The goal of higher education institutions is to provide access to quality education along with adequate support so students can achieve personal and academic success. At the same time, institutions are increasingly responsible for ensuring a safe and inclusive learning environment. To support this, universities respond to allegations of violations of the student code of conduct through a variety of conduct models. The use of restorative practices, an approach of responding to criminal or judicial violations with an emphasis on repairing relationships and reintegration into the community, has been implemented into existing university student conduct models across the nation with success. Student Rights and Responsibilities (SRR) conduct administrators at Arizona State University expressed feeling unprepared to engage in restorative conversations with students during conduct meetings. As a response, training modules on restorative justice theory and practices were created as a staff development engagement opportunity for SRR conduct administrators.

This mixed methods action research study was conducted to investigate the inclusion of restorative dialogue in conduct meetings, factors that influence the incorporation of restorative dialogue into professional practice, and conduct administrator satisfaction with staff development training modules. Qualitative and quantitative data were collected through pre-, post-, and follow-up training survey assessments, one-on-one interviews with conduct administrators, observation of student conduct meetings, and observation of staff development training sessions.

Findings suggested that conduct administrators responded positively to staff development training on restorative justice practices. Analysis of quantitative data suggests that conduct administrators increased their self-reported knowledge of training topics, including restorative justice philosophy and practices. Further, conduct administrators, to an extent, incorporated restorative practices into conduct meetings. The most frequently observed practice was the use of restorative questions during conduct meetings.