Restorative Listening: Conditions for Reciprocal Partnerships in the Context of Harm and Healing
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
This study explores the experiences of 22 skilled professionals and community leaders across diverse fields, cultures and positionalities in Aotearoa New Zealand and their perspectives about what listening means and what it takes for listening to be possible in their efforts to engage individuals and communities. Establishing the connection between reciprocity and listening, and drawing from the field of restorative practice, this qualitative study introduces the concept of restorative listening to the community engagement field. It reveals that listening is fundamentally an interpersonal and relational act, but one that is contextualised by community and organisational climate and culture. Increasing attention to theories and methods of restorative practices and other forms of conflict transformation will support the field of community engagement to more fully and appropriately address harm that is experienced directly by partners in the context of their partnerships. Co- authored by a team consisting of American academics with an Indigenous Māori academic from Aotearoa New Zealand, we explored themes that arose from interviews conducted by the lead author whilst in the country, which were then collaboratively coded, analysed and written to present key insights. Importantly, this study highlights the profound influence of sociocultural context on listening and the importance of culturally respectful and inclusive approaches to exploring research findings. In this study, Māori perspectives had particular influence on how listening was conceptualised, with the Māori worldview emerging as a central framework for understanding deep, relational listening. Key themes are related to the development of relationships as a first and essential step for listening to be possible, as well as the importance of space and time for this work to occur and the challenges that organisational or societal pressure can create for such interpersonal and intergroup relationship building. This research positions listening as a deeply ethical and political practice and, extended to the community– university engagement field, suggests that achieving reciprocity – the ability to become collaborative thought partners in partnerships – may depend on the ability of individuals to proactively cultivate relationships at the interpersonal level, even as they are acting on behalf of groups, communities and organisations. We invite further exploration of the systems and structures in organisational settings that may be essential to fostering institutional culture and conditions for restorative listening.
Article Details
Issue
Section
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who submit articles to this journal from 31st March 2014 for publication, agree to the following terms:
a) Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share and adapt the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
b) Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
c) Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Open Access Citation Advantage Service). Where authors include such a work in an institutional repository or on their website (ie. a copy of a work which has been published in a UTS ePRESS journal, or a pre-print or post-print version of that work), we request that they include a statement that acknowledges the UTS ePRESS publication including the name of the journal, the volume number and a web-link to the journal item.
d) Authors should be aware that the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) License permits readers to share (copy and redistribute the work in any medium or format) and adapt (remix, transform, and build upon the work) for any purpose, even commercially, provided they also give appropriate credit to the work, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. They may do these things in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests you or your publisher endorses their use.
For Volume 6 (2013) and before, the following copyright applied:
Articles published by UTSePress are protected by copyright which is retained by the authors who assert their moral rights. Authors control translation and reproduction rights to their works published by UTSePress. UTSePress publications are copyright and all rights are reserved worldwide. Downloads of specific portions of them are permitted for personal use only, not for commercial use or resale. Permissions to reprint or use any materials should be directed to UTSePress.
References
Bodie, G 2025, ‘Listening’, in O Hargie (ed.), The handbook of communication skills, 5th edn, Routledge, pp. 311–338.
Bodie, GD, Worthington, DL & Beyene, Z (eds) 2023, Listening, community engagement, and peacebuilding: International perspectives, Routledge, London.
Brigg, M & George, N 2020, Relational peace: Between theory and practice, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Browning, S, Duffey, D, Magondu, F, Moore, JA & Way, PA 2024, The little book of listening: Listening as a radical act of love, justice, healing, and transformation, Good Books, New York.
