1.1 Restorative Justice Innovation in Schools

When restorative justice made its way into schools starting in the 1990s, educators slowly began to implement a far more holistic vision of restorative approaches than had existed in criminal justice applications, which tended to focus solely on offering an alternative response to crime (Evans & Vaandering, 2016). Recognising the essential role that positive community connections and open dialogue play in preventing incidents of harm, school-based restorative justice programmes began to place emphasis not only on modifying responses to harm, but also on working proactively and more broadly to develop positive relational ecologies (Morrison & Vaandering, 2012).

This holistic approach is often discussed using some form of the ‘Tier model’ in which Tier 1, at the base of the triangle, is proactive approaches to relationship building and developing social and emotional competencies. Tier 2 is focused on maintaining relationships and responding restoratively to issues that arise on a regular basis. Tier 3 is restorative responses to more serious incidents within the school and most often involves the participation of a wider cross-section of the school community including parents, social workers or others impacted (Morrison, 2007). The triangle shape represents that school communities embracing restorative approaches will spend most of their time on Tier 1, proactively building positive relationships, and less time working reactively. This Tier model is in alignment with the Multi-Tiered System of Student Support (MTSS) framework. The MTSS has gained a footing in US public schools through national and state educational policy. It encompasses five pillars: academics, mental health, response to intervention, restorative practice and social emotional learning (Schaffer, 2023). Restorative practice strategies for prevention and intervention fit each of the three tiers of MTSS with circle practice being a Tier 1 or preventative practice. Ideally, Tier 1 practices are utilised by all school staff and are a common experience for students.

When restorative approaches began to be translated from K-12 to higher education institutions, many universities endeavoured to adopt this same model, working both proactively to build positive, trusting relationships using restorative processes such as the circle, and reactively to respond to harmful incidents with restorative approaches such as restorative conversations, circles and restorative justice conferences (Karp, 2024). The commitment to prioritising relationships and actively building relationships based on trust and open communication is key to a restorative school or university culture. While restorative approaches provide an effective way to build positive trusting relationships and repair fractured relationships following incidents of harm, there is still a need to innovate additional ways to facilitate space to address broader structural sources of harm in a restorative manner.

1.2 Where Restorative Justice Approaches Often Fall Short

As restorative justice applications have proliferated in schools, universities, workplaces, the criminal justice system and beyond, a mounting critique of restorative justice programmes has emerged. This critique is that in its focus on specific incidents and the interpersonal dimensions of crime and conflict, restorative justice often fails to address larger structural injustices or to promote social change (Davis, 2019; Dyck, 2008). It is these deeper structural injustices that so often are the source of the underlying needs at the root of crime and conflict (needs including poverty, abuse, discrimination, lack of education and opportunity, unemployment, and other social problems). In other words, social problems generated by structural inequities bear significant responsibility in the broader causes of many incidents of harmful behaviour, so discussing and endeavouring to address those inequities is a necessary part of a restorative response. Beyond this causal relationship and its relevance for the prevention of harmful behaviour, it is perhaps more fundamentally an issue of philosophical congruence. If the restorative justice field is committed to repairing harm, then we must find ways to address significant harm occurring at scale through racist, classist and sexist policies and practices within institutions including schools and universities and broader societal structures.

It is likely that practical concerns arising from the struggle for programmatic survival are largely to blame for this shortcoming of restorative justice (Pavlich, 2018). In an effort to gain a foothold, restorative justice programmes have often settled for complementing traditional discipline processes, accepting some of the core penological characteristics of these systems. This includes a tendency to focus narrowly on the individuals involved in an incident of misconduct rather than also considering broader institutional or sociopolitical structures that may lead to misconduct (Maglione, 2018). While social reform and change are considered by many to be part of the philosophy and promise of restorative justice, they are often lost in the complexities and compromises of working within existing systems and institutions.

This more narrow, individual-focused version of restorative justice that is currently prevalent can also pathologise individuals (usually the responsible party) as the problem that needs to be fixed (Dyck, 2008). The focus is often on the ‘inner change’ that occurs within participants as a result of the process (Clamp, 2014). This focus on transforming people is often at the expense of a focus on transforming systems and underlying social causes.

