The inter-rater reliability of reintegrative shaming (Braithwaite 1989) concepts was tested at Community Accountability Conferences and at court using two observation methods. This paper presents data collected from 45 cases: 15 violence or property-related conferences; 15 drink-drive conferences; and a mix of 15 drink-drive, property-related, and violence-related court cases. The results, which are a synthesis of those presented in a more extensive report (Harris & Burton 1997), show that components of reintegrative shaming theory can be observed reliably using systematic observation and global rating observation methods.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BraithwaiteJ (1989) Crime, Shame and Reintegration, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
2.
BraithwaiteJMugfordS (1994) ‘Conditions of successful reintegration ceremonies: dealing with juvenile offenders’, British Journal of Criminology, vol 34, pp 139–171.
3.
DenzinN K (1988) ‘Triangulation’, inKeeveJ P (ed), Educational Research, Methodology, and Measurement: An International Handbook, Pergamon Press, Oxford.
4.
HarrisNBurtonJ B (1997) The Reliability of Observed Reintegrative Shaming, Shame, Defiance, and Other Key Concepts in Community Accountability Conferences: Reintegrative Shaming Experiment Working Paper No 5, Australian National University, Canberra.
5.
HyndmanM RThorsborneMWoodS (1996) Community Accountability Conferencing: Trial Report, Department of Education, Queensland.
6.
KazdinA E (1982) Single-Case Research Designs: Methods for Clinical and Applied Settings, Oxford University Press, New York.
7.
McDonaldJ MO'ConnellT AMooreD BBransburyE (1994) Convening Family Conferences: Training Manual, New South Wales Police Academy, New South Wales.
8.
MakkaiTBraithwaiteJ (1994) ‘Reintegrative shaming and compliance with regulatory standards’, Criminology, vol 32, pp 361–85.
9.
MaxwellG MMorrisA (1993) Family Victims and Culture: Youth Justice in New Zealand, Institute of Criminology, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington.
10.
MooreD (1995) A New Approach to Juvenile Justice: An Evaluation of Family Conferencing in Wagga Wagga, The Centre for Rural Social Research, Charles Sturt University.
11.
O'ConnellTThorsbourneM (1995) ‘Conferencing: a restorative approach to interventions for serious incidents of harm in the school setting’, paper presented to the Seventh National Conference on the Behaviour Management Change of Children and Youth with Emotional and/or Behaviour Problems, Newcastle.
12.
Reintegrative Shaming Experiment (1996a) ‘Global Observation Codebook’, inHarrisNBurtonJ B1997 The Reliability of Observed Reintegrative Shaming, Shame, Defiance, and Other Key Concepts in Community Accountability Conferences: Reintegrative Shaming Experiment Working Paper No 5, Australian National University, Canberra.
13.
Reintegrative Shaming Experiment (1996b) ‘Systematic Observation Codebook’, inHarrisNBurtonJ B(1997) The Reliability of Observed Reintegrative Shaming, Shame, Defiance, and Other Key Concepts in Community Accountability Conferences: Reintegrative Shaming Experiment Working Paper No 5, Australian National University, Canberra.
14.
ShermanL W (1993) ‘Defiance, deterrence and irrelevance: a theory of the criminal sanction’, Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, vol 30, pp 445–73.
15.
ShermanL WBraithwaiteJStrangH (1994) Reintegrative Shaming of Violence, Drink Driving and Property Crime, A Randomised Controlled Trial, unpublished grant proposal.
16.
TylerT R (1990) Why People Obey the Law: Procedural Justice, Legitimacy, and Compliance, Yale University Press, New Haven.
17.
ZhangS X (1995) ‘Measuring shaming in and ethnic context’, British Journal of Criminology, vol 35, pp 248–62.