Butin, D 2006, ‘Disciplining service-learning: Institutionalization and the case for community studies’, International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 57–64. https://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/slceslgen/118
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching n.d., Defining community engagement, viewed 27 April 2026, https://carnegieelectiveclassifications.org/
CCPH Board of Directors 2013, Position statement on authentic partnerships, Community-Campus Partnerships for Health, viewed 11 June 2025, https://ccphealth.org/partnering/principles-of-partnering/
Creswell, JW 2013, Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Davis, KL, Kliewer, BW & Nicolaides, A 2017, ‘Power and reciprocity in partnerships: Deliberative civic engagement and transformative learning in community-engaged scholarship’, Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 30–54. https://openjournals.libs.uga.edu/jheoe/article/view/1316
Dell, K, Houkamau, C, Mika, J & Newth, J 2022, ‘Māori perspectives on conscious capitalism’, in M Dion & M Pava (eds), The spirit of conscious capitalism: Contributions of world religions and spiritualities, Springer, Cham, pp. 379–397. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-10204-2_20
Drewery, W 2016, ‘Restorative practice in New Zealand schools: Social development through relational justice’, Educational Philosophy and Theory, vol. 48, no. 2, pp. 191–203. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2014.989951
Dostilio, L 2014, ‘Democratically engaged community–university partnerships: Reciprocal determinants of democratically oriented roles and processes’, Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 235–244. https://openjournals.libs.uga.edu/jheoe/article/view/1159/1158
Dostilio, LD, Brackmann, SM, Edwards, KE, Harrison, B, Kliewer, BW & Clayton, PH 2012, ‘Reciprocity: Saying what we mean and meaning what we say’, Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 17–32. http://hdl.handle.net/2027/spo.3239521.0019.102
Dumlao, R 2018, A guide to collaborative communication for service-learning and community engagement partners, Routledge, London.
Dumlao, R & Shearman, SM 2023, ‘Conceptual foundations for collaborative communication: A framework and practice for community-campus partners’, International Journal of Research on Service-Learning and Community Engagement, vol. 11, no. 1, article 12. https://doi.org/10.37333/001c.91728
Dumlao, R & Janke, EM 2012, ‘Using relational dialectics to address differences in community–campus partnerships’, Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 79–103. https://openjournals.libs.uga.edu/jheoe/article/view/937
Fricker, M 2007, Epistemic injustice: Power and the ethics of knowing, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Godrie, B 2025, ‘Resisting scientific extractivism: A post-extractivist policy of knowledge production with marginalised communities’, Gateways: International Journal of Community Research and Engagement, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 1–14. https://doi.org/10.5130/ijcre.v18i1.9326
Holman, P, Devane, T & Cady, S 2007, The change handbook: The definitive resource on today’s best methods for engaging whole systems, Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco.
Janke, EM 2019, ‘Scholar-administrators as change agents’, Metropolitan Universities, vol. 30, no. 2. https://journals.iupui.edu/index.php/muj/article/view/23202
Jansen, C 2018, ‘Restorative practice in New Zealand schools: A developmental journey’, in M Thorsborne, NR Vaandering & T Blood (eds), Restorative justice in education: Fundamentals and advances, Palgrave Macmillan, London, pp. 95–114.
Kimmerer, RW 2021, The democracy of species: Indigenous values and scientific knowledge in an age of extinction, Penguin Books, London.
Kretzmann, JP & McKnight, J 1993, Building communities from the inside out: A path toward finding and mobilizing a community’s assets, The Asset-Based Community Development Institute, Institute for Policy Research, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.
Llewellyn, JJ & Llewellyn, K 2015, ‘A restorative approach to learning: Relational theory as feminist pedagogy in universities’, in T Penny Light, J Nicholas & R Bondy (eds), Feminist pedagogy in higher education: Critical theory and practice, Wilfrid Laurier University Press, Waterloo, pp. 11–31.
Llewellyn, JJ & Morrison, B 2018, ‘Deepening the relational ecology of restorative justice’, The International Journal of Restorative Justice, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 343–355. https://doi.org/10.5553/IJRJ/258908912018001003001
Lederach, JP 2005, The moral imagination: The art and soul of building peace, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Longo, N & Shaffer, T (eds) 2019, Creating space for democracy: A primer on dialogue and deliberation in higher education, Routledge, London.
Macnamara, J 2015, Creating an ‘architecture of listening’ in organizations: The basis of engagement, trust, healthy democracy, social equity, and business sustainability, University of Technology Sydney, https://www.uts.edu.au/globalassets/sites/default/files/fass-organizational-listening-report.pdf
Macnamara, J 2016, Organizational listening: The missing essential in public communication, Peter Lang, New York.
Maxwell, G & Morris, A 1993, Family, victims and culture: Youth justice in New Zealand, Social Policy Agency and Institute of Criminology, Victoria University of Wellington, https://www.msd.govt.nz/documents/about-msd-and-our-work/publications-resources/archive/1993-family-victims-and-culture.pdf
Maxwell, G & Morris, A 2006, ‘Youth justice in New Zealand: Restorative justice in practice?’, Journal of Social Issues, vol. 62, no. 2, pp. 239–258.
