Restorative Dialogue
Restorative Dialogue, in the form described here, is a structured follow-up conversation held some time after a group discussion overheated or a remark hurt people. Everyone anonymously records what they felt, what they thought, which value was at stake and what they did; the group studies that matrix, hears first from people who were not directly involved and only at the end from those who were. The format was developed by Lucho Rubio and Wouter Buursma for the Transition Makers Toolbox and builds on Lee Warren's guidance on hot moments in the classroom and on Socratic dialogue practice. It is a different process from the victim-offender conferences that the term usually refers to in restorative justice.
Facilitation script
- 1
Recap the incident factually, including your own feelings and actions, without judgement and without responses. Explain dialogue versus debate.
8 min - 2
Individual notes in keywords: what I felt, what I thought, which value was at stake, what I did or did not do.
10 min - 3
Collect the answers anonymously in the four-column matrix and give the group quiet time to read it.
7 min - 4
Introduce the dialogue attitudes. Hear at least two people who were not directly involved, each uninterrupted and followed by understanding-seeking questions. Summarise common ground and differences.
18 min - 5
Those directly involved describe what they see on the matrix and name the value that guided them, without defending themselves.
10 min - 6
Closing question on what was learned and how to apply it, with an optional short written reflection.
7 min
Tips
Speak with the people who were directly involved before the session, so they know the structure, agree to take part and are not surprised by being asked to speak last.
Hold the order firmly: the method works because the room hears the bystanders first, which lowers the pressure on the people at the centre.
Stop any question that is really an accusation and ask for it to be rephrased as a request to understand.
Common pitfalls
A recap that carries judgement. The people involved hear a verdict before the dialogue has begun and spend the session defending themselves
Letting those directly involved speak first. The room re-enters the original argument and the bystanders, whose perspectives create the distance needed, stay silent
Anonymity that does not hold, for example recognisable handwriting or a small group. People write cautious answers and the matrix shows a narrower range than really exists
Allowing debate moves during the questions, such as rebuttals or leading questions. The conversation escalates a second time, now with the facilitator's apparent approval
Pushing for an apology or a resolution at the end. The format aims at understanding the values behind people's reactions, and a forced apology satisfies nobody and undermines trust in the process
Variations
On paper: without a polling tool, collect folded slips, shuffle them and transcribe them onto the flip chart yourself so handwriting does not identify anyone. Smaller teams: the source describes groups of 16 to 20; in a team of eight to ten, anonymity is weaker, so gather the four answers in advance through an anonymous form and bring the matrix ready-made. Online: an anonymous poll or board works well for the matrix; ask for cameras on during the spoken rounds and use a clear speaking order. Extended: if the incident touched on identity or discrimination, plan 90 minutes and a co-facilitator, and offer individual conversations afterwards.
Where it fits
When to use it
A discussion in a previous session escalated or a remark hurt people, and the group has to keep working together
The incident is being talked about in corridors and side chats but not in the room
People experienced the same moment very differently and each side assumes its reading is the obvious one
Some time has passed, emotions have cooled enough to reflect, and those directly involved are willing to take part
You want the whole group, including bystanders, to take responsibility for how it handles disagreement
When not to use it
The incident involved harassment, discrimination or a breach of conduct rules that requires formal handling. Follow the organisation's procedure; a dialogue must not replace it or put pressure on the person harmed
The people directly involved have not agreed to take part. Speak with them individually or bring in a mediator before considering a group session
The conflict is between two people and the group was barely affected. Mediation or a facilitated conversation using Non-Violent Communication fits better
The moment is still hot. In the session itself, pause and de-escalate; schedule this dialogue for a later date
You were a party to the incident and cannot recap it neutrally. Ask an outside facilitator to lead
Related methods
Frequently asked questions
What is Restorative Dialogue?▾
In this form, Restorative Dialogue is a one-hour facilitated conversation that a group holds after a discussion became heated or hurtful. Participants anonymously record their feelings, thoughts, values and actions during the incident, look at the combined picture and then listen first to people who were not directly involved and afterwards to those who were. It was developed by Lucho Rubio and Wouter Buursma for the Transition Makers Toolbox.
Is this the same as restorative justice?▾
No. In restorative justice the term usually describes a meeting between a person who caused harm and the person harmed, or a circle process around an offence. The format described here is a classroom and team practice rooted in Socratic dialogue and in guidance on handling hot moments in teaching. It aims at mutual understanding within a group, not at accountability or reparation for an offence.
Why do people who were not involved speak first?▾
Bystanders can describe what they experienced with less at stake, which sets a calmer tone and shows how widely the incident was felt. Their accounts also give the people at the centre information about the impact of the moment without a direct confrontation. By the time those directly involved speak, the room has practised listening and questioning without attack.
When should the dialogue take place?▾
Not in the heat of the moment. Hold it once emotions have settled enough for reflection, commonly at the next meeting of the group, and after the facilitator has spoken individually with the people most involved. Waiting much longer lets positions harden and side conversations replace the shared one.
What does the facilitator need to be able to do?▾
The facilitator has to describe the incident without taking sides, protect the speaking order, and intervene at once when a question turns into an accusation. Experience with dialogue formats and with emotionally charged groups is important. If the facilitator was personally part of the incident or feels unable to stay even-handed, an outside colleague should lead.
Plan your next workshop with AI
Workshop Weaver helps you combine methods like Restorative Dialogue into a complete, timed agenda in minutes.
Try it freeMethod descriptions on Workshop Weaver are original content written by our team, based on established facilitation practices. This method was inspired by work from Lucho Rubio and Wouter Buursma, Transition Makers Toolbox.