This shortcoming of restorative justice as it is generally implemented by programmes across contexts (within criminal justice systems, schools, universities and beyond) has led many in the field to advocate for a broader application of restorative approaches and a widening of what harm the field seeks to address. In her highly influential book, The little book of race and restorative justice, Fania Davis argues that in order for restorative justice to be successful, advocates and practitioners who advance restorative justice must seek to address not just interpersonal harm, but also the sociohistorical conditions and institutions that perpetuate harm (Davis, 2019). It is necessary to consider issues of policy and practice as well as cultural factors and individual biases that cause and perpetuate significant harm. This expansion of the scope of restorative justice to address social justice issues through a harm and repair framework would not be at the expense of individuals. Rather, it would simultaneously seek to address social and structural sources of harm while providing an opportunity for accountability, truth telling and healing to those who have experienced a specific incident of harm.

1.3 Designing Restorative Processes to Address Structural Inequities

Many scholars, practitioners and advocates have noted this tendency of restorative justice programmes to fall short of the broader transformative aims of the restorative justice social movement. The question that follows is how do we adapt restorative justice processes and programmes and design new restorative approaches to achieve this broader lens for understanding and repairing harm. This need has led to a proliferation of restorative innovation, particularly in schools and universities where there is a naturally defined community and structural change is more achievable than in the criminal justice context (though certainly still difficult). These communities provide a natural space for experimentation with new restorative approaches to address broader inequities.

In 2018, the sustained restorative dialogue process was developed by a team at Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand as part of this effort to design restorative processes that could address broader structural sources of harm while still creating space for truth-telling and healing for individuals (Pointer & Giles-Mitson, 2020). The process was designed to facilitate challenging conversations around issues affecting the campus community and was initially piloted to address the issue of sexual harm on campus in the wake of the #MeToo movement. The practice is sustained in that it takes place over several sessions with the same participants. It is restorative in that it makes use of the restorative circle process, and the conversation moves in sequential sessions through the main steps of a restorative analysis: What is happening? What are the impacts? What is needed to make things right? (Pointer & Giles-Mitson, 2020). The aim of the initial pilot was to encourage open and honest conversation around the issue of sexual harm on campus and beyond, to better understand the broader culture that fosters sexually harmful behaviour and to explore potential ways to address these underlying issues. This restorative process was not in response to a specific incident of harm, but rather an effort to impact culture change within the campus community.

The initial pilot of the sustained restorative dialogue process was studied in depth by linguistics researcher Amy Giles-Mitson. Giles-Mitson’s research identified a number of positive outcomes that indicated the promise of the process for producing positive outcomes for the individuals involved as well as the wider community. Among these outcomes were a shift in perception and enhanced understanding of sexual harm for participants and an ability to motivate and increase conversations about sexual harm (including beyond the confines of the sustained restorative dialogue process and group) (Giles-Mitson, 2021). A further outcome identified was the ability of the process to generate a space for creative problem solving resulting in concrete recommendations for change that were shared with the University’s Sexual Violence Prevention Group (Giles-Mitson, 2021).

These outcomes indicate the promise of the process for understanding structural sources of harm as grounded in the experiences and needs of individuals and drawing on the creative and generative power of restorative processes to collectively form plans for how harm can be repaired and underlying issues can be addressed. However, in the years since the initial pilot process took place, we have noted the need for greater institutional buy-in to the process, making it available to more community members, and following through on the recommendations generated by participants in order for the broader social change objective of the process to be achieved. In turning towards subsequent pilots of the process to hold space for additional pressing community dialogues, this need for broader institutional buy-in over time was paramount.

1.4 Background: Piloting the Sustained Restorative Dialogue at Roberts Wesleyan University

Organisations, schools and businesses around the country have created committees focused on diversity, equity and inclusivity in order to grapple with these important issues and to create and implement actions toward more equitable communities. Roberts Wesleyan (like many college campuses, schools and institutions) has been engaged in this work on their campus through a dedicated committee. Roberts Wesleyan is a comprehensive, Christian University of the liberal arts, sciences and professions serving approximately 1600 traditional and non-traditional students at the undergraduate and graduate levels. The University offers more than 60 traditional undergraduate majors, nine degree completion undergraduate majors, 16 master’s programmes and two doctoral programmes. The University serves a diverse population of students in age, gender, socio-economic status and ethnicity. Of the total student body, one in three identifies as an underrepresented minority student, primarily identifying as Black, Hispanic, or two or more races with Black typically being one of the races. Two per cent have citizenship outside the United States. Roberts Wesleyan has students from all religious backgrounds as well as members of the LGBTQIA+ community. Efforts related to equity and belonging at Roberts Wesleyan encompass race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, religion, differently-abled and any other identity that contributes to experiences of feeling included or marginalised in a community.

