misconduct or conflict to come face to face, sitting together in a circle to explore the
incident through a restorative lens. Circles are facilitated by a keeper who maintains an
atmosphere of respect for all participants and who leads discussion through the use of a talking
piece. Any lightweight, portable object can serve as a talking piece, and as long as one
participant is holding that object, he/she has authority to speak while others listen (Pranis, 2005).
Kay Pranis, former Restorative Justice Planner for the Minnesota Department of
Corrections, adapted this technique from First Nations practices for use in restorative justice.
She describes a peacemaking circle as:
a way of bringing people together in which: everyone is respected; everyone gets a
chance to talk without interruption; participants explain themselves by telling their
stories; everyone is equal—no person is more important than anyone else; spiritual and
emotional aspects of individual experiences are welcomed (Pranis, 2005, p. 8).

Restorative Justice Limitations
Unlike the traditional justice paradigm, restorative justice cannot be imposed. It requires
that participants take an active role in identifying and resolving the harm caused by their conflict
or misconduct. This means that restorative practices may not be appropriate for every
circumstance of misconduct or conflict. To even consider engaging participants in restorative
justice, practitioners must confirm that those harmed are willing to talk with all affected parties

9

to resolve the issue, and that those who caused harm have taken responsibility for their actions
and are interested in making things right.

Research Questions
I have adopted a constructivist epistemology using Feminist Standpoint Theory (Daly,
2007; Hartsock, 1998)—a conflict theory—as my approach. As noted, I believe our society must
turn away from its alienating and vilifying approach to conflict and misconduct. As conflict
theory proposes, we must acknowledge that conflict is a basic aspect of human life and should be
accepted, understood and used as a catalyst for social change (Chibucos & Leite, 2005).
The restorative justice process exemplifies constructivism (Cresswell, 2007) because it
involves people coming together around a conflict to share their experience and feelings and to
collaborate in crafting a solution. This usually results in people bringing their individuallyconstructed realities to the process only to find that their perceptions and feelings change in the
course of hearing how others experienced and perceived the situation. Then in resolving their
conflict through this process, the group creates its own new reality to heal past harms and launch
themselves into the future reality they will share (Umbreit & Armour, 2011).
Restorative justice lends itself to Feminist Standpoint Theory which is both constructivist
and revolutionary. Standpoint Feminism posits that the traditionally feminine perspective, which
values relationships (Gilligan, 1982), provides a standpoint from which we can overcome our
current social order, dominated by the traditionally male perspective, which tends to value
hierarchy, dominance and dichotomous oppositional thinking (vanWormer, 2009). Unlike some
forms of conflict theories, Standpoint Feminism honors all perspectives because each group
contributes insights into a social situation or structure and therefore each group learns to see the
10

world in an active and creative way (Swigonski, 1994 citing Harding, 1991). This aspect is vital
to studying restorative justice practices, which are based on collaborative, respectful problem
solving by those directly affected by a situation of conflict or misconduct. Within that
constructivist, conflict theory framework, my research and interview questions fit into this
research design illustrated in Figure 2 (Carolan, 2010).
Figure 2:
Guiding Theory

Conflict Theory

Research Questions Guided by Conflict Theory
Systemic Level

RLU
 Policies
 Practices
 Hierarchies

Research Question

How did the Sept.
16th circle affect the
power dynamic
between AHDs and
Leadership Team
members?

Interview Question

How do you think the restorative
justice circle of Sept. 16 has
affected the RLU?
a. How do you think it has
affected power dynamics
between AHDs and
Leadership Team members?
b. How do you think it has
affected communication
dynamics within the RLU?
What implications do you think
this circle, as part of the
restorative justice process, has for
RLU operations?

Conflict Theory

Participant
 Practices
 Beliefs

How has the Sept.
16th circle affected
participants‟
communication
choices for workrelated issues?

11

How do you think the restorative
justice circle of Sept. 16 has
affected you personally?
a. Did it affect the way you
view or experience power
dynamics between AHDs and
the Leadership Team? If so,
how?
b. Has the circle affected your
communication dynamics
within the RLU community
or broader? If so, how and
why?

Figure 2 cont‟d
Was the restorative justice circle
useful in addressing this issue?
Why do you think that‟s true?
As their circle facilitator and colleague, I was moved by the transformation of Zoe‟s and
Susan‟s relationship from adversarial to collaborative and empathetic. A growing body of
literature in the restorative justice and student affairs disciplines is examining the power of
empathy (Slote, 2011; Umbreit & Armour, 2011). Therefore, I also examine these case study
data to identify and understand the role empathy played in circle participants‟ reconciliation and
continued work collaborations throughout the year. Within the Standpoint Feminist framework,
my research and interview questions fit into this research design illustrated in Figure 3 (Carolan,
2010).
Figure 3:

Research Questions Guided by Feminist Standpoint Theory

Guiding
Theory
Feminist
Standpoint

Systemic Level

Research Question

Interview Question

Participant
 Personal
 Professional

How did the Sept.
16th circle affect the
participants‟ view of
those on the other
side of the issue?

How do you think the restorative
justice circle of Sept. 16 affected
your feelings toward those on the
other side of the issue?
c. Did it give you new insights
into their lives or thoughts?
d. Did you identify with any of
the experiences of those on
the other side of the issue?

Feminist
Standpoint

Department

How did the Sept.
16th circle affect the
participants‟ view of
those on the other
side of the issue?

12

What implications do you think
this circle, as part of the
restorative justice process, has for
RLU operations?

Chapter Two
Review of the Literature
Restorative Justice
As noted above, Zehr (1990) launched the restorative justice movement with his book,
Changing Lenses, in which he calls for a different approach to addressing crime. This approach
grew out of the Victims‟ Rights Movement of the 1970s and „80s (Commission, 2010; Umbreit
& Armour, 2011). Restorative justice descriptions include:


“a theory of justice that focuses on repairing the harm that a criminal offense inflicts on
victims, offenders and communities” (Commission, 2010, p. 1); or



“a fast-growing state, national and international social movement that seeks to bring
people together to address the harm caused by crime, through empowerment of those
involved” (Umbreit & Armour, 2011, p. 2); or



“an ethos with practical goals among which to restore harm by including affected parties
in an (direct or indirect) encounter and a process of understanding through voluntary and
honest dialogue” (Gavrielides, 2011, p. 4).

Restorative justice is often depicted as a triangle with its three points representing the victim
at the top and the offender and the community at the base with harm depicted at the center.
(Geske, 2008) The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) of the U.S.
Department of Justice developed a Balanced and Restorative Justice model that also uses the
triangle imagery, but it depicts the sides as “Competency Development, Community Protection
and Accountability respectively (OJJPD, 1991, p. 1). Combined, these models are illustrated in
Figure 4.

13

Figure 4:

Restorative Justice Model
Victim

HARM

Community

Offender

Over the past 30 years, more than 85 studies on restorative justice interventions,
including four meta-analyses, have shown the power of this process. The findings suggest that
the vast majority of participants are satisfied with the process and agreements and therefore tend
to honor their restitution commitments and tend not to re-offend (Umbreit & Armour, 2011).
Studies also reveal “remarkably consistent outcomes and results,” suggesting that restorative
justice offers both offenders and their victims better outcomes than traditional justice
(Commission, 2010, pp. 3-4). Even before the latest studies were released, the OJJPD, American
Bar Association, United Nations and various European countries from Austria to Ukrain have
endorsed the use of restorative justice principles and programs such as victim-offender dialogue.
Performance data on other restorative justice techniques such as conferencing and circles is
limited, likely because they are relatively new to the restorative justice tool box and they are
more frequently used in less formal settings where data-collection may not be emphasized
(Umbreit & Armour, 2011).
14

As restorative justice techniques and applications have expanded, so have questions about
what defines “restorative” and who controls the movement‟s direction. In his address to the
Plenary Session of the 12th International Conference of the International Institute for Restorative
Practices, Howard Zehr acknowledged that Google offers over a million hits for the term
restorative justice, and definitions for the term abound (Zehr, 2009, p. 145). He points out that
schools, religious organizations and whole societies are using it to deal with wrongdoing. While
debate rages among various factions over standards, accreditation and best practices, Zehr points
out that some simply consider it a way of life. He captures the essence of restorative justice as
follows:
When a wrong has been done, it needs to be named and acknowledged. Those who have
been harmed need to . . . have the harms and needs caused by the offense addressed. . . .
Those who have done wrong accept their responsibility and take steps to repair the harm
to the extent it is possible (Zehr, 2009, p. 146).
He suggests we can understand restorative justice in threes. As outlined above, the three
stakeholder groups are those who have caused harm and their families, those who have been
harmed and their families, and the community. The three underlying values are respect,
responsibility and relationship. The three principles include accountability, engagement and
restoration. Restorative justice is based on answering three questions: “Who has been hurt?
What are their needs? Who has the obligation to address the needs to put right the harms, to
restore the relationship?” (Zehr, 2009, pp. 147 - 148).
Zehr recognizes that, if evaluated on a restorative scale, some processes would rank higher
than others, and that not all practices qualify as restorative—despite labels and claims that they
are. Zehr, with Harry Mika in a 1998 article titled Fundamental Principles of Restorative

15

Justice, suggest ten criteria that make a peace-making process restorative. Umbreit has cited the
list and included it in at least two of his publications (Umbreit & Armour, 2011; Umbreit, et al.,
2006, pp. 258-259).
1.

Focus on the harms of wrongdoing rather than the rules that have been broken.

2.

Show equal concern and commitment to victims and offenders, involving both in

the process of justice.
3.

Work toward restoration of victims, empowering them and responding to their

needs as they see them.
4.

Support offenders while encouraging them to understand, accept and carry out

their obligations.
5.

Recognize that while obligations may be difficult for offenders, they should not

be intended as harm and they should be achievable.
6.

Provide opportunities for dialogue, direct or indirect, between victims and

offenders as appropriate.
7.

Involve and empower the affected community through the justice process and

increase their capacity to recognize and respond to community bases of crime.
8.

Encourage collaboration and reintegration rather than coercion and isolation.

9.

Give attention to the unintended consequences of our actions and programs.

10. Show respect for all parties including victims, offenders and justice colleagues.

Restorative Practices
As noted above, the restorative justice movement has exploded from its humble, victimoffender dialogue (VOD) beginnings to encompass a variety of tools and applications. In
addition to variations of VOD, restorative justice interventions now include various forms of
16

conferencing and circles, restorative community service, victim-impact panels and variations of
community dispute techniques from truth and reconciliation commissions to what Umbreit calls
humanistic mediation (Umbreit & Armour, 2011).
Just as Zehr recognized that these interventions fall across a scale of “restorativeness,”
others maintain that restorative interventions vary according to „justice.” They argue that instead
of simply reacting to harm after it has resulted from a criminal act, restorative justice principles
can apply proactively to help avert serious misconduct and strengthen communities. Across the
globe, peace-makers from many disciplines have adapted restorative justice tools to their
communities, schools, juvenile justice facilities, youth development programs, families, etc.
The International Institute for Restorative Practices (IIRP) advocates this approach,
which they call Restorative Practices, described as “offer[ing] a common thread to tie together
theory, research and practice in seemingly disparate fields such as education, counseling,
criminal justice, social work and organizational management” (McCold & Wachtel, 2003, p. 2).
In a paper presented at the 13th World Conference on Criminology, IIRP President Ted Wachtel
and researcher Paul McCold introduce the Social Discipline Window that illustrates how
restorative discipline works.
Figure 5:
HIGH

WITH

Punitive

RESTORATIVE

NOT

FOR

NEGLECTFUL

CONTROL

TO

PERMISSIVE

LOW

SUPPORT

17

HIGH

The IIRP model depicts punishment as a function of control (“exercising restraint or directing
influence over others”) and support (“nurturing, encouraging or assisting others”). Each function
occupies its own axis running low to high as noted in Figure 5.
The IIRP argues that effective discipline provides both high control and high support.
This results in the disciplinarian working WITH the child rather than doing discipline TO the
child (low support and high control) or not imposing any discipline, which would be
characterized as neglectful (low support and low control) or permissive (high support and low
control). The IIRP advocates discipline practices that fall above the diagonal line in Figure 5
because it believes they are more effective (Costello, Wachtel, & Wachtel, 2009; McCold &
Wachtel, 2003).
In addition to the social discipline window, the IIRP also developed a scale of
interventions or actions that peacemakers can take in applying restorative practices. Done in the
context of the restorative justice paradigm which emphasizes healing over punishment, these
interactions provide the tools for creating respectful, restorative communities. The IIRP calls
this scale the Restorative Practices Continuum (Costello, et al., 2009, p. 12), and they depict the
various interventions along a range from informal to formal as noted in Figure 6.
Figure 6:

Informal

Affective
Affective
Statements Questions

Formal

Small
Restorative Formal
Impromptu Circle
Conference
Conference

18

The IIRP has built their restorative practices approach around these models of discipline,
training entire school staffs in this approach to discipline and implementing proactive circles to
develop restorative school communities. In U.S., Canadian and British schools where they have
fully implemented their restorative practices model, the IIRP claims dramatic drops in discipline
referrals one year after implementing restorative practices. They are implementing restorative
practices city-wide in Hull, England, with great success toward making Hull the world‟s first
“restorative community” (n/a, 2010; Richardson, 2010).
Though the IIRP has engaged thousands of students through its restorative practices
programs and operates a graduate school, few American academics cite its studies. While any
number of points could explain this phenomenon, I propose two that seem plausible. First, the
IIRP is a business with branches and affiliates around the world and a special connection to
restorative programs in Australia and New Zealand. It is possible that Australian and European
scholars cite IIRP data more than American scholars. It also is possible that academics shy away
from IIRP studies because they are produced as part of business operations and not purely for
research. Second, some in the restorative justice movement disagree with the IIRP‟s approach to
restorative justice practices for any number of reasons, including differing views on what should
be considered restorative justice and what falls outside the definition. False claims about
interactions being restorative in nature are growing, posing a threat to legitimate restorative
justice efforts. These different opinions may be reflected in scholars‟ refusing to cite IIRP data.
I have been trained in and have trained others in the IIRP‟s conferencing model, which is
based on the highly restorative Maori practice of Whakima—community-based means of
addressing wrong-doing (B. Wachtel, 2008). Having studied both under the IIRP and Kay Pranis
and interacted with other restorative justice leaders, I have observed their very different styles

19

and approaches. I chose to adopt Kay Pranis‟s teachings for my circles practice and trainings.
Regardless of their differences, however, I firmly believe that all are fully committed to
implementing restorative justice principles and practices. I feel that drawing from multiple
sources has strengthened my practice and enhanced the trainings I offer.

