Chicago 17th Edition Engelking, Anja. Harvard Engelking, A. Vancouver Engelking A. IEEE A. Prijavite se u repozitorij kako biste mogli spremiti objekt u svoju listu. To avoid research waste, new randomized clinical trials RCTs should be initiated if previous SRs indicate that there is no such evidence or that there is insufficient evidence from previous RCTs.
It is possible for one resource to be stored multiple times for different languages. If this is the case, Restorator adds a level in the tree with the language. Full version : download Restorator Update now! To apply, open Restorator. The translation pack also works with the full version. Thanks to Sergey Shikharev for the translation.
The Tutorials Usage Examples are examples of typical usage scenarios. Step-by-step guides with annotated screenshots make it easy to follow them by yourself. The Documentation Reference Manual pprovides descriptions of all features and functions of Restorator. The Frequently Asked Questions section provides ansers to the most often encountered problems.
In the online discussion forum , users can interchange know-how, tricks and their experiences. This is the recommended way to get help for specific problems. Contact us by email with the contact form! Email support is reserved for licensed users i. A happy user. Restorator is a Windows resource editor. The Restorator main window. Ozgur B. Darren H. John C.
Dan C. Alex W. Mark Gibbs, Network World editor - Read the full review. Konrad M. Max C. Mark Gibbs, Network World editor. Andre J. Michael B. Paul M. Tony C. Claude L. Move the dialog elements, resize and re-label them with immediate results and full control. Essential feature for translating applications.
Rather, we simply want to define and share a consistent terminology to create a unified framework of understanding. Restorative practices is a social science that studies how to build social capital and achieve social discipline through participatory learning and decision making. The IIRP distinguishes between the terms restorative practices and restorative justice. We view restorative justice as a subset of restorative practices. Restorative justice is reactive, consisting of formal or informal responses to crime and other wrongdoing after it occurs.
Where social capital—a network of relationships—is already well established, it is easier to respond effectively to wrongdoing and restore social order—as well as to create a healthy and positive organizational environment. In public health terms, restorative justice practices provide tertiary prevention, introduced after the problem has occurred, with the intention of avoiding reoccurrence. Restorative practices expands that effort with primary prevention, introduced before the problem has occurred.
The social science of restorative practices offers a common thread to tie together theory, research and practice in diverse fields such as education, counseling, criminal justice, social work and organizational management. For example, in criminal justice, restorative circles and restorative conferences allow victims, offenders and their respective family members and friends to come together to explore how everyone has been affected by an offense and, when possible, to decide how to repair the harm and meet their own needs McCold, In social work, family group decision-making FGDM or family group conferencing FGC processes empower extended families to meet privately, without professionals in the room, to make a plan to protect children in their own families from further violence and neglect or to avoid residential placement outside their own homes American Humane Association, In education, circles and groups provide opportunities for students to share their feelings, build relationships and solve problems, and when there is wrongdoing, to play an active role in addressing the wrong and making things right Riestenberg, The social science of restorative practices recognizes all of these perspectives and incorporates them into its scope.
Restorative practices has its roots in restorative justice, a way of looking at criminal justice that emphasizes repairing the harm done to people and relationships rather than only punishing offenders Zehr, In the modern context, restorative justice originated in the s as mediation or reconciliation between victims and offenders.
In Mark Yantzi, a probation officer, arranged for two teenagers to meet directly with their victims following a vandalism spree and agree to restitution. The positive response by the victims led to the first victim-offender reconciliation program, in Kitchener, Ontario, Canada, with the support of the Mennonite Central Committee and collaboration with the local probation department McCold, ; Peachey, Conferencing addresses power imbalances between the victim and offender by including additional supporters McCold, It was originally envisioned as a family empowerment process, not as restorative justice Doolan, The IIRP now calls that adaptation, which has spread around the world, a restorative conference.
Initially founded in under the auspices of Buxmont Academy, the Real Justice program, now an IIRP program, has trained professionals around the world in restorative conferencing. In the newly created IIRP broadened its training to informal and proactive restorative practices, in addition to formal restorative conferencing Wachtel, Use of restorative practices is now spreading worldwide, in education, criminal justice, social work, counseling, youth services, workplace and faith community applications Wachtel, The IIRP has identified several concepts that it views as most helpful in explaining and understanding restorative practices.
Put these concepts into practice with a professional development event. The social discipline window Figure 1 is a concept with broad application in many settings. It describes four basic approaches to maintaining social norms and behavioral boundaries. The four are represented as different combinations of high or low control and high or low support.