At Roberts Wesleyan, committee conversations dedicated to diversity, equity and belonging were helpful to identify issues on campus; however, a protocol was needed in order to deeply understand what was creating a sense of belonging on campus and what was getting in the way of that sense of belonging. Circle practice, specifically a sustained restorative dialogue, was selected as a dialogue method, because it creates a discourse where all voices are elevated to an equal status. Participants listen deeply to each other to understand unique lived experiences, identify barriers to belonging that presently exist in the organisation and collaboratively create a path forward.

This section provides an overview of the process Roberts Wesleyan went through to initiate the idea, build a team and ultimately pilot the sustained restorative dialogue process with a group of faculty/staff followed by a group of students. When implementing institutional initiatives like the sustained restorative dialogue, pre-planning is essential to ensure resources (time, energy, funds) are used wisely and not wasted. Attention to supporting sustainable change as an outcome is also needed. This section sets the groundwork for how these considerations were addressed within the Roberts Wesleyan community.

3.1 Overview of Sessions: Facilitator Observations

The format of the sustained dialogue is four distinct circle sessions, moving through the key restorative questions. Throughout the process, participants discussed what creates a sense of belonging and conversely, what gets in the way of a sense of belonging, and were given time to tell individual stories. The telling and acknowledgement of individual stories led to collective learnings and to a discourse on harm, understanding the impact of the identified barriers on a sense of belonging for individuals as well as for the broader school community. The sessions culminated with a focus on visioning an institutional culture where everyone can belong and co-creating generative actions toward that vision for both individuals and structural aspects of the school. Over the course of the four sustained restorative dialogue sessions, the facilitator observed a number of impacts of the process on the group. Those observations as well as a description of the progression of the dialogue over the four sessions are recorded here.

The first session provided an opportunity for the group to build relationships and establish group norms to guide the circle process. The circle questions invited the group to share about themselves, their interest in participating in the dialogue process, the problem from their perspective and what they needed in order for the group to be a brave and supportive space to talk about the issues of diversity, equity and belonging. During this session, the facilitator created a visual of the group’s agreed upon guidelines, which were re-visited at each following session.

The second session addressed the first restorative question: What is happening? After a couple of relationship-building rounds to establish comfort, the circle questions invited participants to reflect on the messages they received about race growing up, the state of the culture relative to racial bias and harm, and what aspects of the culture were creating a sense of belonging on campus. The group also explored what aspects of the culture were getting in the way of a sense of belonging. The students of colour in the group were open and brave about the ongoing struggle to feel a sense of belonging on campus. They did not see themselves reflected in the leadership of the school. They felt that a lack of knowledge relative to diversity had resulted in their experiences of microaggressions on campus that were normalised by both faculty and fellow students.

The third session addressed the second restorative question: Who is affected and how? After participants reflected on the previous sessions, they were invited to reflect on the impact of racial bias and harm. Before engaging in this circle, the facilitator reflected on the fact that all harm is relational in the context of community. Four types of harms were reviewed: emotional spiritual, material physical, communal relational and structural historical. The story telling in this round was emotional as students shared the impact of harm through these specific lenses. It was important to add a circle round for participants to reflect on how they find resilience to cope with these impacts. This was a significant round for students as it allowed them the space to make connections to each other and provide mutual support.

The fourth session addressed the third and final restorative question: What is needed to make things right? The circle questions invited participants to envision together a school culture that allowed everyone to feel a strong sense of belonging. The generative energy of this round provoked ideas for specific actions needed to move toward that reality, including what each individual could do, what the group as a whole could do and what leadership could do to create a culture where a sense of belonging would be accessible for everyone. The power of this round began with the vision of the ‘ideal’ campus. The clarity of the vision provoked creativity and problem solving. The multiple lenses of harm allowed students to give specific ideas to mitigate the identified impacts in each category both for themselves and for the institutional structures of the school.

