PART II: UNEQUAL, TRANSITIONAL CONTEXT
2. Introduction: ‘The whole is more than the sum of its parts’
2.2 Intersectional foundations of the conceptual framework
According to Lederach (1997:21) conceptual frameworks offer a boundary outline to provide focus and meaning, as well as limits within which to raise questions and consider a particular course of action. By implication, it is part of the research process pertaining to the quest for perspectives that are relevant, to guide the study and to contribute to an answer to the research question. Used as a heuristic device which generated multiple themes for exploration, the conceptual framework laid bare relevant issues that require attention over an extended period of peacebuilding.
Following Maxwell, relevance was the primary goal in the construction of this conceptual framework. He suggested that:
[R]elevant works are those that have important implications for the design, conduct or interpretation of the study, not simply those that deal with the topic, or in the defined field or substantive area, of the research … relevance in this sense, … is the most essential characteristic of a good dissertation literature review’. (Maxwell, 2006:28).
This thinking informed the way in which the concepts were derived from the research question, and then linked to provide the conceptual parameters for this study. The
research question arose from the underlying hypothesis of this research – that a perceived gap exists between restorative justice as a sub-process of long-term peacebuilding on the one hand; and the strategies, techniques and tactics used during restorative justice
processing in South Africa’s unequal, transitional context, on the other hand.
2.2.1 Resonance with existing research
This study has some resonance with a seven year study by Gavrielides whose ‘underlying hypothesis and focus of investigation was that there is a gap between the way restorative justice’s theory and practice have developed since the 1970s’ (2007:15). Gavrielides’
hypothesis arose from ‘talking with several practitioners in the restorative justice field at home [UK] and abroad’ and realising that ‘restorative justice practitioners are often left without state support, guidance or coordination, striving to find the means to continue practising’. He cites the self-critique and appraisal of the rapidly growing literature on
46 restorative justice by the restorative justice movement as a second source. The concern centred on his own and the fears of ‘many who have been associated with restorative justice’s development from its earliest days’ who are now suspicious of its growth, and the ‘growing diversity of opinions in what constitutes restorative justice theory and practice’, amid other concerns. Gavrielides’ hypothesis mainly refers to ‘a discrepancy that seems to exist between the priorities, outcome, and processes of the various practices that are labelled ‘restorative justice’ and the abstract theoretical norms and principles that constitute restorative justice’s normative and historical notion’ (2007:14-15).
The following questions constituted Gavrielides’ underlying hypothesis and focus of investigation with regard to the gap between restorative justice theory and practice (2007:15):
1. ‘How is this discrepancy interpreted in practical terms?
2. What does it mean for restorative practices?
3. What are the exact practical areas that are affected by it?
4. Are practitioners aware of the many writings in the field?
5. And if they are, then why are they not using them?
6. How can the normative work be used to overcome this pitfall?
7. What about the restorative justice Standards and Principles that have been produced at both national and international levels?’
Gavrielides conducted four surveys with a sample that consisted of 40 practitioners from around the world; in depth face-to-face interviews with 13 organisations in England and Wales; 22 face-to-face interviews organisations with direct experience of restorative justice and hate crime; and an international survey with an unnumbered sample who used restorative justice for sexual offences (p.17). Gavrielides’ findings consisted of a
discrepancy with regard to the use and meaning of restorative justice (p.133), issues in training, education and accreditation (p.133), and problems with the way restorative justice work is funded (p.40). This study is referred to in more detail in chapter 9.
Daly’s (2002) analysis focused on conference process, its legal context, conference outcome and compliance, and conference effects (p.2). Her study was conducted in South Australia and consisted of observations of a sample of 89 conferences with participants under 18. Her sample was chosen by offence category. These were property offences and
47 violent crimes, excluding shoplifting, drug, and public order offences (p.3). This study is referred to in more detail in chapter 9.
This research consisted of both a conceptual argument and an empirical study. The conceptual argument took account of micro-macro linkages between cultural, structural and direct violence, and the empirical study focused on examining the process of victim offender mediation and what happens within its ‘black box’, from multiple perspectives.
In contrast, Gavrielides’ participants consisted only of practitioners, and Daly’s
participants consisted of victims and offenders. In addition, restorative justice processing was an instrumental case, to obtain a clear understanding if the way in which it is
conceptualised and practiced contributes to long-term peacebuilding within South Africa’s unequal, transitional context. The Norwegian konfliktråd was used as a keyhole lens to compare what happens in the black box of victim offender mediation practice in an egalitarian society, to examine restorative justice processing in an unequal and an egalitarian context.
Gavrielides’ study was international. His research did not focus on a specific national criminal justice system as he intended to acquire a detailed understanding of the practical development of restorative justice and how this links to the broader restorative justice movement (2007:17). Like this study, Daly’s study was national. My interest was to assess whether restorative justice processing as applied in South Africa, is responsive to its unequal, transitional context and if it contributes to long-term peacebuilding. This was achieved by embedding the study within a deeper and broader analysis of the South African context, and conceptualising the study within a broader peacebuilding frame, of which restorative justice is a sub-process and social justice a goal.
The overall research question is: ‘Does victim offender mediation, as a contemporary form of restorative justice advance long-term peacebuilding in unequal, transitional contexts like South Africa’. Following Daly (2002) and Gavrielides (2007) in part, this research refers to a ‘discrepancy that seems to exist between the priorities, outcomes and processes’ of restorative justice practices and the ‘abstract theoretical norms and
principles’ (Gavrielides, 2007:15) exemplified by equality and social justice, amongst others. These goals constitute some of the normative underpinnings which peacebuilding and restorative justice have in common with South Africa’s Constitution (1996).
48 Gavrielides suggests that observations by practitioners need to be validated and that assumptions made by some scholars about the gap between theory and practice were never tested with empirical evidence and thus their suggestions to address the gap can only be valued as ideas ‘in abstracto’ (2007:15-16). Instead of focusing only on the perspectives of practitioners, this study sought to validate the experiences and observations of victims, offenders and prosecutors in South Africa; and mediators, restorative justice practitioners and key experts in South Africa and Norway as discussed more fully in chapter seven. In addition, this research examined victim offender
mediation in the context of South Africa’s unequal, transitional society.