Restorative Justice (RJ), once an esoteric movement centered primarily on victim-offender reconciliation, has steadily entered the mainstream of academic inquiry and public policy discourse. As its principles—focusing on repairing harm, involving those affected, and transforming relationships—have been applied across settings from criminal courts to school classrooms, the demand for rigorous academic research has soared. Teresa A. Booker’s comprehensive “A Survey of Doctoral Dissertations in Restorative Justice (1997–2018)” provides an essential map of this burgeoning field, charting two decades of doctoral-level scholarship to identify key trends, dominant thematic areas, and significant research gaps.

The Scale and Scope of Academic Growth

Booker’s survey systematically collected and cataloged dissertations relating to restorative justice published between 1997 and 2018, primarily drawing data from the ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. This methodological approach allowed for a broad, objective assessment of academic investment in RJ across diverse disciplines. The sheer volume of theses uncovered over this 21-year period underscores a critical finding: restorative justice transitioned from a fringe or specialized topic in the late 1990s to a globally recognized and rapidly accelerating subject of doctoral inquiry by the end of the study period.

The increasing pace of research is perhaps the most defining feature of the field’s trajectory. The period saw a transition from a handful of theses per year to a sustained output of high-volume research. This explosion of scholarship signifies the growing recognition of RJ as a legitimate theoretical framework, a viable practical intervention, and a robust area for empirical investigation. Furthermore, the survey confirmed that RJ is fundamentally an interdisciplinary subject, with dissertations originating from an unexpectedly broad range of departments, reflecting its applicability across legal, social, and educational contexts.

Dominant Thematic Concentration: The Restorative School

A major and perhaps surprising finding of the survey was the disproportionate concentration of doctoral research within the field of Education. Dissertations focused on implementing, evaluating, and theorizing restorative justice practices within primary and secondary schools consistently outnumbered research in traditional criminal justice settings. This trend highlights the academic community’s robust engagement with the promise of RJ to address the “school-to-prison pipeline.”

These educational studies typically explored several key angles. Many examined the impact of Restorative Justice Circles and conferences on student discipline, seeking to replace punitive, exclusionary practices (like suspension and expulsion) with relational, reparative measures. Other common themes included: analyzing teacher and administrator perceptions of RJ implementation; assessing the effect of restorative practices on school climate and culture; and measuring the effectiveness of RJ in reducing student conflicts, violence, and disciplinary referrals. The academic interest here suggests a profound belief that RJ is not merely a correctional tool, but a transformative philosophy for building healthy, equitable learning environments.

Restorative Justice Research: Key Data Points (1997-2018)

This table summarizes the “by the numbers” and quantitative trends identified in Teresa A. Booker’s survey of doctoral dissertations on Restorative Justice (RJ), spanning two decades.

The Core: Criminal Justice and Efficacy

While educational research dominated the volume, dissertations originating from Criminology, Sociology, and Political Science departments remained vital to the field’s intellectual core. Research in this area maintained a traditional focus on evaluating the operational effectiveness of RJ programs within the formal criminal justice system.

Key themes included: the comparative efficacy of Victim-Offender Mediation (VOM) versus traditional court processing; the impact of RJ on offender recidivism rates; and the psychological and emotional effects of participation on victims. Doctoral candidates consistently sought to empirically validate the theoretical promises of RJ, generating essential data on how well conferencing mechanisms work, what factors contribute to successful outcomes (e.g., participant readiness, facilitator training), and the challenges of institutionalizing relational justice within adversarial systems. Research also explored the application of RJ in correctional settings, focusing on victim-impact panels and programs designed to foster empathy and accountability among incarcerated individuals.

The Interdisciplinary and Geographic Landscape

The survey successfully mapped the diverse academic landscape hosting RJ scholarship. Beyond Education and Criminology, dissertations were found in disciplines such as Social Work, Public Administration, Psychology, and even Divinity and Peace Studies. This intellectual diversity indicates that RJ is not seen as belonging to a single discipline but as a powerful methodology that can inform social theory and practice across various domains.

Geographically, the research was notably clustered, with a clear majority of dissertations originating from institutions in the United States. While the US focused heavily on application in schools and juvenile justice, the survey also identified significant contributions from Australian, Canadian, and European universities, often focusing on national policy implementation, Indigenous justice models, and large-scale systemic reforms. This suggests that while RJ is a global movement, the localized academic concerns and policy drivers heavily influence the research agenda in different regions.

Identifying Gaps and Future Research Directives

A critical value of Booker’s survey lies in its identification of scholarly blind spots—areas where doctoral research was sparse, yet urgently needed. The report suggests several crucial pathways for future generations of doctoral candidates.

First, there was a relative scarcity of long-term, longitudinal studies. While many dissertations assessed immediate program outcomes, fewer followed participants—victims, offenders, and communities—for five or ten years to truly evaluate the sustained, transformative impact of RJ interventions. Second, the survey revealed a need for more research focused on applying restorative principles to macro-level injustices, such as systemic racism, large-scale political conflict, or environmental crimes, rather than the more common focus on individual or interpersonal offenses.

Finally, a gap was noted in the theoretical refinement of RJ. While much research focused on practical implementation, there is an ongoing need for philosophical and theoretical work that interrogates RJ’s foundational assumptions, its cultural adaptability, and its capacity to address complex issues of power, privilege, and structural harm.

Conclusion

Teresa A. Booker’s survey provides an invaluable retrospective of the doctoral research investment in restorative justice from 1997 to 2018. It confirms the field’s rapid professionalization and interdisciplinary appeal, highlighted by the massive influx of research into the educational sector. By meticulously cataloging the scholarly output, the survey not only celebrated the accomplishments of the field but also provided a clear directive for future academics: move beyond immediate outcomes, engage with structural challenges, and continue the necessary work of theoretical development. The findings confirm that restorative justice is no longer a niche concept; it is a mature, complex, and essential subject of modern academic inquiry, with profound implications for justice systems and social institutions worldwide.

This report is based on the comprehensive study:

Booker, T. A. (2018). A Survey of Doctoral Dissertations in Restorative Justice (1997–2018). John Jay College of Criminal Justice. CUNY Academic Works.

Available at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu/jj_pubs/338