As a result of the sustained dialogue, students reflected that they realised they were not alone in their stories which gave them courage and resolve to begin using their voice to not accept the way things are and to speak out against incidents of microaggression. As the circle ended, the students identified their personal growth and articulated hope that things on campus could be different.

3.2 Linguistic Analysis

A key finding from the Victoria University of Wellington sustained restorative dialogue was that taking part in the process was associated with an increase in agency for the participants. This was considered meaningful, as sexual harm is ultimately an agency-stripping phenomena, yet the restorative process provided opportunities for both personal and collective agency around an issue that results in a great deal of harm at both the individual and the societal level.

A focus on agency also emerges as salient in the dialogue that took place at Roberts Wesleyan. This is perhaps unsurprising, as many of the stories and concerns the students shared centred around their experiences of racism. In addition to both being topics of high emotional impact that can greatly affect a campus community, many parallels can be drawn between experiences of sexual harm and experiences of racism. Both can impede a person’s place in the world – their feeling of identity, respect, connection, trust and safety. Both racism and sexual harm are forms of power (Gravelin, Biernat & Baldwin, 2019; Solórzano, Ceja & Yosso, 2000) that have their roots in deeply ingrained unequal structural norms. Moreover, both can be seriously detrimental to a person’s sense of agency. Agency can be described as the capacity to make decisions about one’s own life and act on them to achieve a desired outcome, free from violence or fear (Klugman et al., 2014).

A central domain of agency is voice, and a recurring theme from the participants of the Roberts Wesleyan sustained restorative dialogue was the way in which their experiences were associated with a lack of voice in a variety of different ways. This was most notably expressed with regards to those in authoritative positions and the University as an institution. A closely related point of issue was also observed in the Victoria University of Wellington sustained restorative dialogue: a recurring feeling from participants was how the power imbalances that exist between the institution (and its staff) and students meant their voices were often obscured. This notion of not being heard is particularly problematic when students feel their institution is ineffectively handling its responsibilities around student wellbeing, or only attempting to address issues of inequality and harm at a superficial level.

We turn now to examine some of the speech data from the participants of the dialogue at Roberts Wesleyan. Firstly, we will see how the data shows a lack of voice afforded to the students, evidenced in their own words, before observing the potential the process has for creating opportunities that provide increased agency and voice.

In Excerpt 1 we hear from Nico, who is describing an incident that took place in her Latin American History class when she was doing a presentation about racism in Latin America.

Excerpt 1

Session 1 – Round 3: Do you have a story to share?

1Nico: and + so + then I said um

2and this is like a class full of people

3and I said and just so you guys know like if I’m talking fast it’s because I have anxiety

4and I- and I get nervous +

5and ah this professor + I also don’t care so I will say the name

6Professor (name) um had the very bright idea to make a joke + and said

7oh you talk fast because you’re Puerto Rican? +

8even though I literally had just stated that I’m often mistaken as Puerto Rican

9and that I’m not Puerto Rican

10and not only is that like racist it’s also a stereotype

11which is on top of racism

12and I remember I like (XXX) my initial reaction

13I was just like HUH ((makes astonished face))

14and then I just stood there

15cause I didn’t know what to do or how to respond

16because what am I supposed to say

17I’m in a class full of people

18I’m already anxious as it is

19and then there was like a bunch of like + white men in the class

20which makes me nervous to begin with

21and they were all just like ((imitates voices)) oh she’s offended oh she’s offended

22and so then I got to the point where I was like

23OK if I say something then I’m going to be like + an immediate + like target

24and the attention’s already on me so it’s like

25I just went ((shrugs shoulders)) OHH

26like I just + didn’t know how to continue with my presentation

27and then um Professor (name) goes well you know I’m just joking I’m just joking

28like sorry about that I’m just joking but it’s like +

29it wasn’t a joke to me and like it never will be a joke to me

30because it’s a joke that’s been- literally has so much behind it

31um and so that was just like a situation where I WISH I would have said something

In this excerpt, Nico describes how she is unable to use her voice to respond to comments she finds racist and offensive. In the first instance, Nico is not able to speak due to her surprise at the professor’s comments: ‘I didn’t know what to do or how to respond because what am I supposed to say […] I just didn’t know how to continue with my presentation.’ Both physically and verbally she is stopped in her tracks and rendered silent by the shock of the remarks (lines 13–14). Yet this soon shifts into a weightier silence as she takes account of her situation: she is already in a vulnerable position because she has anxiety, she is in a room with lots of white men (including the professor) which makes her nervous and now she feels she will be an immediate target if she speaks her mind (line 23).

