“Yardsticks” for Victim Sensitive Process: Principle-Based Standards for Gauging the Integrity of Restorative Justice Process

For almost two decades restorative justice practices have demonstrated positive impacts on crime victim satisfaction when compared to court and other adversarial processes. Although restorative justice practice has by no means addressed the myriad needs of the majority of crime victims, researchers and policy makers have puzzled about how to interpret these generally positive findings. We suggest that remaining difficulties in interpretation and application of findings are due largely to (1) the lack of clear standards for gauging the integrity, or “restorativeness,” of interventions and (2) the failure to articulate logical mechanisms (i.e., intervention theories) that connect practices to immediate and intermediate outcomes, and these outcomes to long term changes in the well-being of victims, offenders, and communities. This article focuses primarily on the first problem, defining the “independent variable” in restorative practices aimed at having an impact on crime victims. Using qualitative data from a national case study, a principle-based approach to evaluation with implications for intervention theory and both input and outcome measures in future research is proposed and briefly illustrated.     

The Role of Theory in Experimental Design: Experiments Without Randomization

Some who have written about the logic of experimentation arguethat random assignment of subjects to treatment conditions isan essential attribute of an experiment. Others disagree. Ratherthan treating this as a matter of dueling definitions, we considerexperiments without randomization from a theoretical perspective.Our central contention here is that, for some research questions,theory dictates systematic (not random) assignment of respondentsto experimental conditions. Two such areas of inquiry are researchon political tolerance and on institutional legitimacy. Thisarticle gives cursory attention to the former body of work anddetailed attention to the latter, based on an experiment conductedin a survey in 2001 on the consequences of the American presidentialelection for institutional legitimacy. Because in both instancestheory requires nonrandom assignment, the problem becomes oneof identifying the costs of nonrandomization (threats to internalvalidity) and specifying analytical techniques that might amelioratethose costs. Consequently, we present results from a statisticalapproach that addresses the problem of nonrandomization. Themost important claim of this article is that theory ought tospecify research design, including experimental designs, andthat dogmatic attachment to one definition of experiment willnot serve the discipline of political science.     

Discussing conflict in contemporary China

The research suggests there is a gap in the peace studies and conflict resolution literature, with little representation or understanding of Chinese perspectives. In a project to address this gap, the researchers conducted interviews individually with 30 participants identified as ‘ emerging leaders’, who came from diverse universities and parts of the Peoples’ Republic of China. This paper reports on the language used by young emerging leaders to talk about conflict, the main concepts that were discussed and what meanings may be communicated in the context of contemporary China. The research method was developed in collaboration with Chinese academics, was elicitive and dialogic, used context-grounded vignettes of conflict scenarios and aimed to build a foundation for deepening dialogue and engagement. The findings are important theoretically for a more inclusive peace and conflict studies literature and have practical implications for the way in which relationships with China may best be approached.