Just Court ADR

---

By Sandy Wiegand and Heather Fogg, RSI

As the field of ADR broadly engages with the continued development and advancement of the use of technology in dialogue and conflict resolution processes, some of the fundamental questions regarding in-person and online formats remain. In practitioner group gatherings around the country, mediators and facilitators continue to ask one another: What benefits or preferences do you see for in-person and online opportunities? For a process that includes restorative justice, facilitators often expect much of the anticipated impacts to come directly from bringing people together face-to-face in a well-balanced physical location. The question then of whether similar transformational effects may occur when creating online spaces has been especially relevant to these practitioners.

A recent article contrasting an in-person and an online implementation of a specific restorative justice process highlights the possible strengths and limitations of each format and the authors suggest ways to adapt more of the techniques used in person to an online setting.

Writing for The International Journal of Restorative Justice, authors Amy Giles-Mitson and Lindsey Pointer contrast implementations of Sustained Restorative Dialogue (SRD). SRD is a restorative justice practice in which participants gather in four separately facilitated circle sessions, while progressing in each circle through three phases of the restorative process.

In addition to one implementation being held in person and the other remotely, the scenarios for the two SRDs varied significantly in other ways.

The first, conducted in person, was the SRD pilot at Victoria University of Wellington in New Zealand in 2018. The article authors participated in this SRD as facilitator and participant-observer. The process brought together male and female (undergraduate) law school students and “focused on the prevalence of sexual harm on campus and engaged student participants in a dialogue about experiences, perceptions and impacts of sexual harm as well as collective brainstorming about what could be done differently to generate change.”

The second SRD that Giles-Mitson and Pointer analyze was facilitated entirely online in 2022 at Roberts Wesleyan University in New York. Undergraduate students of color were recruited to take part, and the process was used to consider the prevalence and impact of racial harm on campus. “Student suggestions for how the university could promote a more positive school climate and racial equity were shared with the administration and informed significant changes on campus.”

Because of the major context differences, the authors note up front that their findings from any comparison of the two are “not broadly generalizable.” That said, they go on to describe each of the SRDs through the lens of ritual theory and the phases that cultural anthropologist Victor Turner (1969) identified as necessary for transformative impact in a shared social space: separation, liminality and reincorporation. Each of the SRDs sought transformation through the designed process at both individual and systemic levels.

Separation: A Break from the Everyday

In the separation phase of a ritual, the authors write, citing Turner, “ritual participants are detached from everyday activities, social structures and cultural conditions in order to enter the designated social space of the ritual.”

Giles-Mitson and Pointer note that the in-person SRD had an advantage in being able to set up a physical space to help establish separation from the everyday world. For example, facilitators arranged chairs in a circle to communicate equality and the equal importance of the voices of all participants. They were able to adjust the lighting and minimize sounds and other distractions in the shared room. When facilitators welcomed entering participants and engaged them in friendly conversation, their body language reinforced the message that the circle would be “a connected and caring social space.” Finally, food was provided at the in-person SRD, contributing to a sense of hospitality for arriving participants.

When participants entered the online SRD by clicking a button, they too were welcomed by a friendly and kind facilitator. However, the authors note, “one-on-one or small-group casual conversations as the group waits for any remaining participants to arrive are more difficult to manage in a virtual meeting.” Furthermore, body language can be more difficult to discern via remote connection. And food was not and could not be provided at the online circle, at least not in the same way it was provided in person.

The authors did see some advantages to the online SRD over the in-person version, however. For example, holding the sessions online reduced potential barriers to participation in the forms of transportation, time and childcare needs. In terms of establishing separation from the everyday world, holding the sessions online may have given participants the opportunity to tailor their physical environment to their own particular needs and desires. “(T)hey may have benefited from being in the comfort of their own individual space and the increased accessibility of being able to join the process from anywhere,” the authors comment. They could also choose to go outside, eat their preferred snack, take deep breaths to prepare, etc.

Liminality: Radical Equality and Deep Connection

The second ritual phase identified by the anthropologist Turner is liminality. Liminality is “a social space characterized by radical equality and a subversion of normal social order,” the authors write. If participants feel equally valued and respected, it can lead to a sense of being “deeply and innately interconnected.”