Nico’s fears here are not unfounded, due to the professor invoking the ‘it’s just a joke’ rhetoric. Although he does apologise when he sees that she is upset, by repeatedly stating that he was only joking (lines 27–28) he is increasing the potential for social penalisation if she chooses to challenge his comment. That is, offensive (i.e. racist, sexist) speech that is deemed funny is often regarded as more acceptable and less discriminatory, and the risks and costs associated with challenging such remarks are much higher when the target may be accused of lacking a sense of humour. In the sexism space, the use of humour can make sexist messages more dangerous and difficult to confront than serious remarks (Mallet, Ford & Woodzicka, 2016). In terms of racism, humour can also be used to make racist messages more appealing and palatable (Pérez, 2022). In both cases, the labelling of oppressive speech as a joke can be extremely problematic and aid in reproducing unequal social realities. Furthermore, as we have seen here, people can be effectively silenced when deterred from speaking out for fear of the social penalties involved with objecting to a ‘joke’.

Although Nico expresses that she wishes she had said something (line 31), actually speaking out can come with negative consequences and personal cost. In Excerpt 2, Nico is describing the aftermath of a situation where she complained about a different professor’s use of the N word in class.

Excerpt 2

Session 2 – Round 4: What is preventing that sense of belonging?

1Nico: I have literally like + have avoided this professor at all costs

2because he started treating ME differently simply just for speaking out

3and for + you know saying hey this is WRONG

4and for me to get treated differently and ostracised in class

5and to have my hand raised to answer a question and to get ignored like

6it’s just like that small stuff really got to me

Here Nico illustrates the way her voice has been diminished despite taking an agentive action to try and address a situation she feels is wrong – the use of racist language in the classroom when reading one of their texts. As she explains, speaking out about it has resulted in consequences for her in several ways: she now actively avoids this professor and feels she is treated differently, ostracised and deliberately excluded from participating in class. While in Line 6 Nico states, ‘it’s just like that small stuff really got to me’, these consequences are not small but significant, and are the kinds of things that could seriously impact a student’s sense of belonging as well as their academic achievements.

Political agency can be defined as the belief that one has the ability to effect social and political change, and students who feel they cannot do anything about racism in their lives and communities therefore lack political agency (Graves, 2021). In both of these excerpts, Nico has been unable to exercise her voice and her political agency has been impeded. In Excerpt 1, her shock at the professor’s speech and the fear of social penalisation has stopped her from speaking her mind. Conversely, in Excerpt 2, when she has spoken out against racist speech, she has essentially been silenced by being ignored and treated differently from her peers in the classroom environment. This reference to political agency in the educational context is important, as it has meaningful consequences for students in the broader context of their lives. For example, Seider and Graves (2020) show how students who feel they can make changes in their places of education then also feel that they can effect change in the world beyond their institution. On the other hand, punishing students for speaking out against racism, or creating spaces where they feel they are unable to do so, embodies a type of authority that does nothing to advance students’ sense of agency (Graves, 2021), and can serve to reproduce institutional structures that foster racist or oppressive norms.

The feeling of powerlessness and lack of agency can be observed again in the following excerpts, where we hear from Leah and Jasmine.

Excerpt 3

Session 1 – Round 3: Do you have a story to share?

1Leah: I’ve had some instances at Roberts where it’s like +

2wow it’s like some people have these thoughts

3like you can actually SAY that out loud

4and it SHOCKS me to the point where I feel like +

5either I need to leave the room

6which I don’t because I’m not that person who leaves the room

7but I just stay silent and I won’t share and I won’t + say what’s on my mind

Excerpt 4

Session 3 – Round 4: How do you cope?

1Jasmine: it’s just like in some situations + like we don’t-

2there is this helpless energy

3but in some situations I feel like +

4you can’t really do anything?