Circles Process
The restorative justice version of the circle process is founded on the rich First Nations
and American Indian traditions of peacemaking and sentencing circles and the paradigm that all
elements of creation are united. In 1854 Chief Seattle explained this view when he said,
“Humankind has not woven the web of life. We are but one thread within it. Whatever we do to
the web we do to ourselves. All things are bound together. All things connect” (Umbreit &
Armour, 2011, p. 67).
From this paradigm for understanding the world and all of life, restorative justice appears
logical. By comparison, the traditional western paradigm of justice through punishment (usually
administered in the form of casting the offender out of society) seems counterproductive at best
and suicidal at worst.
When she became the first Restorative Justice Planner for the Minnesota Department of
Corrections in 1994 (Pranis, 2005), Kay Pranis turned to this paradigm as practiced by Judge
Barry Stuart of the Tagish-Tlingit Nation in Yukon, Canada. Judge Stuart had successfully used
a sentencing circle for a high profile repeat offender from his nation. Pranis initially used the
peacemaking circle to address staff conflict within the prisons, but quickly she and her
colleagues also recognized its value for various stages of prisoner re-entry (Pranis, 2005;
Umbreit & Armour, 2011). Now a facilitator, author and trainer, Pranis is the recognized
authority on the use of circles in the restorative justice movement.
20

She writes:
A Peacemaking Circle is a way of bringing people together in which everyone is
respected; everyone gets a chance to talk without interruption; participants explain
themselves by telling their stories; everyone is equal—no person is more important than
anyone else; spiritual and emotional aspects of individual experience are welcomed
(Pranis, 2005, p. 8).
Participants sit in a circle facing each other, without a table or furniture, but often with a
centerpiece that represents the group‟s shared values or experience. A facilitator, also called a
keeper, guides the process through its various stages, using ritual, behavioral guidelines and a
talking piece to maintain a tone of calm and respect. This allows every participant to freely
express his/her values, thoughts and emotions, to listen deeply and to develop an agreement by
consensus outlining how the issue will be addressed if needed (Pranis, 2009; Umbreit & Armour,
2011).
In 2009, Kay Pranis offered a training I attended which profoundly shaped my
understanding of circles. In this training she presented the circle as a Native American Medicine
Wheel with its four equal segments. She credits Tlingit teacher and mentor, Harold Gatensby
with original authorship of this image (Pranis, 2005). Just as the Medicine Wheel can represent
various aspects of the natural world—the seasons, the phases of the moon, the directions, the
stages of human development—it also can represent the four stages of the circle process at
multiple levels. For example, the initial stages of the process begin with determining
suitability—the keeper decides if the circle process can effectively address the situation. The
second stage, preparation, is key to the circle‟s success or failure and often requires extensive
discussion and planning. Stage three, convening the circle, also can be divided into four stages

21

as outlined below. And the final stage—follow-up, is also essential to the long-term success of
the circle and should not become an afterthought (Pranis, 2009).
As noted above, the four stages of conducting a circle include introduction, trust building,
issues analysis and solution. The elements of each stage are identified in the Figure 7.

Figure 7:

The Circles Process Described
as A Medicine Wheel
Solution
 How do we make
things right?
 What must
happen for all to
move forward?
 Closing

Issues
• What happened?
• Who was affected
and how?

Introduction
• Meet as
human beings
• Use ritual to
establish safe
space.

Trust Building
• Share traits,
values or personal
contribution
• Establish respect
for each other.

For interpretation of the references to color in this and all other figures, the reader is referred to
the electronic version of this thesis.

This model offers guidance for restorative justice circles, such as those used for sentencing,
peacemaking, healing or support. It might not apply, however, to circles that fall into the
restorative practices spectrum, such as community-building, organizational or talking circles
whose purpose is not solution-focused but simply to provide a vehicle to discuss a topic or get to
know each other (Pranis, 2009; Umbreit & Armour, 2011).

22

Having begun this segment with a quote from Chief Seattle, I propose a quote Kay Pranis
features (Pranis, 2005, pp. 27-28) from physicist Margaret Wheatley to close. In her book
Leadership and the New Science (1992) Wheatley writes:
Each of us lives and works in organizations designed from Newtonian images of the
universe . . . Things can be taken apart, dissected literally or representationally (as we
have done with business functions and academic disciplines) and then put back together
without any significant loss. The assumption is that by comprehending the workings of
each piece, the whole can be understood. The Newtonian model of the world is
characterized by materialism and reductionism—a focus on things rather than
relationships. [However] the quantum mechanical view of reality strikes against most of
our notions of reality. . . . It is a world where relationship is the key determiner of what
is observed. . . . Particles come into being and are observed only in relationship to
something else. They do not exist as independent “things.” These unseen connections
between what were previously thought to be separate entities are fundamental elements of
all creation (Pranis, 2005, pp. 27-28).

Conflict Theory
Both quantum physics and Native American beliefs teach that humans are connected to
one another and to all parts of our world. Pranis offers the image of a circle as a metaphor for
this connectedness in which each point is equidistant from the center, and no point is higher or
lower, ahead of or behind the rest (Umbreit & Armour, 2011, p. 179). This concept is central to
the Native American perspective on life and on the Maori cultural belief of Whakapapa—the
idea that everything and everyone is connected (Blogs, 2009).

23

It is, however, foreign to traditional western society‟s paradigm of hierarchy, dominance
and dichotomous oppositional thinking as posited in conflict theory (vanWormer, 2009). From
races to societies to families, conflict theory teaches that humans are in constant competition for
resources and power and that this competition is in our best interest (Chibucos & Leite, 2005;
White & Klein, 2008). This competition can be overt, as in the Bolshevik and Maoist
revolutions, or subtle, as in familial alliances and social structures that favor members of some
races or one gender over another.

Feminist Standpoint Theory

For decades Feminist theorists have tried to identify, expose and address both the overt
and subtle forms of gender preference foundational to our social structures and practices. White
and Klein cite Gordon‟s (1979) definition of feminist theory as “an analysis of women‟s
subordination for the purpose of figuring out how to change it” (White & Klein, 2008, p. 218).
Within this framework, Standpoint Feminism tries to reverse women‟s subordination based on
the following beliefs and practices.


Less powerful members of a society view and experience reality from a different
perspective (standpoint) than the dominant group. Because the subordinate group must
survive in both realities, it has a more complete understanding of the situation.
Researchers who adopt the marginalized standpoint as their starting point, rather than
accepting the standard view of a social situation, will have a less distorted understanding
(Swigonski, 1994).

24



Studying events from the marginalized group‟s everyday life yields hidden or obscured
insights and perspectives on social structures and practices that maintain existing power
structures and it also provides overlooked insights into the lives of the marginalized
(Swigonski, 1994).



The traditionally feminine perspective, which values relationships, (Gilligan, 1982)
provides a standpoint from which we can overcome oppression and build a society better
than our current social order dominated by the traditionally male perspective which
values hierarchy, dominance and dichotomous oppositional thinking (vanWormer, 2009).



All perspectives must be honored, however, because each group contributes insights into
a social situation or structure and therefore each group learns to see the world in an active
and creative way (Swigonski, 1994 citing Harding, 1991).



As a member of a group—class, gender, profession, etc.—we have assimilated and
helped develop the views of our identity group. In order to understand the situation we
study and make it better, feminist researchers must recognize our assumptions and where
we place ourselves in our work (Kleinman, 2007). Reflexivity is a key element of
Feminist Standpoint theory.
Harvard student, Carol Gilligan, exemplified the extraordinary power of looking at

accepted practices from a different perspective. She challenged the widely accepted assumption
that human decision-making based on Classical ethical rationalism and reason constituted the
highest level of moral development (Slote, 2011). Examining the theory from her perspective as
a woman, Gilligan (1982) identified a flaw in this reason-based approach to Moral Development
Theory because it gave clear preferences to males, thereby categorizing females as inferior on
moral development scales. She built the case that moral development literature must take into
25

account multiple perspectives, including sex and gender roles‟ influence on moral development,
because in our society girls are socialized around a “care-ethic” while boys‟ socialization is more
in-line with the reason-based approach (Jaffee & Hyde, 2000).
In exposing this bias, Gilligan illustrated a classic feminist view that the dominant
structure of justice- or rules-based morality defined “truth” in a way that favored those already in
power (Staub, 1995; White & Klein, 2008). By pointing out that the accepted rational- or
justice-based focus on moral reasoning contained an inherent bias against a moral orientation
based on relationships and caring (and thereby against the experience of many women, Native
Americans and others) Gilligan raised the consciousness of an entire generation and gave voice
to masses of people whose experience caused them to be ranked lower on standard models of
morality (Hekman, 1995).
Gilligan‟s challenge initiated a paradigm shift (Matthews, 2004) away from a positivistic
view of human decision-making that favored rationality and reason (Slote, 2011) toward an
interpretive view that high moral choices can be based on motives other than “pure” reason as
defined by the ancient Greeks. While Gilligan based her challenge on gender, making it a
powerful feminist statement, she also gave voice to minorities and dignity to their beliefs that
had been excluded from public discourse (Hekman, 1995). More than a decade later, moral
developmentalist, John C. Gibbs wrote “justice and empathy are equally primary and mutually
irreducible sources of moral motivation”(Gibbs, 1995, p. 42).

Empathy
In any society, one of the most salient ways we understand our connection to others is
through the experience of empathy. From infancy, most humans have the ability to vicariously

26

experience the feelings congruent with those of a person(s) in need whether parallel—feeling the
same thing they are feeling—or reactive—experiencing a sympathetic reaction, such as concern,
sorrow or anger, to another person‟s experience (Staub, 1995). Behavioral science has long
recognized that empathy evolves as humans develop from infancy to adulthood (Gibbs, 1995;
Small, 2011). Now medical science can even map the areas of the brain stimulated by empathic
emotion (Baron-Cohen, 2011; Small, 2011).
Moral philosopher Michael Slote (2011) writes:
some philosophers . . . think that being moral is more a matter of empathic concern for or
caring about others than it is a question of being rational. . . . A large part of what it
means to be open-minded or fair-minded is to be willing and able to see things from the
point of view of those one disagrees with. This clearly involves being empathic, but it is
an empathy with opinions and arguments—rather than empathy with sheer feelings . . .
that is most relevant to the cognitive, epistemic side of our lives. Think how important it
is in our contemporary world to encourage this kind of cognitive/epistemic integrity
(Slote, 2011, pp. 13-15).
My experiences and conversations with fellow restorative justice practitioners lead me to
believe that empathy plays a key role in restorative justice‟s healing effect on situations of
conflict or harm. Literature on empathy‟s role in restorative justice is limited, however,
especially in higher education (Karp & Allena, 2004; Lipka, 2009). Umbreit and Armour (2011)
link restorative justice to empathy and understanding, and they quote J. Greenwood:
Restorative justice practices encourage a sense of inclusion and recognition of the
humanness in all people . . . all people have the capacity to harm and to heal. . . . This
common human bond is responsible for replacing the „us vs. them‟ adversarial mentality

27

that fuels a retributive system with the oneness that necessitates restoration of the
community”(Umbreit & Armour, 2011, p. 73).
In reading the Greenwood quote above, I am struck with how it echoes the words Kahil
Gibran wrote nearly a century ago.
You cannot separate the just from the unjust and the good from the wicked, for they stand
together before the face of the sun. . . . And you who would understand justice, how shall
you unless you look upon all deeds in the fullness of light? Only then shall you know
that the erect and the fallen are but one man standing in twilight between the night of his
pygmy self and the day of his god self”(Gibran, 1923, pp. 40-43).
I present this case study of a restorative justice circle that enabled people to replace their “us vs.
them” adversarial mentality and to empathize with each other so they could work together
productively.

28

Chapter Three
Methods
This case study describes the elements of a restorative justice circle conducted at the
beginning of a university‟s implementation of the restorative justice process. By analyzing
participants‟ words from interviews and such artifacts as letters, agreements, e-mails and shared
comments, I hope to understand and illustrate the role this circle played in changing individuals‟
and departmental perspectives and practices.

Procedure and Data Collection
After facilitating the circle, I recognized its value as an excellent example of how
restorative justice works with college age students, so I asked Susan and Zoe if they would
consider participating in an in-depth study of this circle. They agreed, and I embarked on the
Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval process for a case study of the September 16th circle.
As the facilitator of the Sept. 16 circle, I proceeded to schedule the follow-up meeting, check in
with circle participants and continued to produce documents and information from the follow-up
sessions, hoping I would earn IRB approval to analyze them. Aside from the initial inquiries
immediately after the circle, I did not ask the circle participants again about participating in the
study until I received IRB approval on November 9.
I have collected documents and kept a log of events that led to and flowed from the
circle. These include aspects of the initial training which angered the AHDs, their letter
expressing their feelings to the Leadership Team member, the agreement that every participant
helped craft and signed after the circle ended, minutes from the follow-up meeting and the joint
statement sent by the AHD and assistant department director at the center of this conflict. As
29

noted earlier, I have assigned the AHD the pseudonym, Zoe Rose and have called the Leadership
Team member Susan McWilliams. The following timeline illustrates the events of this study.

