How Does Restorative Justice Work? A Qualitative Metasynthesis

• Author: Masahiro Suzuki,Xiaoyu Yuan
• Date: 01 October 2021
• Published date: 01 October 2021
• DOI: 10.1177/0093854821994622
• Subject Matter: Articles

CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR, 2021, Vol. 48, No. 10, October 2021, 1347 –1365.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854821994622

Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions

© 2021 International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology

1347

HOW DOES RESTORATIVE JUSTICE WORK?

A Qualitative Metasynthesis

MASAHIRO SUZUKI

Central Queensland University

XIAOYU YUAN

Shanghai University of Political Science and Law

A systematic effort to answer in what ways and contexts the claims of restorative justice (RJ) prove persuasive is lacking. We

address this gap through a metasynthesis of qualitative studies. Drawing on 26 studies identified through the systematic lit-

erature search, we identified three overarching themes to understand “how RJ works”: (1) opportunities for humanization,

learning, and putting emotions of victims and individuals who committed a crime at the center of conflict-solving, (2) support

networks and mechanisms for communication, and (3) life-changing journey enshrined in healing. We develop a line of argu-

ment showing how the micro-, meso-, and macro-elements of RJ interact with each other. While offering reflections on the

limitations of existing literature around this key issue, we conclude with implications for advancing research of RJ.

Keywords: restorative justice; emotion; qualitative methods; social support; trajectories

INTRODUCTION

Restorative justice (RJ) is a novel type of justice response. Although it has been

practiced in various contexts (e.g., schools, workplace), this study focuses on those in

the criminal justice setting where they are taken as “a contemporary justice mechanism

. . . [that] involves a meeting . . . of affected individuals.” (Daly, 2016, p. 21, emphasis

in the original). By encouraging the individuals who committed a crime to take respon-

sibility for their offending and empowering the victim to voice their thoughts about the

impact of offending, RJ aims to restore the harm caused by crime and rebuild the rela-

tionship between all the parties concerned. When it emerged, RJ met suspicion as to

whether it could truly live up to what it promised because of its high aspiration (e.g.,

Levrant et al., 1999). Although early advocates counter-argued these critiques by

AUTHORS’ NOTE: We would like to thank Dr. Brunilda Pali, Ellie Piggott, and Navin Kumar for their feed-

back on the early draft of this paper. This research is supported by the Shanghai Young Eastern Scholar

Program. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Associate Professor, Xiaoyu Yuan,

School of Criminal Justice, Shanghai University of Political Science and Law, 7989 Waiqingsong Road, Qingpu

District, Shanghai 201701, China; e-mail: yuanxiaoyu2015@outlook.com.

994622CJBXXX10.1177/0093854821994622Criminal Justice and BehaviorSuzuki, Yuan / How Does Restorative Justice Work?

research-article2021

1348 CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR

providing the potential benefits of RJ (e.g., Braithwaite, 1999), this tension remained

unsolved because there was not sufficient empirical evidence to determine the effec-

tiveness of RJ (Kurki, 2000).

However, an upsurge of empirical studies on RJ in criminal justice settings over the last

two decades has shown that RJ can benefit individuals who committed a crime and victims

in multiple ways. This is particularly evident in recent meta-analyses. According to Sherman

et al.’s (2015) meta-analysis, RJ can decrease the fear of revictimization and post-traumatic

stress among victims and reduce the frequency of reoffending after 2 years compared to

conventional justice approaches. Focusing on RJ as a diversion program, Wong et al.’s

(2016) meta-analysis indicated that RJ can reduce the rate of recidivism among youth who

engaged delinquent behavior. In their meta-analysis of RJ practices for youth who engaged

delinquent behavior, Wilson et al. (2017) found that RJ can reduce future delinquency,

increase the youth perception about the fairness of the outcome, and enhance victim satis-

faction with the outcome.

While existing literature backed by these meta-analyses provided systematic knowledge

of what RJ can do, “how RJ works” remains unknown (e.g., Bolitho, 2017). This is not a

new problem; rather, it was indicated by some scholars more than a decade ago. From early

on, Bazemore and Green (2007) argued that it was unclear what elements of RJ produced

positive outcomes. More recently, Walgrave (2011) called for the next phase of research to

unravel the elements for a successful RJ. In other words, knowledge is scarce as to what

elements of RJ lead to the positive results, and how.

To address this key issue, we employ a qualitative metasynthesis. Many qualitative

studies have been conducted to explore the experiences of individuals who committed a

crime and victims with the RJ process. Yet, there has been no systematic attempt to syn-

thesize the findings of these qualitative studies. Qualitative metasynthesis seeks to sys-

tematically integrate the findings of qualitative studies (Erwin et al., 2011), hence helping

to map out a comprehensive picture of experiences of individuals who committed a crime

and victims in RJ.

While scholars suggest a variety of theories to explain the RJ process, we can classify

them into a one side-focused or an interaction perspective. Braithwaite’s (1989) reintegrative

shaming theory, for example, in distinguishing two types of shaming—reintegrative shaming

and stigmatizing shaming—seeks to explain how RJ conferencing can promote the reintegra-

tion of individuals who committed a crime through inducing shame as well as receiving sup-

port from the presence of their supporters. Yet, it is critiqued because it focuses largely on

individuals who committed a crime, even though RJ is an interactive process involving indi-

viduals who committed a crime and victims (Hayes & Daly, 2003). A more advanced under-

standing of the dynamics of RJ was developed by Rossner. Drawing on the interaction ritual

theory and one video-recorded RJ conferencing, Rossner (2011) demonstrated how the ritual

elements of RJ that are developed through the emotional rhythm in its process helped to

change the mindsets of participants. This case study remains a singular study on the interac-

tional dynamics thus far, although later on she tested it in a large-scale dataset (Rossner,

2013). Like Rossner, we focus on the interaction perspective in RJ. Our aim, however, is to

develop an integrated explanation of the dynamics of RJ. By unpacking the complexity of RJ

through the synthesis of existing qualitative research, we provide a framework of under-

standing how RJ works as well as point out the future direction for RJ research.