5because these people in power can affect your grades

6they can affect the y- your class

7how you enjoy the cl- like they affect everything

8so it’s really like what can you do in situations where it’s just a person in authority

9who is + you know + um + who is um +

10not targeting you but- what’s the word

11it’s just what to do in those situations

In Excerpt 3, we see that Leah, much like Nico in Excerpt 1 above, is stunned into silence by some of the things she experiences around her at Roberts Wesleyan. She expresses that sometimes she is so shocked by the speech of others that she feels she needs to leave the room, yet doesn’t, because she’s ‘not that person’ (line 6). The situation Leah describes here demonstrates an extremely low level of personal agency and a complete absence of voice, i.e. the only option she feels is available to her is silence: ‘I just stay silent and I won’t share and I won’t say what’s on my mind.’

Jasmine’s speech in Excerpt 4 further highlights how these students do not feel they have free choices when it comes to responding to problematic situations they are faced with on campus. As she explains, ‘there is this helpless energy’. Her powerful choice of adjective (helpless) paints a clear picture of this, yet she also provides an explanation: ‘You can’t really do anything because these people in power can affect your grades.’ Crucially, Jasmine also notes how figures of authority can impact your enjoyment of the class (line 6–7), something we have seen direct evidence for in Nico’s stories.

In addition to expressing a lack of the political agency noted above, these students’ narratives show how offensive incidents can render an individual silent and unable or unwilling to share their feelings or speak their mind. Yet their inability to speak out may also be linked to a wider feeling of not being supported by the University or within their campus community. We have seen evidence for this in the way Nico describes the incidents with two different professors, and in the way Jasmine describes feeling helpless in the face of the power imbalances that exist. This distressing lack of confidence in the support of their institution is expressed once again, perhaps most distinctly, by Leah in Excerpt 5.

Excerpt 5

Session 2 – Round 3: What is creating a sense of belonging?

1Leah: um yeah I don’t think I can++ say that Roberts made me feel welcome

2in fact I feel like Roberts students make me feel unwelcome here

At this point Leah shares a story about a phone-a-thon job she had on campus in her first semester. She had an extremely negative experience with one of her calls, as everything the woman said was very racially motivated. Leah felt so affected by the phone call that she needed to take a break.

3I didn’t tell + my boss about it

4I didn’t + tell anyone that + had power at Roberts about it

5because I feel like nothing would have been done

Leah then refers back to this story in the next round of the same session, which asked what the participants felt was preventing a sense of belonging.

6the reason I feel like I couldn’t do anything? is

7I feel like sometimes I’m not worth their time like +

8I feel like I’m not significant enough for them to care about me?

9so I just + stay quiet

10and ++ I think that’s really what blocks the sense to belonging

11like I feel like I don’t really have a purpose here?

This is a sobering illustration of how Leah is feeling at her predominantly white place of education. As she expresses, not only the institution, but also the students have made her feel unwelcome, and this is not a statement she makes lightly – her lengthy pause in line 1 suggests that she has had time to think about her choice of words and this is an assessment she is committed to. Once again Leah just stays quiet (line 9) rather than speak out or, in this case, report a situation where racially charged speech has affected her – not only on campus grounds, but in her place of employment within the University. Sadly, her reasons for this are unambiguous: ‘I feel like sometimes I’m not worth their time, I feel like I’m not significant enough for them to care about me.’ Not only does this absence of care and support result in Leah feeling unable to use her voice, it is also a direct barrier to her sense of belonging (line 10). Given the considerable impact a sense of belonging at an institution has on student success (e.g. Hausmann, Schofield & Woods, 2007; Strayhorn, 2012), this speaks volumes about the importance of taking practical measures to improve minoritised students’ experiences of connection and belonging on campus.

These stories demonstrate the way in which individual incidents of harm must be understood within a broader context of institutional and structural harm. So often, that broader need for social change is ignored in restorative processes and responses (Dyck, 2008; Davis, 2019). In this speech data, we see how the sustained restorative dialogue process creates an opportunity to build a collective understanding of individual experiences of interpersonal harm in the context of broader sociohistorical conditions and institutions that perpetuate harm. It offers a helpful process and structure for this important expansion in scope of restorative approaches advanced by Davis and others in the restorative justice movement.

While the speech data we have observed thus far clearly emphasises the problems that exist, the intention is not to paint a negative picture, but rather, to highlight the need for practices like sustained restorative dialogue and how it can be used as a valuable tool to help address some of these issues on campus. To that end, the final excerpts in this analysis provide evidence of the positive impacts the restorative process can have.