Case Study Timeline

Figure 8:

2010

2011
6/22 Joint Interview

SEVEN MONTHS

11/23 Susan Interview

11/16 Zoe Interview

11/8 IRB Approval Received

11/5 Joint Letter issued

11/2 e-mail Questioning
sending joint letter

10/25 Applied for IRB Approval

10/5 Follow-up meeting

9/16 Circle

9/12 Training

Approximately two months after the circle, I invited the research subjects separately to
my home where I conducted an interview using the questions outlined in Figure 2. As noted
above, these questions were designed to explore how the circle affected power dynamics and
communication practices both for participants and for the department.
Seven months later I asked them to participate in a joint discussion in the RLU
conference room where we conducted the circle. This interview was designed to explore Susan‟s
and Zoe‟s feelings of empathy that resulted from the circle and their opinions about how the
circle affected the RLU. The questions for this discussion are listed in Figure 3.
By engaging both Susan and Zoe together in this second interview I hoped to observe
how comfortable they seemed revisiting and discussing this highly emotional experience. In the
spirit of modeling restorative justice techniques, I also include this longer-term follow-up as an

30

example for restorative justice practitioners. Long-term follow-ups can yield valuable data on
the effectiveness of this process and its effect on participants.

Data Analysis
I videotaped all three interviews and asked my sister to transcribe them. As a secretary
to a local police department, she is a professional transcriber of video- and audio-taped testimony
and was willing to do this for me. In return I bought her two small gifts. My sister is not
engaged in the research and has no publishing rights. She has agreed never to make public any
information or elements of the interview and has given me sole possession of the footage and
transcribed text (Services, 2008).

Research Design
I applied Thematic Analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006) to the original protest letter, the
circle agreement, the joint letter Zoe and Susan issued together and all three interviews. As
noted earlier, it was clear from the beginning that this conflict centered on issues of power and
communication. These informed my choice of the Feminist Standpoint Theory as the basis for
my analysis. Consistent with Feminist and other Conflict Theories, I applied latent analysis
techniques to find the deeper meanings in these situations, such as observing how the two
women interacted and looking for underlying meanings to both their spoken and unspoken
messages.
Within this context, I established a-priori codes of Power Dynamics, Communication and
Empathy, as reflected in the interview questions in Figures 2 and 3. In the process I also
identified a plethora of invivo themes. After several rounds of coding and (re)grouping, I
31

identified the following categories: Power dynamics in the RLU culture; Power dynamics within
the circle itself; Passive-Aggressive communication practices; Evolution of communication from
harmful to productive; Transition from adversary to colleague, Empathy in Relationships and the
Restorative justice option.
Trustworthiness
This theoretical, rather than inductive, approach (Braun & Clarke, 2006) lends itself to a
deeper examination of the power and communication dynamics and the empathy that developed
between the main characters as the process evolved. My findings reflect these themes through
Susan‟s and Zoe‟s comments and writings as observed through a Feminist Standpoint lens which
honors each woman‟s perspective and offers insights into how to change or improve the existing
system. Coding maps included in Appendix B support my findings.
Because the key participants of this case chose to make its outcome public, this case
study risks exposing its subjects and the department to significant scrutiny. Though I have
assigned them pseudonyms for this study, their situation was widely known in the RLU, and this
restorative justice case was remembered throughout the year. I have been surprised at how
protective I have felt toward the subjects‟ privacy and representation (Marshall & Rossman,
2011). I respect and admire the participants of this restorative justice circle and have taken
numerous precautions to ensure that they feel comfortable sharing the details of this interaction.
To this end, I compared the transcripts with the original interviews and have member-checked
with both subjects all segments referencing them, confirming document contents at different
stages of the process. While the first round of member-checking reflects both Zoe‟s and Susan‟s
input, the second round of member-checking reflects only Susan‟s input. When asked to review

32

the final version, Zoe deferred to Susan saying, “I am sure that [Susan] will be able to give you
good feedback--again, I'm sorry not to be of more help.” I have incorporated the changes both
offered into the story of the circle. In accordance with IRB requirements, I asked them not to
share anything with me that might compromise them or others. This serves both to protect my
colleagues and to ensure trustworthiness. Member check memos, e-mail exchanges between
circle participants and my audit trail throughout this process are available for review upon
request.
Reflexivity
As RLU Restorative Justice Coordinator using public artifacts and identifiable subjects, I
have tried to bring the highest level of trustworthiness and diplomacy to this study. As the sole
researcher in this case study, I did not have an opportunity to do coding checks or compare
conclusions with research colleagues. As noted above, I have confirmed my findings with the
real Susan and Zoe and have integrated their modifications. My role as participant, restorative
justice advocate and researcher has introduced complications not found in many academic
studies. Yet I believe this strengthens the study by ensuring a balance of voices and accurate
depiction of participants‟ experiences.
My standpoint informs and colors my evaluation and conclusions, and I am aware that in
a very real way, mine is the primary standpoint represented in this study. Throughout the text I
have tried to share issues of reflexivity when I recognized them. I must own, however, that I
may have missed some other issues that called for greater introspection and reflection. Please
accept this as the sincere effort of an admitted constructivist.

33

Chapter Four
Case Study
Background
After three years of research and debate, the Residence Life Unit (RLU) at this major
Midwestern university decided to adopt restorative justice philosophy and practices throughout
its residence hall system. As part of that commitment, the Leadership Team had decided to give
all full and part-time staff training in restorative justice conferencing. This benefitted the RLU
by training staff to use this process to resolve conflict and address misconduct, and it
strengthened staff-members‟ resumes because they earned certification from an international
restorative justice entity.
As a restorative justice trainer and former program coordinator in area schools, I was
delighted to serve as the RLU‟s first Graduate Assistant for Restorative Justice—adopting the
training and program implementation efforts this new initiative demanded. Having previously
helped introduce and train RLU Leadership Team members to restorative justice concept and
practices, I joined the staff in mid-August and felt immediately comfortable. Given my strong
favorable bias in favor of restorative justice, I was oblivious to any internal opposition to the new
initiative.
Before I came on staff, the orientation training schedule had been established without
including restorative justice conferencing training. Susan McWilliams, Restorative Justice
Committee Chair had talked with RLU directors at all levels looking for a date we could
schedule all untrained staff for this ten-hour training. Susan remembers some expressing
concern that the certification demanded so many hours and questions about whether that training

34

time might be better spent on other issues. Overall, however, the team supported the use of
restorative justice and wanted to give all staff the skills to implement this process as early as
possible.
We chose the first weekend available. Two weeks after school started, Susan
McWilliams and I trained 56 RLU staff members—including new directors, assistant hall
directors (AHDs) and other graduate assistants. We met in two sessions from 1:00 to 7 p.m. on
September 10 and 12, 2010. I ran the first session during which I noticed a number of attendees
exhibiting negative behavior. For example, some held private conversations during lecture and
made negative comments to those around them. A number of trainees challenged me directly,
saying restorative justice might be useful for school children, but it would not work with college
students. Whenever someone voiced this belief, heads bobbed in agreement.
For the second session, Susan stepped in to run the training while I spent the day in the
Emergency Room with my injured daughter. As soon as my daughter‟s medical issue was
resolved, I rushed to the training site on September 12 and arrived as Susan was wrapping up.
As I walked out of the training session, Elizabeth Dear, one of the attendees, approached me
outside the classroom. She explained that the trainees had acted negatively to the additional
hours the training required, not to the restorative justice concepts, and told me a number of
AHDs felt the same way. As Liz detailed some of their grievances, Susan McWilliams
approached us and stood listening. Liz chose not to acknowledge Susan, but kept talking to me
about AHDs negative feelings toward the department.
On September 14, just two days later, Susan McWilliams received a letter signed by five
AHDs, including Liz, protesting the required training. (Figure 10 in Appendix A) In addition to

35

outlining their grievances, the AHDs‟ two-page letter included language and demands that
offended and angered Susan and some of her colleagues in the RLU Leadership Team. Due to
the letter‟s effect on Susan, its language and its angry and frustrated tone, I recognized this as a
perfect situation for restorative justice.
I proposed restorative justice, and after hesitation and careful consideration, Susan
agreed. She had completed training in restorative justice conferencing and circles the previous
year along with other Leadership Team members—two of whom we invited to participate in the
circle with Susan. They all knew and trusted the process enough to accept.
I immediately set about contacting the letter signers to invite them, and was delighted as
one after another accepted. We scheduled our circle for the morning of September 16 in the
RLU conference room.
I have to confess, I was not confident of this circle‟s success. While I needed
opportunities to engage college students in the restorative justice process to prove it was as
powerful a tool for adults as it is for schoolchildren, I could see that anger and hurt ran deep in
all the parties. In my more optimistic moments, I felt blessed with the opportunity. In my darker
moments, I just sighed and thought, “Oh well, if it doesn‟t work, we can still use it as a learning
opportunity.” This was true on multiple levels. Regardless of its outcome, the circle would
provide on-the-job experience in the restorative justice process I had trained them to use. It
would help them build empathy for future participants by experiencing restorative justice from
the perspective of an invested party, and not the relatively detached position of facilitator. It
would help the RLU build a core of restorative justice experiences from which to draw when
future conflicts emerged.

36

Key Issues
As Thom Allena explains in his case study of a conference he facilitated at UCLA in
1999, “The success of a restorative practice (circle) is rooted in its preparation. It has been our
experience that poorly planned interventions usually become unsuccessful” (Karp & Allena,
2004, p. 184). My five years of using this process affirm his observation, so I try to follow the
steps outlined in the checklist excerpted here. The complete list appears in the Conferencing
Handbook: New Real Justice Training Manual by Terry O‟Connell, Ben Wachtel and Ted
Wachtel. These steps make up the pre-conference or circle preparation stage of the restorative
justice process.

Figure 9:

Restorative Justice Facilitator‟s Preparation Checklist

o Do you have a clear understanding of the incident?
o Has the offender admitted responsibility?
o Have you invited all necessary participants?
o Have you spoken with or met all participants and secured their attendance?
o Do participants understand the [circle] process and purpose?
o Have you thought about how the [circle] might unfold?
o Do you know what may happen if the [circle] does not reach an agreement or the
participants fail to satisfy the agreement?
Excerpted (Ted Wachtel, 2010, p. 202)

In talking with the AHDs during pre-conferencing, I heard each AHD give a slightly
different reason for signing the letter. Some, such as Zoe Rose, letter author and subject of this
cases study, expressed concern that the Leadership Team added ten hours of training to a week
already packed with work and classes without providing for comp time or similar flexibility.
37

Others felt that the Leadership Team had taken them for granted by requiring their attendance
but only giving them a few days notice (in the form of a Sept. 7 e-mail reminder) that the training
would require ten hours of their time. Others made it clear that more AHDs would have signed
the letter if they had not feared losing their jobs over it—all signatories were returning AHDs
planning to graduate in the spring. Finally, others said they did not expect anything to change
because of this, but that they felt they had to express their concerns. Even after some had raised
the issue with their supervisors the requirement remained fixed, so they decided to submit the
letter.
On the other side of the issue, Leadership Team members‟ concerns revolved mostly
around the negative tone of the letter. Susan McWilliams, letter recipient and subject of this case
study, felt surprised and hurt to have received a document she felt expressed such anger and lack
of respect. “Why didn‟t they just come to me in the first place?” she wondered, “or send me an
e-mail? I have met with [some of the signers] and they never said anything about this! Now I
get this letter?!” Other Leadership Team members expressed similar feelings, wondering why
the signers had not come to them as their supervisors instead of choosing the more extreme route
of sending a letter they viewed as incendiary because of its tone and demands. Another
Leadership Team member felt her “maternal instincts” flare because of the “disrespectful and
demanding tone of the letter and the surprise attack” on Susan who was already working
extremely long hours filling a number of roles for the RLU.
As facilitator, I distilled their concerns into a two neutral, key points that could form the
basis for the circle discussion. I called them “contract violations and collegial discourtesy.”
While none said these topics fully captured the essence of their grievance, all understood the
need to focus our discussion, and agreed these issue statements would serve that purpose.
38

As both a graduate assistant (like the AHDs) and a member of Leadership Team I had to
do some introspection before facilitating this circle. Frankly, the negative tone and demands of
the letter had surprised me since my primary experience had been working with Leadership
Team colleagues who were overwhelmingly positive, friendly and respectful in the conversations
and actions I had observed. As they processed their anger and hurt from this letter, however, I
was able to observe their discussion also taking a negative tone.
RLU Leadership Team members frequently encourage people to come to them to talk,
and they literally work with their doors open whenever they are in their offices. Yet in preconferencing discussions, I heard AHDs say they had raised the training issue with some
Leadership Team-members (including Susan and me) and other supervisors and had not gotten a
meaningful response—or at least the response they wanted. On the other hand, as I noted above,
after the second day of training, I had also experienced some AHDs engaging in negative
discussions with colleagues, but choosing not to talk openly and constructively with Susan when
the opportunity arose.
Finally, I knew that RLU culture often demands extra work hours—especially at the
opening of the school year, and everyone was putting in many more hours than their contracts
required. These AHDs were all seasoned RLU staff, who had clearly had enough of working
beyond their contracted hours. Perhaps the AHDs‟ frustration over this was well founded, so I
looked forward to gaining more insights through the circle process.

39

The Circle
When we met in circle on September 16, I pointed out that my position as both a graduate
assistant and member of the Leadership Team gave me a foot in both worlds represented. I
explained it was important to me to be fully transparent for everyone, but my biases or
experiences should have little effect on the circle‟s potential success. Like any restorative justice
facilitator, I was there to ask the questions. It was up to the AHDs and Leadership Team
members assembled to answer them and determine how best to move forward. They
acknowledged my disclosure and agreed to allow me to facilitate.
The circle unfolded according to restorative justice protocol. I explained that respect is
foundational to any restorative justice circle, so it was essential that we all treat each other
respectfully throughout our discussion. Then I introduced a talking piece of a multicolored pipecleaner sculpture of people linked arm in arm. I explained this represented our group because
RLU staff can face conflict and tough times but we are resilient enough to recover from them.
As I said this, I crumpled the pipe-cleaner forms in my hands, then straightened them back to
their original configuration. I asked participants to speak only when they held the talking piece.
When they did not have the talking piece, I invited them to listen in a way that would help us
resolve this situation. Seeing no questions or obvious concerns, I explained I would ask a
question then pass the talking to piece to my right and invite that person to answer in turn. As
each participant finished answering the questions, he/she would pass the talking piece to the
person on the right. Participants were free to pass the talking piece without comment if they
preferred not to speak.

