Inge Vanfraechem and Ivo Aertsen, Action research in criminal justice: restorative justice approaches in intercultural settings, London and New York: Routledge, 2018, 209pp., ISBN: 978-1-138-12091-4 (hbk).

This edited volume presents a comprehensive and significant contribution to the application of action research as a social research approach within the realm of restorative justice and criminology. It offers, through concrete examples, a multiplicity of approaches of implementing action research in intercultural settings. This endeavour, which was part of a 4-year (2012-2016) European action research project, entitled ‘Developing alternative understandings of security and justice through restorative justice approaches in intercultural settings’ (ALTERNATIVE), was coordinated by the Leuven Institute of Criminology (KU Leuven, Belgium) and implemented through a network of partners, scholars and practitioners at four sites: Austria, Hungary, Serbia and Northern Ireland. The framework through which this project was conceptualised and the manner in which it was realised could be described, as Ragazzi highlights in Chapter 8, as ‘an exploratory venture’ (142). Here the restorative justice paradigm shifts, the positions of researcher and participant are seen as interlinked and their active participation as a prerequisite of action research. The aim of the ALTERNATIVE project has thus been to examine the possibilities of introducing innovative approaches by broadening the scope and pushing the boundaries of the applicability of restorative justice methods and practices towards social conflicts in intercultural settings.
What is action research?
There is always a degree of involvement by the researcher in any qualitative research. However, as Aersten argues in Chapter 1, ‘when this involvement results in an active intervention of the researcher in the function of direct problem solving or improvement of practice, we might speak of “action research”’ (12). It is precisely this distinctive role attached to the researcher that differentiates action research from other types of qualitative research. The rationale for opting for such an approach, as Vanfraechem discusses in the Introduction (3), was twofold. On the one hand, it was the flexibility that this type of approach would offer, whereby the research would adapt continuously to the changing realities on the ground. On the other hand, this approach would allow researchers to embrace the field with an open mindset, where they could tailor restorative justice practices to the nature and the needs of the conflict in question. In this context, it was decided from the outset that these restorative justice approaches would be applicable in social conflicts rather than in the context of criminal justice. Furthermore, the varied action research methods applied at the different sites demonstrated that the ‘societal ecology’ was essential in designing and implementing viable restorative justice approaches.
This book is an edited collection comprising eight chapters. In Chapter 1, Aersten draws the wider context of action research in criminology and criminal justice settings to frame the type of action research carried out in ALTERNATIVE. He offers an overview of the historical development of action research in social science from the middle of the twentieth century. However, as Aersten argues, its application within the criminological field never witnessed a breakthrough and has thus remained limited and sporadic. It is this gap in theory and practice that this book aims to fill. In the context of this project, the researcher and the persons researched are viewed as equal partners, while different skills and capacities are attributed to one or the other. As such, the process evolves organically in function of the options and models considered by the partners after evaluating the situation. Most importantly, ALTERNATIVE was designed on the basis of three theoretically oriented work packages and four practice-oriented work packages to be implemented in Austria, Hungary, Serbia and Northern Ireland. Aersten has presented, through the richness of his scholarship and breadth of expertise, a very insightful and sharp analysis of how to understand and apply participatory action research in intercultural settings.
Chapters 2 and 3 provide an informative and detailed outline of the filming process as a supporting action research method. Hydle underscores, in Chapter 2, the importance of using filming as ‘an inescapable part of present-day research and action reality’ (29). She offers theoretical insights on visual representation in social sciences. Her vision and experience with the visual approach has proved instrumental. The ALTERNATIVE action research project included several different intercultural settings, two in Vienna, one in Hungary, three in Serbia and two in Northern Ireland. The varied nature of action research approaches is also reflected in the way the local films were realised. As Szegő discusses in Chapter 3, local films in each country were constructed with different purposes and shaped according to the nature and needs of the specific intercultural setting. She provides a comprehensive and detailed description of the filming process as experienced by researchers and participants on the ground in all four countries, highlighting the complexity and challenges of the endeavour, as well as the lessons learned. The final product was a film in which the researchers explained the research process and results. It would be of benefit to anyone who reads this book to also watch the filming materials, which are found on the online platform (http://alternativefilms.euforumrj.org/).
The following four chapters provide the groundwork for the appreciation of action research as an innovative and appropriate approach to address conflicts in intercultural settings. Although stemming from a common theoretical framework and structure, the different action research approaches implemented in four different countries pointed to both the commonalities and the differences. In Chapter 4, Kremmel and Pelikan offer first-hand insights into the challenge of striking the right balance between getting involved and remaining distant as a researcher when implementing action research in social housing in Vienna, Austria. Both authors offer a powerful and candid account of their exploration of the concept of active participation and the efforts made in trying various methods to involve citizens in their neighbourhood.
In Chapter 5, Szegő, Benedek and Györfi examine methodically the gradual evolvement of the action research project, the challenges encountered and steps taken to adapt to the situation. The action research focused on intercultural conflicts in a Hungarian village with approximately 2,800 inhabitants. The researchers had to build upon local capacities and create the necessary space for trust building, particularly in a community marked by a culture of silence. Their analysis of the project implementation in this small village in Hungary shows how multi-layered local conflicts often are and the kind of steps a researcher must take to create the space for dialogue and cooperation. It would be interesting to know how one could measure the level of acceptance of this action research approach in the said locality.
Chapter 6 provides an engaging discussion of how to implement action research in a post-war context. The nature of the conflict, the magnitude of victimisation and the types of crimes make for a very interesting case as to how we can elevate action research to dealing with post-war conflicts in a multi-ethnic society. This empirical study was conducted in three multi-ethnic communities and explored relations and conflicts between Serbs and Croats, Serbs and Bosniaks/Muslims, and Serbs and Albanians. Nikolić-Ristanović and colleagues critically analyse the scope and limitations of the action research approaches in Serbia. Their experience on the ground and findings confirmed the need to speak about ‘conflicts in intercultural settings’ rather than ‘intercultural conflicts’. They also highlight the lack of institutional support in Serbia, which creates an obstacle for dealing with varied conflicts there. Arguably, it would have been beneficial in the context of this study to have an overview of restorative justice processes implemented thus far in Serbia and how the present action research approach differs in scope and purpose.
Chapman and colleagues in Chapter 7 provide an incisive, well-argued and clearly written analysis of the action research methodology adopted in Northern Ireland. These experienced researchers focused more on group dynamics and identities through studying and supporting community-based restorative justice in three areas: Derry/Londonderry, focusing on drug issues; South Belfast, supporting the CARE organisation to become a community-based restorative justice project; and West Belfast, capturing the organisation Community Restorative Justice Ireland’s account of their relationship with the state.
Ragazzi presents in Chapter 8 an elaborate and detailed analysis of the highly complex and innovative comparative methodology developed for this project. It is the kind of analysis that requires reading at least twice to fully grasp the multitude of differences and similarities in the four analysed settings. This is a commendable endeavour by Ragazzi and his colleagues developing a qualitative comparative method that allowed for the gathering of descriptive findings and a conceptual realignment within the ALTERNATIVE project as a whole.

Overall, this is an intellectually stimulating and demanding study of a multifaceted undertaking of exploring the scope, parameters and limitations of action research in criminal justice. It is thus impossible in a short review to give a full sense of the richness of the argument. Suffice it to say that the restorative justice approaches examined in this volume serve as ‘experimenting laboratories’ of how far we can stretch the applicability of restorative justice in intercultural settings. As such, this study offers a new avenue for reconsidering how we engage with conflicts.