In Excerpt 6 we hear from Jacinda, a member of staff at Roberts Wesleyan who synthesises what she has been hearing from the student participants over the four sessions, and brainstorms a way to use this to affect meaningful change.

Excerpt 6

Session 4 – Round 3: What can you personally do?

1Jacinda: I think there’s- what is very REAL and complex about this

2which probably shouldn’t be but the reality is this history has shown

3that it doesn’t always go well when you speak up

4or nothing is done when you speak up

5or maybe because there’s trauma

6you don’t even know how to process and how to speak up

7or there’s retaliation when you speak up

8or you’re labelled as you know an activist instead of an advocate

9like there’s so much complexity to this

10so I’m- I’m saying all that to say

11when I write down this education piece

12I’m wondering if MY role

13if- if I can bring education to that

14like students are experiencing things here in your classroom

15they’re experiencing things in the dorm

16and and no you’re not hearing about it right away for MULTIPLE reasons

17the reporting- we don’t have a reporting system

18there is no safe way to report it immediately

19if they do know what they’re feeling there’s no reporting system

20umm number two

21they may not fully understand what they’re feeling yet

22and so we have to give them time to process it

23number three history has shown sometimes when they do speak up

24we don’t change so what’s the purpose

25there’s- there’s an education component that I’m thinking about

26that it comes to speaking up

27that I’m wondering if I need to dive into and and really use that as a part of

28what we call diversity training ((uses air quotes here))

29you know and so I think that’s what’s really hitting me

In addition to astutely summarising the various problems involved with speaking out, Jacinda’s speech here demonstrates how simply creating a space for students to speak their minds and tell their stories, in an intentional and equitable way, can be the impetus for change. By listening closely to what they have shared in the dialogue, and no doubt consolidating that with her own knowledge of the University processes, she has been able to conceptualise practical actions that can be taken to help address some of the issues affecting her students. Specifically, rethinking the current diversity training to incorporate a greater understanding of the barriers involved in voicing their concerns and, critically, having a clear and easily accessible reporting system.

By having Jacinda translate their concerns into something actionable, the students are afforded agency in a way that, as we have seen, is often lacking in their day-to-day experiences at University. This indicates that having a trusted member of staff participate alongside students in the process can be extremely worthwhile. This was not a feature of the original restorative dialogue that took place at Victoria University of Wellington but is definitely worth considering in future sustained restorative dialogue designs that look to address problems on campus.

In the final excerpt, this time from Brendan, we see evidence of the effects the process can have on participants, and the way in which having open and honest conversations around a difficult issue can have positive implications for feelings of connection and personal growth.

Excerpt 7

Session 4 – Final takeaway round

1Brendan: I feel like at first you know there was a lot of anger ahh

2you know hearing the different stories and hearing everyone share

3like I felt like I just built up a lot of anger inside hearing and knowing that you know

4that stuff like this is going on and or like

5it’s going on here at Roberts a Christian campus

6so I feel like that sat with me a lot I just had a lot of anger building up

7but obviously you know as we had different conversations

8and as time went on um

9yeah I’ve been like very grateful to hear those stories

10to be- for you for me and you know everyone

11being able to share and just to + you know ++

12take like- be like- take this to like the next like- take it to an emotional-

13like the next emotional level to where you know ++

14I don’t really- you know obviously I’m no expert

15I don’t really know everyone in this chat like that but

16for you guys to feel comfortable to be able to talk you know

17and share those stories with me?

18you know that just says a lot about you guys and I’m grateful for that …

19…. I think this was a great opportunity to be able to grow

20and I do feel like I have grown

21and you know I’m gonna take the conversations we’ve had here

22or the stuff that I’ve learned from the conversations we’ve had

23and apply it to you know the world outside of this group

24and you know share with students and team mates

25ahh different things that’s going on and how we can be a change

26and you know just have a say in the things that’s going on

Although initially hearing people share their stories resulted in a lot of anger for Brendan, he expresses how as the sessions progressed he began to feel real gratitude for the way everyone was able to share within the circle. The considerable impact of having others share their stories appears to be a key outcome of the restorative dialogue process and, as we can see here, it can foster not only a sense of connection in the group, but also result in significant learning and personal growth. As Brendan notes: ‘I think this was a great opportunity to be able to grow and I do feel like I have grown.’ Importantly, he also reports that these are learnings that he will share with others and apply to his life outside of the circle (lines 18–22). In a highly agentive pair of phrases he concludes that he can now share with others ‘how we can be the change’ and ‘have a say’.