The restorative domain combines both high control and high support and is characterized by doing things with people, rather than to them or for them. Figure 1. Social Discipline Window.
The social discipline window also defines restorative practices as a leadership model for parents in families, teachers in classrooms, administrators and managers in organizations, police and social workers in communities and judges and officials in government. The social discipline window, whose dynamics of low versus high support and control were originally modelled by the work of University of Illinois corrections researcher Daniel Glaser, reflects the seminal thinking of renowned Australian criminologist John Braithwaite, who has asserted that reliance on punishment as a social regulator is problematic because it shames and stigmatizes wrongdoers, pushes them into a negative societal subculture and fails to change their behavior Glaser, ; Braithwaite, The restorative approach, on the other hand, reintegrates wrongdoers back into their community and reduces the likelihood that they will reoffend.
Restorative justice is a process involving the primary stakeholders in determining how best to repair the harm done by an offense. The three primary stakeholders in restorative justice are victims, offenders and their communities of care, whose needs are, respectively, obtaining reparation, taking responsibility and achieving reconciliation. The degree to which all three are involved in meaningful emotional exchange and decision making is the degree to which any form of social discipline approaches being fully restorative.
The three primary stakeholders are represented in Figure 2 by the three overlapping circles. The emotional exchange necessary for meeting the needs of all those directly affected cannot occur with only one set of stakeholders participating. Figure 2. Restorative Justice Typology. When criminal justice practices involve only one group of primary stakeholders, as in the case of governmental financial compensation for victims or meaningful community service work assigned to offenders, the process can only be called partly restorative.
When a process such as victim-offender mediation includes two principal stakeholders but excludes their communities of care, the process is mostly restorative.
Restorative practices are not limited to formal processes, such as restorative conferences or family group conferences, but range from informal to formal. Impromptu restorative conferences, groups and circles are somewhat more structured but do not require the elaborate preparation needed for formal conferences.
Moving from left to right on the continuum, as restorative practices become more formal, they involve more people, require more planning and time, and are more structured and complete. Figure 3. Restorative Practices Continuum. The aim of restorative practices is to develop community and to manage conflict and tensions by repairing harm and building relationships.
This statement identifies both proactive building relationships and developing community and reactive repairing harm and restoring relationships approaches. Organizations and services that only use the reactive without building the social capital beforehand are less successful than those that also employ the proactive Davey, Figure 4. The Nine Affects adapted from Tomkins, , , The most critical function of restorative practices is restoring and building relationships.
Because informal and formal restorative processes foster the expression of affect or emotion, they also foster emotional bonds. The late Silvan S. Donald Nathanson, former director of the Silvan S. Tomkins Institute, added that it is through the mutual exchange of expressed affect that we build community, creating the emotional bonds that tie us all together Nathanson, Restorative practices such as conferences and circles provide a safe environment for people to express and exchange emotion Nathanson, Tomkins identified nine distinct affects Figure 4 to explain the expression of emotion in all humans.
Most of the affects are defined by pairs of words that represent the least and the most intense expression of a particular affect. Surprise-startle is the neutral affect, which functions like a reset button. The two positive affects are interest-excitement and enjoyment-joy Tomkins, , , Silvan S. Tomkins wrote that because we have evolved to experience nine affects — two positive affects that feel pleasant, one surprise-startle so brief that it has no feeling of its own, and six that feel dreadful — we are hardwired to conform to an internal blueprint.
The human emotional blueprint ensures that we feel best when we 1 maximize positive affect and 2 minimize negative affect; we function best when 3 we express all affect minimize the inhibition of affect so we can accomplish these two goals; and, finally, 4 anything that fosters these three goals makes us feel our best, whereas any force that interferes with any one or more of those goals makes us feel worse Nathanson, By encouraging people to express their feelings, restorative practices build better relationships.
From the simple affective statement to the formal conference, that is what restorative practices are designed to do Wachtel, Shame is worthy of special attention. Nathanson explains that shame is a critical regulator of human social behavior. Tomkins defines shame as occurring any time that our experience of the positive affects is interrupted Tomkins, So an individual does not have to do something wrong to feel shame.
The individual just has to experience something that interrupts interest-excitement or enjoyment-joy Nathanson, a. Nathanson has developed the Compass of Shame Figure 5 to illustrate the various ways that human beings react when they feel shame.
