In search of a research nirvana: what process for whom?

Abstract

Writing an editorial is a time to dream, to think of possibilities in the far future when one's key research questions might be answered. For me, the impetus in researching restorative justice is not just to understand what it is, or how it works, but also to work with practitioners to improve practice. That means, in the context of restorative justice and its values of inclusivity and voluntariness, listening to those who participate and reflecting back what they are saying and their reactions. Perhaps one of the most important tasks for research in this field is that researchers may be able to hear and translate the voices of all of those who participate back to those who design restorative justice programmes, fund them and deliver them. My plea in this editorial is that we may work out ways to see what kinds of restorative justice processes are found helpful by different participants (adult and young participants, victims and offenders), for varying offences. This is not a task of evaluation, of finding out 'what works', or what effects and outcomes restorative justice programmes or experiences have. Evaluation can only work with what has happened, and good evaluation is evaluation true to the aims and values of the programmes which have been delivered. So evaluation is necessarily bounded by the current shape of programmes and how they have been delivered. It is constrained by current provision, and can only speculate about other possibilities which have not been tried as yet. Listening to the voices of participants is a slightly different and more difficult task, where one needs to listen to what was not there, but might have been there and would have been helpful-to find the gaps and see possibilities for future development. However, I think it is a key task for researchers, particularly given the values of restorative justice, that that justice should not reflect the state's demands, or criminal justice's power balances, but instead what would be helpful to potential participants, within the bounds of human rights considerations.Working out what might be helpful in restorative justice is a particularly problematic task because the aims of policymakers and funders (who

A Dynamic Theory of Prosecutorial Roles in Adversarial Trials

“…3 For instance, under s. 302 of the Indian Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, the judge can allow private prosecutions for minor offences. Also see Shapland (2017); Hargovan (2010); Frieberg (2007). 4 For an overview from the English and Welsh context, see Ashworth (2000), pp.…”