The Structure of Dialogue: Exploring Habermas' Discourse Theory to Explain the "Magic" and Potential of Restorative Justice Processes
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The theory of restorative justice has always lagged behind practice. As such, gaps in theory have developed, existed over time and continue to exist today, particularly in terms of explaining the so-called magic that occurs within the encounter process. By exploring the theories of Jurgen Habermas, it is suggested that new frameworks can be developed that can help theorists think about and explain the experiences central to restorative processes. This paper focuses on Habermas' theory of universal pragmatics and communicative action as a means to better understand the workings within the encounter process that give rise to common understanding, agreement, learning, and strengthened relationships.La theorie de la justice reparatrice a toujours ete a la remorque de la pratique. Par consequent, des failles sont apparues, et les ecarts qui se sont creuses au fil du temps existent toujours, particulierement pour ce qui est d'expliquer la reaction qualifiee de « magique » qui suit le processus transactionnel. Il est suggere que, grâce a l'etude des theories de Jurgen Habermas, il serait possible de creer de nouveaux cadres d'action qui pourraient aider les theoriciens a se pencher sur les experiences au coeur du processus de reparation et a les expliquer. L'article examine la theorie de Habermas sur la pragmatique universelle et les enonces performatifs comme moyens pour mieux comprendre les mecanismes du processus transactionnel qui menent a une comprehension commune, a l'entente, a l'apprentissage et a des relations plus solides.IntroductionI. Habermas ' theories of universal pragmatics and communicative action1. The role and function of language2. The three-world concept3. Validity claims and argumentationII. Communicative action and the experiences of learning and bonding within the restorative justice process1. Learning potential2. Binding or bonding forceIII. Explaining the restorative encounter process1. Framework to understand the restorative encounter process2. The significance of Habermas ' theories for restorative justiceIntroductionAn important aspect of the restorative justice process is a commitment to the bringing together of all parties involved in a wrong in a face-to-face encounter, to allow the parties to dialogue about the wrong committed and search for ways to make the wrong right. Despite encounter being at the heart of any restorative justice process, what happens within or during the face-to-face restorative process remains to some extent ambiguous and unclear. Authors have described the experiences witnessed in encounters such as strengthened social relationships, personal transformation, learning, and coming to a common understanding.1 To date, however, there is little explanation of the basic workings of the encounter and how it produces the above-noted experiences. Theorists have instead often simply skimmed over this element with vague terminology, or have taken a romanticized approach referring simply to the so-called magic that happens within or during an encounter.2 Still others suggest that there is going on, but acknowledge that we are still struggling to explain As Paul McCold suggests:Facilitators of restorative processes regularly observe a personal and social transformation occur during the course of the process. There is often the strong sense that something significant is occurring which has very little to do with the facilitator and operates at a subconscious level among the participants....Today we struggle to understand what it is we see, although those observing the transformations that can occur in restorative processes would agree, we know it when we see it. A shared language will eventually develop from how we interpret what we see and how we express those visions to others.3Although never writing on the topic of restorative justice, the theories of German philosopher and sociologist Jurgen Habermas may provide a helpful framework or perspective from which to explore, further examine, and begin to understand the that is occurring during the encounter process. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».