40

In an effort to bring the group together and ease tension, I began with an invitation to say
one nice thing about the person sitting directly across the circle. Looks of surprise greeted this
request, followed by smiles as each RLU staffer shared an observation of some trait, act or sense
they valued about their colleague seated across from them. Since each was facing a person on
the opposite side of the conflict, this exercise made participants more comfortable and connected
to each other as we moved into the crux of the conflict.
When the talking piece came back to me, I introduced the first question: “What
happened?” and asked participants to answer from their own perspective based on what they
experienced around the training and the letter. Each person described his or her experience and
thoughts about what aspect was most troubling. Through the story-telling, all learned that RLU
had tried to schedule the training earlier as part of the trainings offered before the residence halls
open. Some misunderstandings and scheduling difficulties, however, had forced its
postponement to early September. We also heard that a number of AHDs had raised this issue of
the training with their supervisors or Leadership Team, but got little response.
Once all had a chance to speak, the talking piece came back to me, and I asked “Who do
you think has been affected by this situation, and how have they been affected?” Once again,
each answered the question as he/she held the talking piece. Most explained how they had felt
and responded to the situation. Some said the training‟s 10-hour length took them by surprise
when it was announced through an e-mail issued September 7. They saw this and other aspects
of the training situation—such as assuming they would clear their schedules to attend training
just because RLU required it—as indicators of some members of the RLU Leadership Team‟s
disrespect and taking AHDs for granted. Others brought up their fear of retaliation from
supervisory staff, saying an unnamed supervisor had made it clear that AHDs “are expendable”
41

to the RLU. One of the Leadership Team expressed the reality that AHD positions might be
affected by budget issues, but that neither the letter nor its aftermath would result in any
employee discipline.
Zoe spoke of how she had talked to her supervisor (who had joined the circle at Zoe‟s
request) about the injustice of the required additional training hours and other training-related
issues. She had spoken separately to both Susan and me about her concern that one training day
fell on her Sabbath and that the only available make-up session would take eight hours instead of
the five she was offered. She explained that she felt she had followed the communication
protocol as she understood it, but did not get any meaningful sense that those in authority were
really hearing her concerns or willing to respond meaningfully.
When Susan held the talking piece, she accepted responsibility for not specifying that
RLU supervisors should allow AHDs work flexibility in exchange for the time they spent in
training. She defended the RLU‟s decision to require this training for all AHDs as part of their
plan to implement restorative justice across campus. She also expressed frustration that the letter
had been shared widely with other AHDs before it appeared in her mailbox. Susan asked why
some of the other letter signers, who were in the circle, had not raised this issue with her when
they had had multiple chances. Finally, she made the point that while the AHDs expressed
concern over the effect this letter might have on their jobs, they failed to recognize the potential
damage their letter could inflict on her job and professional reputation.
When the talking piece came back to me, I asked the final question designed to bring the
restorative justice process full circle: “How do we make things right?” Based on their
understanding of each person‟s experience and concerns, individuals began offering ideas for

42

steps that could be taken both to address the current situation and to avoid similar situations in
the future. Zoe acknowledged that the letter could be interpreted as hurtful. When she had the
talking piece, however, Liz said she thought of the letter as witty and did not see how it could
cause any harm. Many acknowledged ways they contributed to the breakdown in
communication. Some AHDs acknowledged they should have addressed this issue with their
supervisors. Some Leadership Team members acknowledged they had not recognized the depth
of the issue when those involved raised it.
Once everyone had spoken and all felt comfortable that the issues had been fully discussed, I
summarized their responses and drafted an agreement that laid out the steps the group would
take. In that agreement (Figure 11 in Appendix A) participants pledged to explore options for:


Processes for AHDs to give meaningful feedback that will result in action;



Including AHDs in training planning and scheduling;



Integrating restorative justice training into RLU August training schedule;



Providing more timely notices of training schedules and requirements;



Establishing methods for acknowledging and showing respect for the work of AHDs.
The group agreed to meet in one month to consider the next steps for addressing these

options and to check the status of the agreement. I raised the issue, and the group agreed there
was no need to keep the events of the circle confidential, and all were free to share their
experience with others. Susan and Zoe decided to work together to craft an e-mail to RLU staff
rd

sharing their experience of the circle and issuing it no later than Sept. 23 . I read the elements
to the group for their approval of each statement. All verbally acknowledged that the language
accurately summarized what they had all agreed on in the circle.
43

Two hours had lapsed since the circle began, and many had other meetings scheduled, so
the circle disbanded quickly. I spoke informally with a number of AHDs who stayed to debrief
and share the blueberry muffins I had made for our post-circle “breaking of the bread” ritual--an
important restorative justice closing. During this discussion Zoe readily agreed to participate in
a study of the circle that would be made public. Prior to the circle, Susan also had agreed to
participate in the study. After we had processed the experience, I returned to my office and
typed up the agreement, then e-mailed it to all participants asking them to e-mail their
“signature” that day. Everyone either signed it by hand or by this electronic process.

Post Circle
As the agreement provided, I contacted all participants to schedule our follow-up meeting
in which we were to discuss the issues raised in circle and establish a plan for addressing them.
On October 5, seven of the original ten circle participants convened. I facilitated a free-flowing
discussion of the major issues identified in the September 16 circle. They included: “Fear of
Retaliation—Where does it come from?”; “Negative, Indirect Communication;” and “How the
RLU Addresses Issues.”
The group recognized that in 2009 the RLU developed a “Covenant” agreement
(represented in Figure 12 of Appendix A) which addresses many of these issues, but had not
been included in this year‟s trainings. The document, developed collaboratively with AHDs and
supervisors, covers the issues of retaliation, lines of communication and RLU policies and
procedures, but just one year later many current AHDs are not aware it exists. Susan agreed to
revisit the Covenant at Leadership Team and at area meetings, to bring this document back into
44

RLU consciousness. As a veteran RLU staff member, Susan expressed weariness that the RLU
makes a sincere effort to address feedback when they receive it, but due to high staff turnover the
steps taken are sometimes forgotten within a year or two. She noted that this Covenant
agreement was developed with input from some of the circle participants.
I labeled the negative, indirect communication dynamic as “passive-aggressive
communication,” and the name stuck. All knew of examples of passive-aggressive
communication between colleagues on every level of the RLU staff hierarchy. The group
recognized that while this complaining goes on regularly, negative issues rarely get raised with
supervisors so they can be resolved. Some attribute this to the power differential and fear of
retaliation, others cited their cultural values against direct discussion of negative topics, and
others said they simply do not want to hurt anyone‟s feelings by raising negative issues about
their work. Zoe noted that she had the courage to address the training issue directly by drafting
the original letter. She believed she could do this because her supervisor “is a strong, positive
leader who acts as a conduit for concerns and a buffer from negative consequences.” All
recognized that not all managers have that reputation. The group agreed that some of this
dynamic was addressed in the Covenant and should be highlighted in RLU‟s August trainings
before the residence halls open.
Finally, the group reviewed and discussed the letter Susan and Zoe had drafted in
accordance with the Sept. 16 agreement. A couple of the points Susan raised became the subject
of intense discussion between some members of the group. By this time Zoe had left for another
scheduled event, so Susan handled most of the editing. After significant discussion, Susan
modified one phrase of her proposed text in response to concerns raised by Liz. It is worth
noting that Liz also observed that the letter Susan and Zoe had drafted took attention away from
45

the original issue (ten hours of mandatory training in a full work week) and emphasized instead
the harm caused by the AHD‟s original letter. Others did not agree. I clarified that the letter
Susan and Zoe had written should clearly express their personal viewpoints and not attempt to
represent the group‟s opinions.
Hoping that this would resolve the issue, I closed the meeting and told everyone I would
be sending them the minutes for approval. (Figure 13 in Appendix A) I sent them, and Zoe emailed her approval. All the attendees agreed the minutes accurately reflected the meeting‟s
content. Liz, however, also mentioned a fear that the letter from Susan and Zoe “would do more
harm than good.”

These concerns were subsequently discussed privately with Zoe. After the October 5

th

meeting, neither Susan nor Zoe took further action on the letter until Susan initiated an e-mail
exchange with Zoe beginning October 28. It is excerpted here.
Susan wrote:
. . . Wanted to touch base about the letter. Do you still have a desire to send it out? . . .
Liz did raise some concerns, but we didn‟t get to fully explore because time was running
out. You weren‟t there so it felt a bit awkward for me. So I‟m checking in. Let me
know your thoughts. Susan.
Zoe responded the next day saying:
I was just wondering what we were going to do with the letter. It sounds like there were
some unresolved concerns about it—I‟ve touched base with Liz about some of what
you‟ve talked about. I think my vote would be not to send out the letter but to move
46

forward with our next steps . . . What do you think? Thanks and have a great weekend.
Zoe
On November 2, Susan responded and copied me as the restorative justice facilitator.
She expressed her disappointment that she and Zoe had invested a great deal of time and effort
into drafting and reworking the letter only to have her decide not to send it.
I asked Zoe for clarification. It seemed to me that she was proposing not sending the
letter, but had not actually made a final decision. I added the following paragraph:
I need to remind you both that you built the public release of this letter into the circle
agreement, so if you don‟t send it you will be violating the terms of the agreement. If
you, as AHDs and Leadership Team, don‟t honor your own agreement that will set a
precedent for the RLU that restorative justice agreements are optional. That would be
deadly to the process and a violation of the trust of all your fellow participants. Please
take this into consideration before you decide. Nancy
The next day Zoe responded:
Hi, Nancy and Susan: Nancy: Yes I was proposing that we not send out the letter, but am
still willing to do so after more discussion. Susan: I can meet . . . I will touch base with
Liz beforehand to get a better idea of [specific] concerns. Thank you and happy
Wednesday. Zoe
One week later, on November 10, Susan sent an e-mail to all RLU senior staff. She
attached the letter Zoe and the AHDs had submitted, the agreement produced in the September
16 circle and the letter she and Zoe had authored together. (Figure 14 in Appendix A)

47

By November 2 when Susan copied me on Zoe‟s suggestion that they not issue the letter,
I had just received IRB approval to develop a case study around the September 16 circle. My
statement to Zoe and Susan, encouraging them to consider the ramifications if they chose not to
send the letter, came from my passion for the restorative justice process and my desire to build it
into the RLU culture. By sharing the details of the September 16 circle, I hoped to show more of
our colleagues that restorative justice does work with college-age students. It would be foolish
of me, however, to ignore that my investment in the research process also prompted my
response. I felt my heart sink when I read Zoe‟s first e-mail because my IRB approval was built
around Zoe and Susan‟s decision to share the letter with their RLU colleagues. I held onto the
hope that Zoe would choose to honor the agreement as written, but Susan and I did honestly
explore what would happen if the agreement was not going to be honored. Since we did not
build consequences for that possibility into the restorative justice agreement, we thought we
would probably have to reconvene the ten original circle participants and decide as a group how
to proceed.
When Zoe‟s e-mail came through saying she was willing to send the letter after further
discussion, I breathed a sigh of great relief. Once Susan had e-mailed the letter and
accompanying documents, I e-mailed both Susan and Zoe to request interviews. On November
rd

16, Zoe sat down for an interview about the process. Susan did her interview November 23 .
Based on the key issues we had identified during all three stages of the circle process, I wanted
to explore their opinions about how our restorative justice circle experience had affected the
power dynamics and communication practices of RLU employees.

48

The year progressed normally for Zoe and Susan—with both enduring full workloads.
Although their paths rarely crossed, Susan and Zoe enjoyed a comfortable working relationship.
Zoe graduated in May and has accepted a Residence Life position in a university in another state.
Susan has changed positions within the university to spearhead a new multi-departmental
initiative. I am continuing to serve the RLU as Restorative Justice Coordinator on a part-time
basis.

49

Chapter Five
Discussion
Themes
Power Dynamics in the RLU Culture affected this circle on every level. As Conflict
Theory predicts, participating AHDs—part-time graduate students—believed the balance of
power in their department was tipped highly in favor of directors and leadership—full-time staff.
This is clear in thematic analysis of the documents and individual interviews which reflect
AHDs‟ attitude early in this process that they have little control over their circumstances.
Phrases from the initial letter such as “we implore you . . .” “we, as victims . . .” and “We are
under no delusion that we will be compensated . . .” indicate that the signers see themselves as
powerless and view RLU leadership as controlling policies and resources.
As the restorative justice process unfolds, however, documents and interviews produced
after the circle and meeting overwhelmingly represent an attitude that they can work as part of
the RLU team This is indicated in statements such as “[AHD and Leadership Team Participants]
met in circle September 16 . . . as a result of this circle the RLU will explore the following
options;” (from the circle agreement) and “We are a large department, and even with the best
people and the best of intentions, there are many opportunities for communication to break
down. We need your help in addressing this issue” (from the joint letter). It becomes clearer in
the interviews with statements such as, “Many times we had to agree to disagree, but . . . we
were very civil in trying to understand the other person‟s point of view” (from Susan‟s
interview) and “I don‟t think because [Susan] was [a member of the Leadership Team] and I was

50

an AHD she had power in that [circle]” (from Zoe‟s interview). Figure 15 in Appendix B charts
this progression and Figure 16 offers additional examples of the coding process.
This attitude that power disadvantages AHDs is evident in the minutes of the post-circle
meeting where AHDs and two senior level staff members fleshed out the issues raised but not
resolved in the circle. Those minutes begin with this issue, titled “Fear of Retaliation: where
does it come from?” The group traced some of the fear to messages delivered by at least one hall
director in previous years‟ training, saying it was difficult to fire a hall director but easy to fire an
AHD. Some reported receiving other messages that AHDs are “expendable.” This was
discussed for some time, and the group agreed that many of these points are addressed in the
AHD Covenant—a document developed in 2009 outlining the RLU‟s commitment to and
expectations of AHDs.
Like restorative justice, the AHD Covenant had not been covered in training that year,
therefore many AHDs did not fully understand a number of things about their positions—
including discipline procedures, RLU reporting process, behavior guidelines and more. By
clearing up the AHDs‟ fears that the circle would not result in termination of their employment
and clarifying their employment rights, the participating Leadership Team members helped
diffuse this issue. The group agreed that clarifying and distributing the AHD Covenant should
diminish these power-related concerns . . . for the short term.
“I think that re-examining the covenant is a good next step,” Zoe explained in her first
interview. “I don‟t think that that can be the end of the line „cause as it came up in both
conversations we had as a group these are recurring issues. These are concerns that have come
up in various manifestations for a while.” She continues:

51

I think part of the problem we run into is that in our department we have a lot of turnover.
We‟re a much more transient population with the HDs and the RAs [resident assistants]
than the people who are here much longer as full time directors and the Leadership Team,
and so there‟s a disconnect between their knowledge of the department, existing channels
of feedback, channels of knowledge of things like the [AHD] Covenant. So I think that
the fact that Leadership Team spent so much time doing it is really irrelevant to the
current HD‟s. It sounded like we had a lot of good conversations about that. So I think
that we are certainly on the right track. I guess I couldn‟t say where I think it should go
after we have a conversation.
A long-term RLU employee, Susan confirmed that a lot of good conversation went into
developing the AHD Covenant. In various discussions she explained that the AHD Covenant
was developed through:
focus groups [and] . . . written surveys and conversations with graduates staff, directors
and Leadership Team members. AHDs shared their feedback about working in RLU—
how they were supervised, if they have a voice, if they are valued, etc. They mentioned
they didn‟t feel connected to the Leadership Team, so we tried to address that . . . We all
worked together to come up with the two-paragraph statement to address AHD concerns
and negative statements about Leadership Team‟s performance. It wasn‟t just Leadership
Team. All voices were included.
This was done in part to address a long-standing rift between AHDs and RLU
Leadership. In her first interview Susan disclosed:

52

We as Leadership Team get a lot of critical feedback of how um, „Oh you guys don‟t
really work‟ . . . Some have said, „We think you guys just sit there and concoct ways to
torture us and ways to change.‟ It‟s just ridiculous, ridiculous. We don‟t get the benefit
of the doubt sometimes.
This undercurrent can be felt in some comments from circle participants not represented
in this study, and the implied negativity troubles Susan. Though no AHD actually accused the
Leadership Team of having a poor work ethic, various statements in her interviews imply that
this issue affects Susan‟s feelings and perceptions of the circle and some of its participants.
From a Feminist Standpoint perspective, I believe these persistent negative messages may have
led Susan to see some AHD statements about Leadership Team‟s handling of the training as a
continuation of this battle. “We don‟t get the benefit of the doubt” sums up the lack of trust and
respect that Susan has felt AHDs afford Leadership Team, even though from her experience
Leadership Team works extremely hard.
As Feminist Standpoint tells us, revealing people‟s hidden or overlooked experiences
can change assumptions by illuminating the whole situation. Clearly this experience is reflected
in Zoe‟s statement to Susan in their joint interview:
So I think I actually got to know you better . . . in the circle it came out like how much
extra work you were doing . . . I didn‟t know you had small children, you know, sort of . .
. your life outside of your work. I think I got a much better perspective of what that
would look like because I knew so little beforehand.
Power Dynamics in the Circle became a topic of fruitful discussion between Susan and
Zoe. In both interviews Zoe mentioned feeling that the initial letter had dominated discussions
53

in the circle and follow-up session. This is interesting because in every meeting the AHDs
outnumbered Leadership Team members two to one. (I facilitated both discussions and am not
including myself in these numbers.) Additionally, careful analysis of the circle agreement, the
post-circle meeting minutes and Susan‟s and Zoe‟s joint letter (all found in Appendix A) fails to
support Zoe‟s claim.
The consensus agreement from the restorative justice circle mentions the letter only in the
introduction. The seven action items are silent on the letter, and the agreement reflects neither
the apology Zoe offered Susan nor any other letter-related comments from AHDs during the
circle. Action item #6 says that Zoe and Susan “will jointly craft an e-mail to RLU staff to share
their experience of the circle and share relevant thoughts with all.” That letter, written
collaboratively by both women, does mention the original letter. Of its 16 paragraphs, six
mention the original letter of complaint. Two focus on it: Susan‟s statement of harm and Zoe‟s
explanation and apology. Finally, the post-circle meeting minutes break down into four topics
according to what we discussed. The fourth section begins with “Finally, the group reviewed the
letter Susan and Zoe drafted as part of the Sept. 16 agreement.” I added the emphasis here to
highlight that the minutes refer not to the original letter but the one authored by the two women.
These data are graphed in Figure 17 of Appendix B.
I must point out that I drafted the agreement—which required participants‟ consensus on
every element of the document. I also developed the minutes from the post-circle meeting—
which was reviewed by all participants and received unanimous approval. Recognizing that my
standpoint led me to emphasize some elements over others, it is possible the contents of these
documents are skewed to reflect my perspective, which differs from the AHDs‟ on this point.

54

It is worth noting, that while the circle and subsequent discussions did not center on the
original letter as Zoe believed, the post-circle discussions and documents do focus on the issue of
communication within the department. This includes the “choice of tone and language in the
letter [which] caused Susan harm,” as Zoe writes in her joint letter with Susan. Of that same
letter Susan writes, “The specific concerns in and of themselves were not a source of the harm.
The tone and language of the letter came across as disrespectful, rude and unprofessional.”
It also includes the passive-aggressive communication practices that permeate this
situation. In the joint letter, Susan writes:
The other harmful part for me was the fact that individuals who had the opportunity to
talk to me directly about their concerns did not. At least two individuals who signed this
letter did not use opportunities they had to address me face to face.
This issue is addressed in more detail next.
From a constructivist perspective, Zoe‟s belief that the circle focused on her letter is
noteworthy because it illustrates how Zoe created her reality of the circle experience. Though
Zoe did not raise this issue during the circle or during the post-circle meeting, Liz had expressed
this opinion in the post-circle meeting. Liz and Zoe lived in the same residence hall, and during
her interview, Zoe referred to discussions with Liz while she was vacillating between sending the
joint letter or not. Through a Feminist Standpoint lens, one could easily see how Zoe, as a friend
and colleague of Liz, could have changed her perspective in the time between drafting the letter
with Susan and talking with her peer and colleague.
Passive Aggressive Communication—talking behind leadership’s back instead of
addressing issues directly—exists even though RLU staff at all levels welcome input, conduct
55

regular one-on-one meetings and often literally work with their doors open. While passiveaggressive communication is not uncommon in many organizations and personal relationships, it
has proven highly corrosive in the RLU.
The post-circle minutes reflect a variety of explanations participants offered for passiveaggressive communication in the RLU. These include fear of losing their jobs if their
supervisors do not like what they hear, fear of hurting others‟ feelings if negative feedback is
taken personally, fear of going above a supervisor‟s head in chain of command, and a lack of
clear understanding of RLU system for complaints. These reasons made sense to Zoe, who
offered the following observation in her initial interview:
I think that it‟s certainly partly probably about the power structure „cause we talked about
the perception that Leadership Team doesn‟t care, so maybe it‟s not that they‟re not
comfortable sharing that feedback but think that it won‟t make a difference? So if they
thought it would make a difference, they‟d be more proactive in sharing it.
I think also part of it, and we talked about this too in our second meeting, it‟s just sort of
the socialization that happens or it‟s just almost a bonding thing between peers like, „Oh
my supervisor‟s such a . . . blah, blah, blah, blah, like this department sucks . . .‟ So even
if it‟s not something that they really believe or even if it‟s not something that they would
give as feedback, it‟s just socializing.
And I think that that is probably something that we could change . . . So much negativity
makes me tired, you know so when we have um a staff or we have a culture that just
involves complaining about each other, it‟s hard for me to really want to get that into it.
(Laughing) . . . So I don‟t know really how as an organization we can get at that. Um,
56

but I think, you know, I think sort of the passive complaining . . . could be cut down if we
have more meaningful contact with other people.
While also acknowledging this behavior happens at all levels of RLU staff, Susan has
made a commitment to curb it. “I think that [the circle] rejuvenated my personal . . . crusade,”
Susan said in her first interview, then recounted the following post-circle experiences.
Two directors weren‟t communicating very well, talking behind other people‟s backs but
not saying things to our faces, and I told them that this is not the culture I want to have in
this organization. I challenged them to role model what we‟d like to experience
ourselves in our organization. And actually afterwards in the debriefing one of them was
like, „I was so embarrassed you had to come and mediate this issue for us. We should
have been able to manage that ourselves.‟
I [also] recently had an excellent one-on-one about this with a staff member who called
me later and said, “I‟m walking out of a professional development session and I can‟t
wait to talk to you because he said some things really related to what we were talking
about in our one-on-one. I think if we . . . embrace certain things that he said, we can
change the communication culture in our organization.‟ And I‟m like WOW!
The evolution of communication from harmful to productive is also a powerful point of
this study. As Zoe acknowledged in her joint letter with Susan, the language of her original
letter went beyond expressing her frustration and included a “choice of tone and language in the
letter [which] caused Susan harm.” The following excerpt from her letter illustrates not only a
lack of respect for Susan‟s authority, but also an element of disdain.

57

We are under no delusion that we will be compensated monetarily for our overtime work.
However, we do demand restorative measures:
1. An apology from you, acknowledging the unfair and undeserved burden placed on the
[graduate assistants] by the additional training sessions, as well as the unprofessional
manner in which the session times were communicated
2. Assurance that, in the future, the terms of our contract will not be so egregiously
violated
3. Respect for our lives outside of our roles as staff members; scheduling unnecessary
weekend work hours impedes our work-life balance as well as religious observance.
Conflict Theory would explain Zoe‟s reaction to the power differential between AHDs
and RLU leadership because leadership controlled her resources of time and compensation. It
does not predict the ultimate outcome, however, in which the opposing sides came together
without any shift in power or exchange of resources. I turn instead to Feminist Standpoint
Theory to explain this change in attitudes through exposure to the different perspectives each
woman held. For example, in the circle, when given a chance to hear how the letter‟s wording
affected Susan and other RLU Leadership Team members, Zoe quickly and easily acknowledged
the effect of her actions. She talks about this in her first interview.
I think it made me a lot more aware of the impact my letter had on Susan. When I wrote
it, I really tried to direct it at Susan in her capacity as chair of this committee and not at
Susan as the individual. In my mind those were two very separate things, so I didn‟t
anticipate her having the reaction that she did. I think it was helpful that I got to hear
from her about how she had perceived the letter and how it affected her . . . and to, to
58

take ownership to what role my actions played in the harm that it caused her, so I think
that was good.
Her joint letter with Susan reflects the appreciation Zoe mentions above, when she writes:
I sincerely apologize for the harm I caused her. I do not regret bringing forward the
concerns expressed in the letter, but certainly regret that my choice of expression was felt
as a personal attack. I truly appreciate Susan‟s participation in the restorative justice
circle and her honesty in sharing her response to the letter. Discussing with her has made
me understand more fully the consequences of my actions.
Thematic analysis of documents and interviews reflect the progression Zoe describes
from disrespect and opposition to respect and collaboration. This progression is more fully
illustrated in Figure 18 of Appendix B.
In applying latent analysis, one can easily see from their joint interview that Susan and
Zoe were comfortable. They sat side-by-side, laughing and smiling together honestly but
respectfully discussing issues they felt they had not fully resolved in their previous meetings.
Susan frankly asked why Zoe targeted her in the letter, and Zoe spoke honestly about her belief
that the letter dominated the circle and follow-up discussion. While neither may have felt she
received a fully satisfactory answer, both women talked honestly and collegially, without rancor
or any undercurrent of disrespect. As a seasoned restorative justice practitioner, I always hope
that I get to observe this kind of comfortable interaction between those who were once
adversaries. It pleased me tremendously to observe this in these two women whom I have grown
to respect.

59

Empathy: Transition from adversary to colleague—Figure 19 in Appendix B of
thematic analysis of the documents shows a positive correlation between Zoe‟s and Susan‟s
interactions and language, moving from oppositional to respectful and finally collegial. When
considered for indications of empathy, phrases were selected if a participant seemed to be
“Seeing [a fellow participant] as the Other” or “Not Seeing as the Other.” In categorizing these
comments, I found 31 data segments which included phrases or comments indicating alienation
and 77 that indicate a coming-together. Not surprisingly, most (42) of the collaborative
comments appear in the joint letter or the joint interview—each produced at the end of the stages
of the circle and this study.
Similarly, as Figure 18 indicates, when the data were analyzed for the Tone of
Communication, the language these participants used showed a significant progression from
Disrespectful/Passive-Aggressive to Respectful over time. Eight of the nine comments classified
at the negative end of the spectrum came from the originating letter and post-circle meeting
minutes. Of the 110 phrases classified as Respectful Communication, 14 came from the original
letter; 15 came from the circle agreement or minutes from the meeting held within a month of the
training; 16 came from the joint letter, released two months after the training; 19 came from the
individual interviews conducted within two months of the training; and 56 of the comments or
phrases classified as Respectful came from the joint interview held seven months after the
training.
Finally, as Figures15 and 16 illustrate, the data indicate a significant shift from
participants viewing themselves as victims to viewing themselves as team-mates. Phrases or
comments indicating victimhood total 16 and come primarily from the originating letter, minutes
or joint letter, while three come from the individual interviews. On the other hand, I identified
60

61 phrases or comments indicating team identification. Data segments indicating the individual
perceived herself as part of a team were slightly more likely to come from the interviews
conducted two and seven months after the training (32) than they were to originate from
documents created in the first month (29).
Empathy: Relationships are the lifeblood of RLU, and clearly very important to both Zoe
and Susan, who referred to the importance of relationships numerous times in the context of their
work. As noted above, in her first interview Zoe noted that the Sept. 16 circle allowed her to
develop a better relationship with Susan and a deeper awareness of her letter‟s effect. In the
interview Zoe and Susan shared seven months later, the two women talked together about their
circle experience. Zoe told Susan:
So I think before the circle, my sense of residence life was very much about how the
building worked you know, like my direct supervisor, the RAs I supervise there and the
students, then [I was] sort of seeing Leadership Team as kind of this separate entity. So
even though geographically it was very close, I didn‟t really have any idea what
Leadership Team did a lot of time, like what their day looked like or how they
communicated with each other. I think I really only knew sort of what my area director
did in terms of having one-on-ones with me or with my supervisor. So I think their
relationships had changed. I think just being able to see more, sort of just what kind of
people they area, both in the capacity of the positions they have in res life and then just as
people, kind of like how they relate to each other and their lives sort of outside of work.
Susan responded:

61

I would agree with the first part. I think that our relationship and our follow up
conversations like coming together to draft the letter and all of that, and, making
agreements and talking out perspectives I think that had the greatest impact to me overall.