The outcomes of the dialogue that Brendan speaks about here – a sense of gratitude at hearing people’s stories, a feeling of learning and personal growth, and the ability to extend this beyond the circle – were all also observed in the Victoria University of Wellington sustained restorative dialogue (Giles-Mitson, 2021; Pointer & Giles-Mitson, 2020), indicating that these are quintessential features of the sustained restorative dialogue process.

These excerpts of speech from within the dialogue suggest that some students, and in particular students of colour, do not feel they have the ability to influence their institution in a way that could result in meaningful changes around diversity, equity and belonging. To put in another way, they lack agency and voice around issues that directly affect them. This is perhaps exemplified by a point of concern that was raised several times in the sessions: a common belief that student protests are not allowed at Roberts Wesleyan. While this isn’t an explicit campus rule, it is clear that students feel obstructed from using their voice to challenge the kinds of oppressive structures that can be barriers to their sense of belonging and inclusion. Furthermore, it has been shown that students who attend schools that scaffold opportunities for them to make meaningful changes, including using their institutions as sites to resist racism and other forms of oppression, have the highest levels of political agency (Graves, 2021).

It is worth mentioning here that not all participants in the circle felt they lacked voice. For example, one student reported that he has no problem talking to anyone on campus about some of the issues raised in the dialogue. Moreover, he spoke openly about being comfortable being a voice for other students. While this is obviously not how all, or even the majority, of minoritised students feel, having such a voice in the circle can be incredibly impactful – both for other students who do not feel as confident and for one of the goals of the dialogue process: to identify practical steps that can be taken to address the topic of concern. As we saw with Jacinda above, the sustained restorative dialogue can provide a space and the impetus to consider the individual actions that can be taken in the pursuit of positive change.

The narratives we have observed here suggest an opportunity for development and training at the faculty level, but also the importance of practices like the sustained restorative dialogue to promote connection amongst students. As we saw in Excerpt 5 from Leah, it is not only people in authoritative positions but also students who play a role in making their peers feel (un)welcome. We know that students learn more about relational issues from their peers than from information provided by authority figures (e.g. Earle, 2009; Linley, 2018; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005), and equitable processes that avoid a top-down approach may be particularly relevant in light of the disconnect some students feel with university authorities. Circle dialogues may be a valuable way to negotiate some of the power imbalances that institutional structures dictate, and which, as we have seen, can obstruct some students from exercising their voice.

3.3 Institutional Changes

The piloting of the sustained restorative dialogue process at Roberts Wesleyan University reaffirmed earlier findings from the piloting of the process at Victoria University of Wellington, namely that participating in the process has a number of positive impacts for participants including an increased sense of individual and collective agency. In addition to these findings about this impact of the process from the analysis of the video recordings, a number of positive institutional changes at Roberts Wesleyan arose from the sustained restorative dialogue process and are now being implemented. This indicates that the process may be successful in sparking meaningful structural change, when done in the context of adequate institutional support, buy-in and accountability to ensure follow-through.

New diversity and belonging institutional initiatives resulted from the sustained restorative dialogue groups. Notable resulting institutional initiatives included: a campus-wide review of the institutional climate impacting a sense of belonging for students, with recommendations to be made to Student Life, Academic Cabinet and the President’s Cabinet; antiracist curriculum development training for professors; academic advising training on diversity, equity, inclusion and access for underrepresented students; and adoption of a Culture of Care framework,¹ spearheaded by the Chief Diversity Administrator and key members of the President’s Cabinet, faculty and staff. The framework will undergird how Roberts Wesleyan thinks about and responds to conflict, grievances, bias and harm that’s rooted in restorative practices across all facets of the campus. The pre-sustained restorative dialogue strategy entailing the triadic model of key stakeholders involving the President, Chief Diversity Administrator and faculty/staff/student champions of DEI and belonging principles permitted: (1) the identification of these initiatives to address the barriers to belonging that were uncovered during the sustained restorative dialogues, (2) approval for their implementation and (3) the provision of resources to support their adoptions.