The facilitator’s role in shaping the restorative justice narrative
By Dr. Rachel Langford
Restorative justice often involves a facilitator, offender and victim who come together to discuss the impact of an offence. The role of the facilitator is to guide the process (Barton, 2003). In research around the world, the approach of facilitators has been found to vary across restorative justice schemes. In some, facilitators followed a set order of topics, but participants were able to introduce points they wanted to discuss (Shapland et al., 2006). In others, facilitators were found to control discussions and outcomes (Hoyle et al., 2002), influence the participation rights of offenders and victims (Gerkin, 2009) and coax offenders into explanations of accountability (Cook, 2006).
The restorative justice process often involves a facilitator asking questions and offenders and victims answering them. Yet, there has been limited research conducted that focuses on how questions are asked, and responses are facilitated within the question-answer framework of a restorative justice scheme. I have recently been involved in conducting a piece of research that used audio-recordings of four restorative justice meetings in the UK to examine the interactions more closely using conversation analysis.
In the restorative justice meetings examined for this research, the facilitator started by outlining the question-answer framework and setting up the institutional agenda by explaining the purpose of the process. The facilitator was found to use different question types to achieve institutional objectives. The facilitator asked open questions which provided an opportunity for elaborate responses, and closed questions that included assertions, restricting responses to that of agreement, making it difficult for participants to disagree.
Offenders were spoken to differently than victims throughout the restorative justice process. Offenders were expected to reveal more by being asked a higher number of questions than victims. When offenders answered questions, the facilitator assessed their answers for adequacy. If responses did not align with the facilitator’s agenda, they asked further questions which directed offenders to agree with a specific premise, constraining how they expressed themselves. Commonly, offenders were invited to agree to a new, facilitator-proposed narrative, one that reflected accountability.
Victims were not constrained in the same way. Victims were questioned less than offenders and were asked to account for the harm caused through open questions, allowing them to provide more elaborate responses. However, in one instance, a victim attempted to minimise the impact of the offence which resulted in the facilitator using questions to challenge this and invite a new narrative, one that suggested the harm was more significant than the victim had implied. The facilitator encouraged a response that involved the victim emphasising the impact of the offence which arguably helped the listening offender understand the harm caused.
Braithwaite (2002: 565) identified ‘a fundamental standard is that restorative justice processes must seek to avoid domination’, explaining that in practice this means ‘giving every stakeholder a meaningful opportunity to speak and be heard’. I saw facilitators’ questions reduce the offender’s participation to that of accountability, restricting their opportunity to speak and be heard, mirroring the criminal justice process, and arguably reducing the potential to achieve restorative outcomes.
A second study (in collaboration with Prof. Chris Birkbeck and Prof. Greg Smith) used the same approach to analyse one restorative justice meeting, but focusing on formulations (i.e., explicit references to things said previously). When formulations were repeated back, they included subtle changes to the narrative and were used to change the offender’s way of thinking to acknowledge responsibility. Used as a device to control the meeting, formulations served a ‘double duty’ (Heritage and Watson, 1979: 52) that established mutual understanding between participants while shaping offenders’ and victims’ talk into a version appropriate for the institutional framework of restorative justice.
The functions of the formulations largely aligned with objectives typically ascribed to restorative justice, suggesting that they offer additional resource for evaluating conduct in such meetings. Formulations served an important function in the process, introducing subtle changes in wording that represented changes in perspective which presumably contributed to the acceptance of these formulations by others.
The findings from both pieces of research revealed the significant role the facilitator played in shaping the restorative justice narrative. This raises practical implications that would be useful for restorative justice facilitators and service managers to reflect on.
Finding 1: The facilitator’s role as questioner meant that they could direct offenders to give certain answers, somewhat resembling the structure of interactions in courtroom settings.
Consideration: It is important to consider what the restorative justice process is trying to achieve and how the questions asked can be used to achieve that. The way that participants experience the process contributes to achieving the overall aims, therefore it is important to find ways to remove any form of domination from the process.
Finding 2: The facilitator scrutinised responses that did not align with the restorative agenda. This resulted in questions being asked that were challenging and that restricted how offenders expressed themselves.
Consideration: It is important to consider how to facilitate the process when the stories and other contributions of participants do not align with facilitators’ expectations. Reflect on how much direction is the right amount when trying to achieve restorative aims such as accountability, while balancing this against the principle of non-domination.
Finding 3: Formulations served an important function in the process, introducing subtle changes in wording that represented changes in perspective which presumably contributed to the acceptance of these formulations by others.
Consideration: Consider how formulations can make subtle changes to the meeting’s narrative without domination. For instance, when responses to questions are offered that do not align with aims such as accountability, consider how to summarise what has been said, making subtle changes to the wording used. These subtle changes help achieve aims, are less intrusive, invite agreement and represent changes in perspective.
Here are the academic publications referenced above:
Langford, R. (2025). Questions and control in victim-offender meetings. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1177/17488958241312528
Langford, R., Birkbeck, C., & Smith, G. (2025). ‘So, your words weren’t twisted were they?’: Formulations in a restorative justice meeting. Probation Journal, 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1177/02645505241301025
References
Barton C (2003) Restorative justice: The empowerment model. Hawkins Press, 2003.
Braithwaite J (2002) Setting standards for restorative justice. British Journal of Criminology 42: 563-577.
Cook KJ (2006) Doing difference and accountability in restorative justice conferences. Theoretical Criminology 10(1): 107-124.
Gerkin P (2009) Participation in victim-offender mediation: Lessons learned from observations. Criminal Justice Review 34(2): 226-247.
Heritage J and Watson R (1979) Formulations as Conversational Objects. In: Psathas G (eds) Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology. Irvington Press, pp. 123-162.
Hoyle C, Young R and Hill R (2002) Proceed with Caution: An Evaluation of the Thames Valley Police Initiative in Restorative Cautioning. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
Shapland J, Atkinson A, Atkinson H, et al. (2006) Situating restorative justice within criminal justice. Theoretical Criminology 10(4): 505-531.