Later in their joint interview Susan recalled the moment in circle when she connected
with the AHDs‟ experience.
I think an insightful moment for me was when the grads went around and talked about
like their idea of the timeline and how they had received information. Whereas I thought
we were being very transparent and open like „Hey, don‟t forget there‟s a training.‟
„There‟s a training!‟ but then saying we didn‟t know how long it was gonna be. We
didn‟t have a sense of that, and kind of what it meant. They didn‟t have anywhere to put
it. . . . And also realizing thoughts about this is a really busy time for us. We just came
off training, we‟re now just able to think about ourselves and our studies in preparing for
class and then we have all of this time taken up and a little bit of anxiety from, especially
from some of the new folks and even returning folks‟ crap, and then, all this stuff. So it
was kind of like, „Okay, yes, I remember that. It put me right back in that place of being
you know shell-shocked. (Zoe begins laughing while Susan continues.) And so that was
really insightful for me. I think at that moment I was like „Aaahhh!‟ „Cause when I sat
in my office I thought: „No we‟ve been saying this from the very beginning.‟ So I think
that was probably the biggest.
Susan concludes, laughing with Zoe.
New and Improved Restorative Justice Option: In the following exchange from their
joint interview, Susan and Zoe talk about how the issue might have been addressed if restorative
justice had not been an option. Susan begins:
62

I know my initial response [after receiving the AHDs‟ letter] was one to cool off . . . I
think I probably would have sent an email response to the group and probably, typically
I‟d say if you‟d like to have a conversation about this I‟m willing to do that. And
probably put out how I felt about the letter [and] what I would have wished would have
taken place prior to the training. That‟s typically my style.
Zoe responds:
Yeah, I think that‟s what I was expecting to happen . . . But I do think that the circle was
the best option just in terms of like getting people all in a room together and talking about
it. So I was really glad when Nancy called and said there was an interest in doing that.
„Cause I think certainly I was not expecting you to send a letter . . . like „Yes Zoe you‟re
absolutely right, how could we have done this? Like „here‟s a bunch of coupons for free
meals.‟ I didn‟t expect that to happen.
Susan:
Yeah, and that‟s interesting because I wonder if, again the thing about the power
dynamic, if it would have come across as if „I come into Susan‟s office, you know I‟m
kind of entering the wood shed‟ kind of thing . . . Whether I intended that or not.
Zoe agrees, “Maybe a little bit, yeah.”
Susan continues:
And, even if I think it‟s some of the same issues that would have been highlighted that
came out in the circle, I think it still might have felt a little different just because Susan
called the meeting.
Zoe nods in agreement, “I think you‟re right because it was in the circle, kind of out in
the open . . . there was a little more.”

63

We will never know whether Zoe‟s “trip to Susan‟s woodshed” would have resolved this
issue between the two women. We do know from latent and thematic analysis, including the
above exchange, that these women did resolve their conflict using this restorative circle and
completing the agreement they crafted in community with their colleagues.

64

Chapter Six
Conclusion
Summary
Conflict is part of life in human societies. Conflict Theory posits that conflict arises
when two or more individuals have competing self interests. Additionally, when one individual
or group controls more resources (e.g.money, time, authority) than another, those with fewer
resources try to get more while those with more try to retain what they have. Although this can
lead to a range of conflict, including violent confrontations, conflict theorists recognize that
conflict leads to change—which they consider positive (Chibucos & Leite, 2005) Recognizing
that conflict is a natural part of social fabric, the key question is how can society manage it
(White & Klein, 2008).
Famously, conflict theorist Karl Marx prescribed mass revolution as a way to create a just
society. Some feminists theorists call for radical social realignment to correct the injustices of
prolonged male dominance. In our society this polarizing attitude extends to many people‟s
approaches to conflict and misconduct. From road rage and bullying to zero tolerance and
overcrowded prisons, American society is replete with examples of how we distance ourselves
from those with whom we disagree or those who have broken our rules.
Philosopher and author Kahlil Gibran describes it this way: “Oftentimes I have heard you
speak of one who commits a wrong as though he were not one of you, but a stranger unto you
and an intruder upon your world”(Gibran, 1923, p. 40). He goes on to point out that this
alienation does not reflect reality. In fact, Gibran tells us “you cannot separate the just from the

65

unjust or the good from the wicked for they stand together before the face of the sun”(Gibran,
1923, p. 41). He instructs us:
And you who would understand justice, how shall you unless you look upon all deeds in
the fullness of light? Only then shall you know that the erect and the fallen are but one
man standing in twilight between the night of his pygmy self and the day of his god self
(Gibran, 1923, p. 43).
Unlike traditional Conflict Theory, Feminist Standpoint Theory advocates a more
balanced approach to managing conflict. Specifically, many standpoint feminists maintain that
to achieve social change we must incorporate the voices and interests of all members of
society—especially those most often silenced or overlooked because they lack sufficient power
or resources (vanWormer, 2009). Standpoint feminist scholar Nancy Hartsock (1987) maintains
that in order to successfully manage conflict, we must care for everyone‟s needs rather than
succumb to those motivated by a desire to dominate and control (vanWormer, 2009). This belief
reflects restorative justice principles and approaches to addressing conflict and misconduct
(vanWormer, 2009).
Restorative justice offers a balanced approach to managing conflict by engaging all
people affected by a situation of misconduct or conflict and hearing every participant‟s
experience and ideas for healing (Costello, et al., 2009; McCold & Wachtel, 2003; Umbreit &
Armour, 2011; Zehr, 1990, 2002). Working from a foundation of respect, restorative justice
practices bring together people on opposite sides of a conflict or incident of harm to decide how
they, as members of the same community, can heal the harm that has resulted (Pranis, 2005;

66

Zehr, 1990). This approach, inherent in indigenous cultures, fosters understanding, mutual
accountability and empathy rather than vilification and isolation.
By adopting a restorative approach to resolving their conflict, an AHD and Leadership
Team member changed their views of each other and set their workplace culture on a new,
collaborative path for resolving conflicts. These department pioneers paved the way for future
constructive approaches to conflict, and offer a powerful example for their peers and future
generations.
While neither woman had all her doubts put to rest, each developed a trust and respect for
the other that enabled them to work through their initial disagreement. Initially each saw the
other “as though [s]he were not one of you, but a stranger . . . and an intruder upon your
world”(Gibran, 1923, p. 40) . Yet by coming together to discuss their disagreement openly,
honoring all perspectives and respecting every participant—“looking upon all deeds in the
fullness of light”—as Gibran wrote nearly a century ago, they came to understand and define
justice for their situation (Gibran, 1923, p. 43). They saw and respected each other as colleagues
and opened the pathway for future RLU staff to do the same.
A year after the circle, as I write this closing, I understand that some of the issues from
this circle will never be resolved. Some of these are addressed in the limitations section below.
But Susan and Zoe feel the restorative justice process served them more effectively than usual
RLU practices because it afforded opportunities for addressing harm and fostering healing and
insight on multiple levels.
While this was the first restorative justice circle I facilitated on campus, it has not been
the last. Based on this circle‟s success, a number of participants subsequently addressed
67

conflicts in their halls using restorative justice techniques. The university continues to explore
new applications for this process and find new ways to integrate it into both its residence life and
judicial affairs processes. In the last year alone the university has used restorative justice to
resolve roommate conflicts, assaults, cultural disputes, employment issues and more. In every
one of these cases, participants were able to restore their relationships and/or reclaim their place
in society because they “look[ed] upon all deeds in the fullness if light” as Gibran calls us to do,
and recognized themselves in the “good and wicked stand[ing] together before the face of the
sun” (Gibran, 1923, p. 43).

Limitations
1.

While Susan and Zoe came to a mutual understanding, Susan did not feel that she had
that same experience with other AHD members of the circle. Susan speaks frankly in
both interviews that she does not feel the sense of closure with Zoe‟s colleagues that she
does with Zoe. Susan attributes this to being able to work with Zoe on the joint letter and
the final interview, but these issues may relate as much to the personalities of those
involved as to their collaborative efforts.

2.

While latent analysis and invivo coding played a key role in this analysis, there is a level
of understanding below the surface that cannot be ignored. Issues and thoughts silenced
or only selectively revealed play a key role in how a person creates or experiences his/her
reality. What is left unsaid cannot be addressed either in circle or in scientific analysis,
so this study ignores issues that might have played a key role had they been revealed, and
may always influence the situation even when left unsaid. These issues include the

68

participants‟ ethnicity, socio-economic levels, familial and other backgrounds and how
those factors influence the participants‟ experience of this process.
3.

RLU culture valuing student development sometimes goes overboard in supporting
behavior that would not be tolerated outside RLU. Susan sees restorative justice as a
great accountability process that addresses the need for direct communication, though it
could have perpetuated this enabling behavior. This was illustrated most clearly when
Zoe considered not sending the letter after agreeing to in the circle. The RLU did not
require Zoe‟s compliance with her agreement, which both highlights a weakness in using
it in a developmental organization and reveals the power that personal accountability
plays in the success of future restorative justice agreements. Had Zoe refused to honor
her agreement, the outcome for the restorative justice process at the university and for the
relationship between Zoe and Susan would have looked dramatically different.

4.

The magnitude of the issues in question (Power Dynamics, Communication Practices,
RLU Culture) is too big to resolve with one circle—even after building in the follow-up
discussion. Both subjects agreed that to wrestle with these issues, the RLU must choose
a venue designed for sustained, long-term discussion focused on producing outcomes.
Susan notes that other attempts to address these issues in the RLU have been
unsuccessful and Zoe acknowledges that point. This circle has, however, informed and
generated action within RLU designed to correct or continue to address the issues the
AHDs raised.

69

Implications
1.

Both restorative justice and the AHD Covenant were built into the AHDs‟ August
training this year, both in a general presentation and in one-on-one discussions
between AHDs and their supervisors. Learning from this circle, RLU leadership
wove restorative justice principles and techniques throughout as many different
training sessions as possible to help normalize and ingrain restorative justice in
organizational culture and practice. I am also developing professional development
sessions on restorative justice issues and tools that we will offer throughout the year
to reinforce the concept.

2.

In the post circle meeting, participants suggested taking steps to:
revisit the AHD Covenant document, and include it in the August training so all
are familiar with it from first of the year; have a member of Leadership Team
explicitly tell AHDs, et al in training they should come to him/her with
concerns—opening the door to dialogue; and provide staff training on how to
receive (and give) negative feedback so it‟s not taken personally.
As Restorative Justice Coordinator, I am pursuing these options with RLU training
staff and am also creating options for the personal interactions that Zoe advocates and
Susan practiced. I am also working with RLU Leadership to reinforce knowledge and
understanding of the AHD Covenant through organization-wide discussions and will
continue to advocate for the AHD Covenant‟s permanent placement in August
trainings to help avoid the mistrust and anger apparent in this circle from AHDs
unfamiliar with their rights and expectations.

70

3.

At Susan‟s suggestion, the Restorative Justice Committee will consider methods to
help facilitators identify factors related to their own and other participants‟ identities
that might influence their experience of the circle. Issues left unmentioned or not
considered can be recognized and identified through a process called Social Justice
Mediation. One technique this mediation format recommends is mediators‟
specifically asking participants if there are factors related to identity that should be
explored in order to address all the levels of harm in the situation. While we likely
will not adopt the entire Social Justice Mediation process, we will explore using this
and related elements in the pre-circle meetings so we can fully address the issues that
will come into future circles.

4.

While this case study illustrates a restorative justice circle held on a university
campus, the restorative justice process applies to an almost limitless range of
situations and populations. As noted in earlier chapters, this process is innate to many
indigenous cultures based on generations of practice and philosophy. In U.S.
mainstream society, the restorative justice movement began in the prison systems and
quickly translated to juvenile justice systems and schools. Its principles of respect,
mutual accountability and empowerment make it a powerful youth development tool
that can be used in youth-serving organizations. In addition, families can use
restorative justice to resolve conflict and support positive development. Many issues
can be resolved in circle with family members holding each other accountable when
they cause harm, but supporting and remaining committed to each other as full
members of the family unit. For more extreme levels of harm, family group
conferencing is a restorative justice process specifically designed to help

71

dysfunctional families address issues of concern and develop ways to heal. This
process is already in use in social services circles.

72

APPENDICES

73

APPENDIX A

Case Study Artifacts

Figure 10:

AHDs’ Letter

10 September 2010

Ms. Susan McWilliams
Chair, Restorative Justice Committee
Assistant Director, Dept. of Residence Life
Michigan State University

Dear Ms. McWilliams:

We, the undersigned, write to you regarding the mandatory restorative justice training for
Residence Life staff. We believe that the time commitment for the training violates the terms of
the Assistant Hall Director and Night Receptionist Coordinator work contract. Additionally, we
assert that you, in your capacity as chair of the Restorative Justice committee, gave insufficient
notice to the AHDs/NRCs and our supervisors with respect to the time of the training sessions,
thereby demonstrating a lack of professional courtesy.

74

Figure 10 cont’d

This letter outlines the nature of our complaint, utilizing a framework of restorative justice. To
be clear: our intent is not to debate the merit of restorative justice practices or the content of
the training sessions themselves. Rather, the contract violation and collegial discourtesy have
caused harm to the AHD/NRC community; we implore you to recognize that harm and be held
accountable.