One way the in-person SRD reinforced the message of equality of voice was the use of a talking piece to indicate who had the floor as speaker at any time. Giles-Mitson and Pointer also posit that sitting in a physical circle together enabled participants to “see each other as full people, reading body language as they listened to each other.” They add that “subtle verbal social cues such as laughter and small audible reactions were heard by all participants, contributing to a feeling of connection throughout the dialogue.”

In addition to not being able to physically engage in the same way the in-person SRD participants could, online SRD participants may have missed out on subtle communications because, when not speaking, group members used the Zoom mute function to avoid transmitting distracting background noises, the authors note. Furthermore, communication in the online circle was at times fragmented by people going on and off camera. One participant also had to leave some sessions early and missed some questions.

On the other hand, the authors point out, “the online restorative space may also provide a level of inherent equality that is not always possible in a face-to-face setting; everyone appears in the same view, the same sized box, etc., and everyone’s vantage point is the same.” Additionally, they write, the online space may be more comfortable “for participants who struggle in some social settings or need a specific environment to help them focus or feel at ease,” increasing their sense of equality.

Reincorporation: Transformed Re-entry

The third ritual phase identified by Turner is reincorporation. In this phase, ritual participants re-enter societal structures in a transformed way, carrying forward the lessons and sense of connection that surfaced during the session.

Both the in-person and online SRDs ended with a final circle round, inviting each person to share a final reflection, an activity that helps to mark the closing of the process and the return to normal life. At the end of each session of the in-person SRD, participants ate food provided for the event, often continuing the conversation and connection for a while before leaving the space, an activity that supported a slow transition back to their normal lives.

Takeaways and Recommendations

Along with pointing out aspects of the in-person and remote SRDs that facilitated the desired outcomes for each ritual phase, Giles-Mitson and Pointer describe the potential to adapt effective practices from each of the modalities to the other, focusing primarily on adapting in-person techniques to online sessions.

While the article notes several potential advantages of online implementation, when it comes to suggesting adaptations to in-person implementation, the authors focus on accessibility and simply ask “how can the accessibility of an online dialogue be replicated in in-person dialogues? Are there practical supports such as childcare and transportation or increased efforts to schedule around the needs and limitations of participants that could increase accessibility?”

Regarding the facilitation of an online restorative space, in addition to the techniques mentioned above that were employed by the Roberts Wesleyan University SRD, the authors recommend the following strategies (summarized):

• Encourage participants to prepare for the session by eating a snack, going outside, making a cup of tea or taking deep breaths to center and transition into an intentional process.
  
  
• Set up a Zoom waiting room with a calming visual and music that participants see before entering the session to help them make the transition.
  
  
• Begin the meeting with centering exercises such as deep breaths, mindfulness processes or a relevant reading.
  
  
• Replicate the in-person experience of passing a talking piece, using techniques such as posting a circle order in the chat and asking participants to say “I pass to ____” when they are done talking.
  
  
• Encourage participants to have their cameras on for the entire dialogue process and to be as present and focused as possible, not splitting attention with other tasks or travel.
  
  
• Include a closing ceremony or relevant reading to end the process, or a simple congratulations and thanking of each participant for their presence and contributions.
  
  
• Share plans in advance for a more gradual transition out of the shared space. Encourage participants to stay on the call to talk informally. Facilitators can also send participants tea or another item to prepare and share together at the end of the session, or just encourage everyone ahead of time to plan to prepare a snack to enjoy with the group.

For Further Consideration

The authors give voice to questions and considerations that many restorative justice programs and practitioners have actively addressed since the increased use of online settings for restorative approaches. We would like to add to the conversation by noting some of the directions our future inquiries, case studies and evaluations of restorative work, both in-person and online, could take. While the longer history of in-person gatherings give a foundational framework to compare and contrast against online offerings, there are some additional qualities of online meeting spaces that may warrant deeper considerations, such as general inability to cross-talk in virtual meetings, the effects of human nervous system regulation in online and in-person settings, the impacts of being able to also see oneself more often in virtual meetings than in person, and the ability to more closely see faces and micro-expressions in online meetings.

As our methods, settings and ways of relating with one another move into new forms of technological norms, learning together will remain a vital core concern for all.