Mika, JP, Dell, K, Newth, J & Houkamau, C 2022, ‘Manahau: Toward an Indigenous Māori theory of value’, Philosophy of Management, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 441–463. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40926-022-00195-3
Ministry of Justice 2019, Restorative justice best practice framework, Ministry of Justice, New Zealand Government, viewed 7 August 2025, https://www.justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Publications/Restorative-Justice-Best-Practice-Framework-2019.pdf
Morris, A & Maxwell, G 2003, ‘Restorative justice for adult offenders: The New Zealand experience’, in L Walgrave (ed.), Repositioning restorative justice, Willan, London, pp. 208–220. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781843924791
Patton, MQ 2015, Qualitative research and evaluation methods, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Pointer, L 2018, ‘Restorative practices in residence halls at Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand’, Conflict Resolution Quarterly, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 263–271. https://doi.org/10.1002/crq.21240
Pointer, L 2021, The restorative justice ritual, Routledge, New York.
Pointer, L, McGoey, K & Farrar, H 2020, Little book of restorative teaching tools: Games, activities, and simulations for understanding restorative justice practices, Good Books, Intercourse, PA.
Post, MA & Ruelle, ML 2021, ‘Guest editorial: Power in engaged scholarship: Dimensions and dynamics of knowledge co-creation’, Gateways: International Journal of Community Research and Engagement, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 1–9. https://doi.org/10.5130/ijcre.v14i2.8009
Richards, KA & Hemphill, MA 2018, ‘A practical guide to collaborative qualitative data analysis’, Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 225–231. https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.2017-0084
Saltmarsh, J, Hartley, M & Clayton, PH 2009, Democratic engagement white paper, New England Resource Center for Higher Education, Boston. https://scholarworks.umb.edu/nerche_pubs/45
Sandmann, LR & Kliewer, BW 2012, ‘Theoretical and applied perspectives on power: Recognizing processes that undermine effective community–university partnerships’, Journal of Community Engagement and Scholarship, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 20–28. https://doi.org/10.54656/UZKB4871
Schön, DA 1991, The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action, Routledge, London.
Schirch, L & Campt, D 2015, The little book of dialogue for difficult subjects, Simon and Schuster.
Settles, IH, Jones, MK, Buchanan, NT & Dotson, K 2021, ‘Epistemic exclusion: Scholar(ly) devaluation that marginalizes faculty of color’, Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 493–507. https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000174
Stats New Zealand 2023, 2023 census population and dwelling counts, viewed 20 May 2024, https://www.stats.govt.nz/
Tauri, J 2016, ‘Indigenous peoples and the globalisation of restorative justice’, British Journal of Community Justice, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 55–71. http://www.jstor.org/stable/26405722
Tuhiwai Smith, L 2012, Decolonizing methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples, 2nd edn, Zed Books, London.
Vaandering, D 2016, ‘Critical relational theory’, in B Hopkins (ed.), Restorative theory in practice: Insights into what works and why, Jessica Kingsley Publishers, Philadelphia, PA, pp. 63–76.
Wachtel, T 2016, Defining restorative, International Institute for Restorative Practices. Retrieved from https://www.iirp.edu/images/pdf/Defining-Restorative_Nov-2016.pdf
Waitangi Tribunal 1986, Report of the Waitangi Tribunal on the Te Reo Māori claim (WAI 11), Government Printer, Wellington.
Walker, R 1990, Ka whawhai tonu matou: Struggle without end, Penguin, New York.
Wearmouth, J, McKinney, R & Glynn, T 2007, ‘Restorative justice in schools: A New Zealand example’, Educational Research, vol. 49, no. 1, pp. 37–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131880701200740
Weerts, DJ & Sandmann, LR 2010, ‘Community engagement and boundary-spanning roles at research universities’, The Journal of Higher Education, vol. 81, no. 6, pp. 632–657. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2010.11779075
White, B 2012, ‘Confronting the careless university’, eJournal of Public Affairs, vol. 1, no. 2. https://doi.org/10.21768/ejopa.v1i2.1