According to the International Institute for Restorative Practices (2000), restorative justice is an
opportunity for the victim to express their emotions to the offender. We feel frustrated and
exploited by, angry about, and disappointed in your decision to require ten hours of training in
addition to our regular job duties. In short, we are not convinced that you truly considered our
needs as half-time employees and full-time students. A feeling of betrayal compounds this
frustration, as you yourself are a former AHD.

We, as victims, seek “assurance that *the restorative justice training requirement] is unfair and
undeserved” (IIRP, 2000). We completed two weeks of training in August before beginning
undergraduate staff training. If the restorative justice training could not have been included
during that training period, then the sessions should be held during our continuing staff training
time on Thursday mornings. Barring that, the restorative justice training should have been
made optional. Poor planning or communication on the part of Leadership Team or summer
committees is not a valid rationale for heaping additional work hours on part-time staff. It does

75

Figure 10 cont‟d

not matter if you choose to call these additional work hours a “professional development
opportunity”.

Grad assistants are not compensated for working more hours than stipulated in our contracts;
we do not receive flex time, overtime pay, or comp days. A fair amount of flexibility in work
hours is necessary in our positions, but this training requirement constitutes a serious deviation
from the guidelines stated in our contract. Further, the GAs’ supervisors did not receive notice
to release the GAs from ten hours of recurring job duties, so we were required to work ten
unpaid hours. Even with more advance notice, we could not, in good conscience, have canceled
meetings or time with undergrad staff members at this point in the semester. (This is
particularly relevant for those of us who do not currently have a Resident or Complex Director
in our buildings.) As a result, you placed us in the unfair position of either failing to meet the
needs of our staff or failing to meet our own needs. We expect better leadership from our
department.

Our jobs are important to us. We value the work that we do with our students and staff, and
want to do that work to the best of our abilities. We want and need the support of the
department to do so. We are not supported by the department—as students or as staff
members—when we are required to work 150% of our appointment time on short notice with
no overtime pay. First-year AHDs are not required to facilitate conduct meetings until the

76

Figure 10 cont‟d

spring semester; there is no reason to add all ten hours of restorative justice training to a single
workweek in September.

We are under no delusion that we will be compensated monetarily for our overtime work.
However, we do demand restorative measures:



An apology from you, acknowledging the unfair and undeserved burden placed on the
GAs by the additional training sessions, as well as the unprofessional manner in which
the session times were communicated



Assurance that, in the future, the terms of our contract will not be so egregiously
violated



Respect for our lives outside of our roles as staff members; scheduling unnecessary
weekend work hours impedes our work-life balance as well as religious observance

Thank you in advance for your thoughtful consideration of our position. Many of us have
indicated an interest in discussing this matter further. Please contact us if you are interested in
participating in a productive and mutually respectful conversation.

77

Figure 10 cont’d

Signed,
Zoe Rose (author), Case Assistant Hall Director
And four others, including Elizabeth Dear

78

Figure 11:

Circle Agreement

Zoe Rose, Susan McWilliams, Elizabeth Dear [and six others] met in circle September 16,
2010. They discussed issues around the Restorative Justice training that required ten hours of
the AHDs’ time over Sept. 10 and 12, and the letter the above AHDs sent expressing their
concerns.
As a result of this circle, the RLU will explore the following options:


Consider opportunities for AHDs to give meaningful feedback that will result in action.



Continue to include AHD representatives in training planning and scheduling.



Establish methods for acknowledging the work AHDs do, so they feel respected for their
contributions. (Some of these options may include revisiting The Covenant, doing
occasional check-ins, etc.)



Integrate restorative justice training into RLU August trainings before school starts.



Provide AHDs with scheduling and other information in a more timely manner.



Susan McWilliams and Zoe Rose will jointly craft an e-mail to RLU staff to share their
experience of the circle and share relevant thoughts with all. They will issue this e-mail
no later than Thursday, Sept. 23.
All agree to meet again in one month, to follow-up on this issue and check the status of

the issues listed above. Nancy Schertzing will coordinate this meeting.

79

Figure 12:

AHD Covenant

Assistant Hall Directors are valued members of the [university] Residence Life staff. The
Department is committed to shaping a positive graduate experience. As a member of the
Department, Assistant Hall Directors will be treated as professionals. Departmental staff are
committed to ensuring that voices are heard and that Assistant Hall Directors are respected
contributors within their unit/building, to Leadership Team decision-makers, and across the
Department. The Department is also committed to professional development, mentoring, and
networking for Assistant Hall Directors at the local, regional, and national level. Supervisors will
work directly with Assistant Hall Directors to accomplish these goals. The Department believes
that these commitments, in addition to supporting academic scholarship, will provide Assistant
Hall Directors developmental experiences, practical knowledge, and build transferable skills for
their post-graduate careers and lifelong learning.
As a Department in the Division of Student Affairs and Services, Assistant Hall Directors
are bound by guidelines outlined in the SAS/ASSMI Graduate Assistant Handbook. The
Department believes that Assistant Hall Directors are committed to working with students and
have an interest in student development, regardless of their academic specialization. Assistant
Hall Directors should be professional, ethical and pro-active participants and contributors to the
department, their personal growth, professional development, and problem-solving. To
incorporate the voices of all Senior Staff members, involvement in addressing departmental
initiatives at the building/area and departmental level is expected. The Department will
provide learning opportunities for graduate students but the shaping of the learning that takes
place will be done in partnership with the Assistant Hall Director.
80

(Developed 2009)

Minutes of Follow-up Meeting to Sept. 14, 2010 Circle

Figure 13:

Meeting: Tuesday, October 5, 2010 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. in Conference Room B
Attendees:

Elizabeth Dear,_______________, Zoe Rose, Susan McWilliams, _____________,

____________and Nancy Schertzing
The group discussed a number of issues that came out of the Circle—not in an effort to
resolve each, but to identify them and put them out for discussion. They included:
Fear of Retaliation: where does it come from? Group traced some of the fears to
message sent in previous years’ trainings that it is difficult to fire a Hall Director but easy to fire
an AHD. Previous messages indicated that AHDs are expendable. This was discussed for some
time and the group agreed that many of these points are addressed in the “Covenant” (the
group would like to see its name changed) developed a couple years ago by RLU, but not really
focused on in trainings this year. Because the “AHD/Director Covenant” was not covered in
training this year, many AHDs don’t fully understand a number of things about their positions—
including discipline procedures, RLU reporting process, how to know they are being heard and
get a response, etc.
Susan will take lead on revisiting the “Covenant” with Leadership Team and at area meetings.
She then expects to ask that the “covenant become part of the agenda for review and
discussion at Area Meetings. Once Leadership Team and Directors have reviewed, offered
updates, feedback, etc., the “Covenant” would go to AHDs for their

81

Figure 13 cont‟d
comment/discussion/proposed modifications. We did not discuss how their feedback would be
processed or offered.
Communication: Much negative discussion happens within peer group, but rarely do issues get
raised to higher-ups. This was labeled passive-aggressive communication and was
acknowledged to take place at all levels. Discussion began on why this might be true. Ideas
included fear of losing job if supervisor doesn’t like what he/she hears, fear of hurting others’
feelings if negative feedback is taken personally, fear of going above supervisor’s head in chain
of command, lack of clear understanding of RLU system for complaints. It was also noted that
Zoe et al, felt empowered to send the letter to Susan because their Director, _____________, is
a strong, positive leader and acts as a conduit for concerns and a buffer from negative
consequences. Not all AHDs perceive their directors in this way.
Thoughts to address these issues included revisiting the “Covenant” as noted above, having a
member of Leadership Team explicitly tell AHDs, et al in training they should come to him/her
with concerns—opening the door to dialogue. Include “Covenant” in Aug. training so all are
familiar with it from first of year. Provide staff training on how to receive (and give) negative
feedback so it’s not taken personally.
How we address Issues:

Many of these and other issues have come up before and RLU

staff has taken steps to address them. This has the potential to wear down longer-term RLU
staff who have a historical perspective of the efforts and energy already invested in
averting/resolving them. It often seems that RLU addresses issues by establishing blanket
82

Figure 13 cont‟d
policies rather than taking them on directly. When an issue comes up that requires attention,
RLU should look at how to address the situation directly rather than trying to build a new policy
or training around it. This was likened to “killing an ant with a sledgehammer.” This may stem
from any number of considerations, including the growing/dominant feminization of this field.
Thoughts to address this issue:

Revisit the “covenant” as noted above. Make options

clear in each case for how to address issues and then expect those involved to address them
head-on within that process. Certainly RJ is an option for addressing issues, but not the only (or
even the preferred option for some) so it should be offered as one option among others.
Finally, the group reviewed the letter Susan and Zoe drafted as part of the Sept. 16 agreement
and offered feedback to Susan as Zoe had to leave before the full discussion took place. Liz
raised some concerns about various points in the letter and they were addressed in the
discussion. Susan agreed to reword one passage, but maintained her language on others.
Recognizing that the letter is from Susan and Zoe, and not from the entire group that met in
Circle, Liz agreed to review the minutes of this follow-up meeting and offer her input on these
minutes before they are added as an attachment to the letter and other items Susan and Zoe
will send to the RLU community.
th

Nancy typed up these minutes October 7 and e-mailed them to Liz and all members of the
meeting for their feedback. She asks that each member provide either edits or agreement that
the minutes accurately reflect what took place in the meeting.

83

Post-Resolution Letter from Susan and Zoe

Figure 14:

October 1, 2010

Residence Life Staff Members,
This letter is co-written by Zoe Rose and Susan McWilliams to address concerns raised by Zoe,
[three other AHDs] and Liz Dear. The issues raised centered around to the mandatory 10-hour
th

Restorative Justice training which took place on Friday, September 10 , and Sunday,
th

September 12 , from 1-6pm.

What Happened
th

On Tuesday, September 14 , I, Susan, received a letter authored by Zoe and signed by the
other 4 Assistant Hall Directors named above. It was clear that these five individuals were upset
and harmed by the additional 10 hours of training added to their already busy schedules. There
is an assumption that others in the department were also negatively impacted by these
additional hours although they chose not to sign the letter for various reasons. (The letter is
attached for your review.) It should also be noted that some GAs (The title, Graduate Assistant,
is used throughout this letter to be inclusive of all graduate student employees regardless of
title) were not negatively affected by the training.

84

Figure 14 cont‟d
th

A restorative circle was facilitated by Nancy Schertzing on Thursday, September 16 , to
address the harm that was caused by the additional 10 hours and the harm that was caused by
the letter itself. Zoe and I along with the other four GAs, [names deleted] participated in the
circle. An agreement was created that includes a plan to continue the conversation about how
to concretely address some of the issues addressed in the circle. (The agreement is attached for
your review.)
Harm statements
To summarize what was written in the attached letter of complaint, I, Zoe, felt harmed by the
ten-hour training required by the department. I understood that restorative justice training was
both valuable in my work as an AHD and a departmental priority, but the added strain of ten
work hours and the short timeframe in which the requirement was communicated negatively
influenced my ability to meet my other work and academic obligations. The trainings were
scheduled during a very busy time in the residence halls, as well as during the second week of
classes. I could not devote the time I needed to give to my students and also did not have
enough time to complete my schoolwork. Even given the flexible work schedule outlined in the
GA’s contract, this training requirement exceeded reasonable expectations for half-time
graduate assistants.
My feeling of harm was compounded by the fact that I felt this situation was merely the most
recent example of untimely communication and unreasonable expectations from the

85

Figure 14 cont‟d
department. In such a large bureaucracy, information may be slow to trickle down to those who
need it. Giving feedback or seeking support within this bureaucracy can be equally frustrating;
in conversations with my supervisor and Assistant Director, I felt that my feedback regarding
the restorative justice trainings was not being heard or taken seriously. As a result, I chose to
express my frustration and distress in a letter of complaint directly to Susan, the chair of the
Restorative Justice Committee. In doing so, I hoped to reflect my own experiences as well as
those of other GAs with whom I had discussed the training requirement and departmental
ethos.
To capture the harm that was caused by the letter, for me (Susan) it begins with the tone of the
letter and how the concerns were expressed. The specific concerns in and of themselves were
not a source of the harm. The tone and language in the letter came across as disrespectful,
rude, and unprofessional. In many professional settings, this tone would be considered
unacceptable and I hope it is not a sign of how we as departmental colleagues will continue to
communicate with each other in the future.
The other harmful part for me was the fact that individuals who had the opportunity to talk
with me directly about their concerns did not. At least two individuals who signed this letter did
not use opportunities they had to address me face to face. Affording me the courtesy of verbal
notification of their concerns would have been appreciated. I could have been proactive in my
ability to address concerns prior to the training. *Supervisor’s name deleted+ did leave a voice
mail for me about the concerns her staff members had about the make up session offered for

86

Figure 14 cont‟d
those who were unable to attend the Sept. training. After a quick follow up conversation with
Sara, I thought all questions and needs were addressed. Again, speaking directly to the person
who has caused you harm would be a desirable norm within our department.
It is my understanding that some people came into the training with a negative attitude
because of some unanswered questions and general feelings of being taken advantage of.
Although it is expected that staff attend all departmental functions with a positive and
professional attitude, I would have appreciated the opportunity to address those issues. I
wanted to do so because I care and because I wanted to make the training experience more
bearable for some participants.
I believe that I have proven myself to be a Leadership Team member who cares about and
values GAs and other departmental staff. I listen to concerns and I address them to the best of
my ability. To be addressed in this way did not take that into account at all. I also asked the
participants in the circle to recognize that I have also been a part of training (Fall Training and
substituting on Sunday for restorative justice training), opening a hall, serving as an acting
Resident Director, and maintaining my AD responsibilities. Balancing these added
responsibilities along with these concerns has been a challenge.
Apology/Recognition of harm
I, Zoe, was frustrated and angry when I wrote the letter of complaint to Susan. I had spoken to
both my supervisor and Assistant Director, and felt that those conversations did not amount to

87

Figure 14 cont‟d
anything. From my perspective, I directed my complaint at a departmental committee, though I
addressed the letter to Susan, the committee chair. After speaking with Susan and others, I now
see that my choice of tone and language in the letter caused Susan harm as an individual. I
sincerely apologize for the harm I caused her. I do not regret bringing forward the concerns
expressed in the letter, but certainly regret that my choice of expression was felt as a personal
attack. I truly appreciate Susan’s participation in the restorative justice circle and her honesty in
sharing her response to the letter. Discussing with her has made me understand more fully the
consequences of my actions.
As a Leadership Team member, I, Susan, apologize for not initiating a conversation with other
members of Leadership Team and directors about considering the extra 10 hours added to the
GA schedule. Asking supervisors to intentionally discuss the balance of this additional
responsibility on top of all the other work you are doing should have happened. This apology
was offered in the circle.
Next steps/How you can help
The conversation in the restorative justice circle illuminated some recurring issues in the
department. We are a large department and, even with the best people and the best of
intentions, there are many opportunities for communication to break down. We need your help
in addressing this issue.