The four poles of the compass of shame and behaviors associated with them are:. Figure 5. The Compass of Shame adapted from Nathanson, Nathanson says that the attack other response to shame is responsible for the proliferation of violence in modern life. Usually people who have adequate self-esteem readily move beyond their feelings of shame.
Nonetheless we all react to shame, in varying degrees, in the ways described by the Compass. Restorative practices, by their very nature, provide an opportunity for us to express our shame, along with other emotions, and in doing so reduce their intensity. In restorative conferences, for example, people routinely move from negative affects through the neutral affect to positive affects Nathanson, When authorities do things with people, whether reactively—to deal with crisis—or proactively, the results are better.
Fair process demonstrates the restorative with domain of the social discipline window. It relates to how leaders handle their authority in all kinds of professions and roles: from parents and teachers to managers and administrators.
The fundamental hypothesis of restorative practices embodies fair process by asserting that "people are happier, more cooperative and productive, and more likely to make positive changes in behavior when those in authority do things with them, rather than to them or for them.
The IIRP has identified several restorative processes that it views as most helpful in implementing restorative practices in the widest variety of settings. Learn more about these processes at our Basic Restorative Practices event. Conferences provide victims and others with an opportunity to confront the offender, express their feelings, ask questions and have a say in the outcome.
Offenders hear firsthand how their behavior has affected people. Offenders may choose to participate in a conference and begin to repair the harm they have caused by apologizing, making amends and agreeing to financial restitution or personal or community service work. Participation in conferences is voluntary. The facilitator keeps the conference focused but is not an active participant.
In the conference the facilitator provides an opportunity to each participant to speak, beginning with asking open-ended and affective restorative questions of the offender. The facilitator then asks victims and their family members and friends questions that provide an opportunity to tell about the incident from their perspective and how it affected them.
Finally, the victim is asked what he or she would like to be the outcome of the conference. The response is discussed with the offender and everyone else at the conference. Some approaches to restorative conferences, such as in Ulster in Northern Ireland, do not use the Real Justice script approach Chapman, Victim-offender conferences do not rely on a script, either.
The IIRP prefers the Real Justice scripted model of conferencing because we believe it has the greatest potential to meet the needs of the stakeholders described in the Restorative Justice Typology.
However, we do not mean to quibble with other approaches. As long as people experience a safe opportunity to have a meaningful discussion that helps them address the emotional and other consequences of a conflict or a wrong, the process is beneficial. A circle is a versatile restorative practice that can be used proactively, to develop relationships and build community or reactively, to respond to wrongdoing, conflicts and problems.
Circles give people an opportunity to speak and listen to one another in an atmosphere of safety, decorum and equality. The circle process allows people to tell their stories and offer their own perspectives Pranis, The circle has a wide variety of purposes: conflict resolution, healing, support, decision making, information exchange and relationship development.
Circles offer an alternative to contemporary meeting processes that often rely on hierarchy, win-lose positioning and argument Roca, Inc. Circles can be used in any organizational, institutional or community setting.
In industry, the quality circle has been employed for decades to engage workers in achieving high manufacturing standards Nonaka, In , Yukon Circuit Court Judge Barry Stewart pioneered the sentencing circle, which involved community members in helping to decide how to deal with an offender Lilles, In , Mennonite Pastor Harry Nigh befriended a mentally challenged repeat sex offender by forming a support group with some of his parishioners, called a circle of support and accountability, which was effective in preventing re-offending Rankin, Circles may use a sequential format.
One person speaks at a time, and the opportunity to speak moves in one direction around the circle. Each person must wait to speak until his or her turn, and no one may interrupt. Optionally, a talking piece—a small object that is easily held and passed from person to person—may be used to facilitate this process.
Both the circle and the talking piece have roots in ancient and indigenous practices Mirsky, a, b; Roca, Inc. The sequential circle is typically structured around topics or questions raised by the circle facilitator.
Because it strictly forbids back-and-forth argument, it provides a great deal of decorum. The format maximizes the opportunity for the quiet voices, those that are usually inhibited by louder and more assertive people, to speak without interruption. Individuals who want to respond to something that has been said must be patient and wait until it is their turn to speak.
One approach is simply for participants to speak sequentially, moving around the circle as many times as necessary, until all have said what they want to say.
In this case, all of the participants take responsibility for maintaining the integrity and the focus of the circle. Non-sequential circles are often more freely structured than a sequential circle. Conversation may proceed from one person to another without a fixed order.
0コメント