88

Figure 14 cont‟d
The GAs are a diverse group of people: we are students in many different academic programs,
living in different parts of campus, working in wildly different hall environments. It can be
difficult for us to communicate with one another as a group, let alone communicate a shared
issue or concern to the rest of the department. Too often we talk only with one another, and
complain that Leadership Team “doesn’t care” what we think or feel. It is natural that we turn
to one another for support, but this singular approach ultimately benefits no one.
Participants in the circle want to continue the conversation about feedback channels and
grievance processes. How can we ensure that the needs of the GAs are understood and
addressed? How can GAs better understand departmental decisions and obligations? How can
we, as a department, cultivate a culture of transparency and mutual trust and respect,
particularly in a time of change and uncertainty? We do not know yet, but we are committed to
improving.
All department members should remember that feedback is always welcome but everyone
must consider how it is offered. No matter how strongly we feel about an issue, we must always
remember that we are addressing people who should be given the benefit of the doubt and
addressed in a respectful manner. No level of staff should be rudely addressed. Regardless of
the level to whom you are speaking, general respect should be given. It was shared in the circle
that letters with a certain number of signatures is not what is takes to be heard. If they would
have come to the source, at least some of their issues would have been addressed quickly.

89

Figure 14 cont‟d
Directors can help this cause by reviewing the GA Agreement/AHD Covenant and grievance
guidelines with your GA staff and continue or begin to live up to the standards within the
agreement. Leadership Team could also benefit from revisiting the document. Members of
Leadership Team will be involved in the next steps and the continued conversations about how
to address the larger issues affecting some GAs. GAs who have feedback and thoughts about
these issues or any other departmental issues should have a conversation with their Director
and talk with their AD. As we move forward in the continued conversations, we want to involve
interested individuals. Please let us know if you would like to be involved.
Sincerely,
Zoe Rose
and
Susan McWilliams

Note: Though the above letter is dated October 1, 2010 it was issued with the following email November 10, 2010.

90

Figure 14 cont‟d
Dear Colleagues,

This e-mail will provide a summary of the Restorative Circle facilitated by Nancy S. to address
concerns about the September 10th and 12th Restorative Justice training raised by Zoe [et al]. I
also participated in the Circle.

Attached are the following:
1. The original letter authored by Zoe and signed by the others listed above
2. The Circle Agreement
3. A letter written by Zoe and Susan (as specified in the agreement)

Please note that not all circles will have similar agreements. Not all circles will result in a letter
to the entire department. Because of the public nature of this situation, the fact that the issue
may have impacted more than those who signed the agreement, and because everyone is
invited to participate in the follow up, we (circle participants) all agreed to provide this
information to the entire department.

As always, if you have questions, comments, concerns, or suggestions please let us know.

Sincerely,
Susan McWIlliams
91

APPENDIX B

Thematic Analysis Graphs and Maps

Figure 15:

Data Segments Indicating Power Perception
Self as Team member

Self as Victim
14

13

8

9

8

9

4
4

3

2

2

0
Original
Letter

Circle
Follow-up Joint Letter
Agreement Meeting
Minutes

92

Susan
Interview

1
Zoe
Interview

0
Joint
Interview

Figure 16:

Mapped Sample Comments of Power Dynamics Findings

93

Figure 17:

Power Dynamics in Circle (Focus on Original Letter)

Circle Focus on Original Letter
Total Data Segments

Data Segments Mentioning Original Letter

20
15
10
5
0
Circle Agreement

Follow-up Meeting Minutes

Joint Letter

Follow-up Meeting
Minutes

Circle Agreement
Total Data Segments

Total Data Segments
Data Segments Mentioning Original
Letter 10%

Data Segments Mentioning Original
Letter
10%

90%

90%

Joint Letter
Total Data Segments
Data Segments Mentioning Original Letter
30%
70%

94

Figure 18:

Evolution of Language from Disrespectful to Respectful

95

Progression of Subjects‟ Language and Interaction

Figure 19:

Progression of How Subjects Viewed Each Other
Throughout Circle Process
Seeing as "Other"

Not Seeing as "Other"

31

18
11
9

5

Original
Letter

10

3

0

5

3
0
Circle
Agreement

9

Follow-up
Meeting
Minutes

Joint Letter

96

3
Susan
Interview

5

Zoe
Interview

Joint
Interview

Figure 20:

Map of Sample of Comments Cited in Figure 19

97

REFERENCES

98

REFERENCES

ACLUMI. (2009). Reclaiming Michigan's Throwaway Kids: Students Trapped in the School to
Prison Pipeline (pp. 73). Detroit, MI: American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan
(ACLU MI).
Baron-Cohen, S. (2011). The Empathy Bell Curve. Phi Kappa Phi Forum(Spring 2011), 10 - 12.

Bebow, J. (2011). 18 Reasons Michigan's Prison Costs Cannot be Ignored. The Center for
Michigan.net, 2. Retrieved from The Center for Michigan.net website:
http://www.thecenterformichigan.net/18-reasons-michigans-prison-costs-cannot-beignored/

Blogs, N. S. P. (2009). Maori Culture and Tradition Retrieved April 12, 2011 2011, from
http://nursing322fall09.wordpress.com/maori-culture-and-tradition/

Braithwaite, J. (1996, October 17, 1996). Restorative Juastice and a Better Future. Paper
presented at the Dorothy Killiam Memorial Lecture, Dalgousie University.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology. Qualitative Research
in Psychology, 77 - 101.

Carolan, M. (2010, Sept. 13, 2011). [Challenges and Controversies of Qualitative Research].

Chibucos, T., & Leite, R. (Eds.). (2005). Readings in Family Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.

Commission, V. S. C. (2010). Report of the Virginia State Crime Commission: Restorative
Justice (pp. 15). Richmond, VA: Virginia State Crime Commission, Commonwealth of
Virginia.

99

Costello, B., Wachtel, J., & Wachtel, T. (2009). The Restorative Practices handbook for
Teachers, Disciplinarians and Administrators. Bethlehem, PA: International Institute for
Restorative Practices.

Cresswell, J. (2007). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five
Approaches (second ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Daly, K. (2007). Qualititative Methods for Family Studies and Human Development. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Education, A. f. E. (2008). The High Cost of High School Dropouts: What the Nation Pays for
Inadequate High Schools Issue Brief (pp. 6). Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent
Education.

Gavrielides, T. (2011). Drawing Together Research, Policy and Practice for Restorative Justice
(pp. 14). London: Independent Academic Research Studies (IARS).

Geske, J. (Writer). (2008). Restorative Justice: Theory and Practice. In M. University (Producer),
Marquette Law School web site. USA: YouTube.

Gibbs, J. (1995). The Cognitive Developmental Perspective. In W. Kurtines & J. Gewirtz (Eds.),
Moral Development: An Introduction (Vol. 1, pp. 27 - 48). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn
& Bacon, a Simon & Schuster Co.

Gibran, K. (1923). The Prophet (141 ed. Vol. 1). New York: Alfred A Knopf, Inc.

Gilligan, C. (1982). In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women's Development.
Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press.

Hartsock, N. (1998). The Feminist Standpoint Revisited and Other Essays. Boulder, CO:
Westview Press.
100

Hekman, S. (1995). Moral Voices, Moral Selves (1 ed. Vol. 1). University Park, PA: The
Pennsylvania State University Press.

Jaffee, S., & Hyde, J. S. (2000). Gender Differences in Moral Orientation: A Meta-Analysis.
[Journal]. Psychological Bulletin, 126(5), 703 - 726. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.126.5.703

Karp, D., & Allena, T. (2004). Restorative Justice on the College Campus, Promoting Student
Growth and Responsibility and Reawakening the Spirit of Campus Community (1 ed. Vol.
1). Springfiled, IL: Charles C Thomas Publisher, Ltd.

Kleinman, S. (2007). Feminist Fieldwork Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Levine, B. (2011, April 10, 2011). Fix Our Prison Policy: spend less on corrections to protect
resources for other important services, Op. Ed., Lansing State Journal, p. 11a.

Lipka, S. (2009). With Restorative Justice Colleges Strive to Educate Student Offenders. [News].
The Chronicle of Higher Education, 55(32), A.26.

Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. (2011). Designing Qualitative Research (5 ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Matthews, M. R. (2004). Thomas Kuhn's Impact on Science Education: What Lessons Can be
Learned? [Journal]. Science Education, 88(1), 90 - 118. doi: DOI 10.1002/sce.10111

McCold, P., & Wachtel, T. (2003). In Pursuit of Paradigm: A Theory of Restorative Justice.
Paper presented at the XIII World Congress on Criminology, Rio de Janero, Brazil.
http://www.iirp.edu/article_detail.php?article_id=NDI0

Meagher, P. (2009). A Phenomenological Study of the Experience of Respondents in CampusBased Restorative Justice Programs. Doctor of Philosphy Dissertation, Bowling Green
State University, Bowling Green, IN.

101

n/a. (2010, June 3, 2010). City in Spotlight for Tackling Children's Unruly Behavior. This is Hull
and East Riding Retrieved August 20, 2011, 2011, from
http://www.thisishullandeastriding.co.uk/City-spotlight-tackling-behaviour/story11945455-detail/story.html

OJJPD. (1991). Balanced and Restorative Justice Program Summary (O. o. J. J. a. D. P. Office of
Justice Programs, Trans.). Washington, DC: US Dept. of Justice.

Pranis, K. (2005). The little book of circle processes : a new/old approach to peacemaking.
Intercourse, PA: Good Books.

Pranis, K. (2009). Implementing Restorative Justice Circle Processes in Schools and Community.
Training Booklet. Global Issues Resource Center. Cleveland, OH.

Richardson, N. (2010). Hull, UK: Working Towards Becoming the World's First Restorative
City. EForum, (October 12, 2010), 1. Retrieved from IIRP.org website:
http://www.iirp.edu/iirpWebsites/web/uploads/article_pdfs/40919_NigelRichardsonWelc
ome.pdf

Services, U. S. D. o. H. a. H. (2008). Guidance document re: Research involving Human
Subjects. Washington DC: U.S Government Retrieved from
http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/policy/engage08.html.
Katy Hunsche of IRB staff provided this link in response to questions of whether I can
have my sister transcribe interviews. She said that, according to Section B of the
guidelines, I had not violated the terms laid out in the consent form. Katy e-mailed me
the link and I printed it and am keeping it with my other IRB documents. She did suggest
that I include language in the revised consent form making clear that I will be using a
professional transcriber for phase two of this case study.

Slote, M. (2011). The Philosophy of Empathy. [Journal]. Phi Kappa Phi Forum(Spring 2011), 13
- 15.

Small, G. (2011). Doctor's Order: Learn Empathy. Phi Kappa Phi Forum(Spring 2011), 16 - 17.

State Budget Director, J. E. N. (2011). Fiscal Years 2012 and 2013 Executive Budget. Lansing,
MI: State of MI.
102

Staub, E. (1995). The Roots of Prosocial and Antisocial Behavior in Persons and Groups:
Environmental Influence, Personality, Culture and Socialization. In W. Kurtines & J.
Gewirtz (Eds.), Moral Development: An Introduciton (pp. 436 - 438). Needham Heights,
MA: Allyn & Bacon, a Simon & Schuster Co.

Swigonski, M. (1994). The Logic of Feminist Standpoint Theory for Social Work Research.
[Journal]. Social Work, 39(4), 387 - 393.

Ted Wachtel, T. O. C., Ben Wachtel. (2010). Restorative Justice and Conferencing REAL Justice
and Conferencing Handbook. Bethlehem, PA: International Institute for Restorative
Practices in collaboration with The Piper's Press.

Thompson, K. (2011, p.26). For Executives, Empathy Means Dollars and Sense. Phi Kappa Phi
Forum(Spring 2011), 26.

Umbreit, M., & Armour, M. P. (2011). Restorative Justice Dialogue: An Essential Guide for
Research and Practice. New York: Springer Publishing Company.

Umbreit, M., Vos, B., Coates, R., & Lightfoot, E. (2006). Restorative Justice in the Twentifirst
Century: A Social Movement Full of Opportunities and Pitfalls. Marquette Law
Review(1/11/2006), 251 - 304.

vanWormer, K. (2009). Restorative Justice as Social Justice for Victims of Gendered Violence:
A Standpoint Feminist Perspective. Social Work, 54(2), 107 - 116.

Wachtel, B. (Writer) & B. Wachtel (Director). (2008). Introduction to Conferencing [DVD]. In
T. Wachtel (Producer), Facilitating Restorative Conferences Training. USA:
International Institute for Restorative Practices (IIRP).

Wachtel, J. (2011). Healing After a Student Suicide: Restorative Circles at the University of
Vermont. [Feature Story]. Restorative Practices E-Forum(February 16, 2011), 1 -2.

Waters, K. (2011). Teenage Bullies: Might Not Right. Phi Kappa Phi Forum(Spring 2011), 7 - 9.

103

White, J., & Klein, D. (2008). Family Theories (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.

Zehr, H. (1990). Changing lenses : a new focus for crime and justice. Scottdale, Pa.: Herald
Press.

Zehr, H. (2002). The little book of restorative justice. Intercourse, PA: Good Books.

Zehr, H. (2009, October 22, 2009). Restorative Justice: What's That? Paper presented at the
Twelfth Conferenc eof the International Institute for Restorative Practices, Toronto,
Canada.

104