Can AI help us hear each other? A restorative listening framework for interfaith youth dialogue
Abstract views: 30
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31039/plic.2026.17.403Keywords:
restorative listening, artificial intelligence, interfaith youth dialogue, peace education, restorative practicesAbstract
Facilitated interfaith youth dialogue programmes, whether conducted online, in person, or in hybrid form, create opportunities for young people from diverse religious and cultural traditions to meet, exchange perspectives, and learn together. Their deeper peacebuilding value can emerge when participants engage religious difference within safe and equitable learning conditions, particularly when sensitive questions and differing interpretations arise. This conceptual paper proposes a restorative listening framework for interfaith youth dialogue. Drawing on peace education, relational restorative practice, and interfaith dialogue scholarship, it conceptualises restorative listening as an ethical and relational practice in which participants’ expressions are acknowledged, clarification is invited respectfully, religiously or culturally sensitive expressions are considered in context, and dialogue is guided towards mutual recognition, relational responsibility, and peace learning. The paper asks how participant reflections can inform restorative follow-up dialogue and what role AI can play in supporting this process. The framework comprises six movements: expression, reflective visibility, ethical human interpretation, restorative listening design, dialogical response, and peace learning and possible action. With appropriate consent, privacy, and anonymisation safeguards, AI may provisionally organise written reflections from digital boards, surveys, guided prompts, and session feedback into a Restorative Attention Brief. The brief may highlight recurring questions, clarification needs, contrasting interpretations, and possible topics for follow-up dialogue. Following targeted human review, facilitators determine whether and how a response is appropriate. AI is positioned as a limited organisational support tool rather than as a participant or decision-maker; contextual interpretation, ethical responsibility, and protection of relational trust remain with human facilitators. The paper contributes a human-led framework that offers facilitators and programme designers a structured way to connect participant reflections with restorative dialogue design and peace learning.
References
Abu-Nimer, M. (2001). Conflict resolution, culture, and religion: Toward a training model of interreligious peacebuilding. Journal of Peace Research, 38(6), 685–704. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343301038006003
Abu-Nimer, M. (2004). Education for coexistence and Arab-Jewish encounters in Israel: Potential and challenges. Journal of Social Issues, 60(2), 405–422. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-4537.2004.00121.x
Abu-Nimer, M., Alabbadi, A., & Marquez, C. (2018). Building bridges: Guide for dialogue ambassadors. World Organization of the Scout Movement & International Dialogue Centre. https://www.kaiciid.org/sites/default/files/dialogue_for_peace_manual_english_reduced_0.pdf
Abu-Nimer, M., & Nelson, R. K. (Eds.). (2021). Evaluating interreligious peacebuilding and dialogue: Methods and frameworks. De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110624625
Abu-Nimer, M., & Smith, R. K. (2016). Interreligious and intercultural education for dialogue, peace and social cohesion. International Review of Education, 62(4), 393–405. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11159-016-9583-4
Alfredo, R., Echeverria, V., Jin, Y., Yan, L., Swiecki, Z., Gašević, D., & Martinez-Maldonado, R. (2024). Human-centred learning analytics and AI in education: A systematic literature review. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 6, Article 100215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100215
Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Addison-Wesley.
Avruch, K. (1998). Culture & conflict resolution. United States Institute of Peace Press.
Bajaj, M. (2019). Conceptualising critical peace education for conflict settings. Education and Conflict Review, 2, 65–69. https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10081588/
Bojer, M. M., Roehl, H., Knuth, M., & Magner, C. (2008). Mapping dialogue: Essential tools for social change. Taos Institute Publications. https://books.google.com/books/about/Mapping_Dialogue.html?id=ZkQlAQAAIAAJ
Cornelio, J. S., & Salera, T. A. E. (2012). Youth in interfaith dialogue: Intercultural understanding and its implications on education in the Philippines. Innovación Educativa, 12(60), 41–62. https://archium.ateneo.edu/dev-stud-faculty-pubs/25/
De Paoli, S. (2024). Performing an inductive thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews with a large language model: An exploration and provocation on the limits of the approach. Social Science Computer Review, 42(4), 997–1019. https://doi.org/10.1177/08944393231220483
Galtung, J. (1969). Violence, peace, and peace research. Journal of Peace Research, 6(3), 167–191. https://doi.org/10.1177/002234336900600301
Galtung, J. (1990). Cultural violence. Journal of Peace Research, 27(3), 291–305. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343390027003005
Garred, M., Herrington, R., & Hume, E. (2021). Linking evaluators and inter-religious peacebuilders: The making of an evaluation guide. In M. Abu-Nimer & R. K. Nelson (Eds.), Evaluating interreligious peacebuilding and dialogue: Methods and frameworks (pp. 169–196). De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110624625-007
Hajir, B., & Kester, K. (2020). Toward a decolonial praxis in critical peace education: Postcolonial insights and pedagogic possibilities. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 39(5), 515–532. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-020-09707-y
Harris, I. M. (2004). Peace education theory. Journal of Peace Education, 1(1), 5–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/1740020032000178276
Helde, M. L. (2021). Guide to interreligious dialogue: Bridging differences and building sustainable societies. International Dialogue Centre. https://www.kaiciid.org/resources/publications/guide-interreligious-dialogue-bridging-differences-and-building-sustainable
Jaakkola, E. (2020). Designing conceptual articles: Four approaches. AMS Review, 10, 18–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13162-020-00161-0
Jabareen, Y. (2009). Building a conceptual framework: Philosophy, definitions, and procedure. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 8(4), 49–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690900800406
Llewellyn, J. J., & Morrison, B. (2018). Deepening the relational ecology of restorative justice. The International Journal of Restorative Justice, 1(3), 343–355. https://doi.org/10.5553/IJRJ/258908912018001003001
Lodi, E., Perrella, L., Lepri, G. L., Scarpa, M. L., & Patrizi, P. (2022). Use of restorative justice and restorative practices at school: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(1), Article 96. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19010096
Miao, F., & Holmes, W. (2023). Guidance for generative AI in education and research. UNESCO. https://doi.org/10.54675/EWZM9535
Nagda, B. A., & Gurin, P. (2007). Intergroup dialogue: A critical-dialogic approach to learning about difference, inequality, and social justice. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2007(111), 35–41. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.284
National Institute of Standards and Technology. (2023). Artificial intelligence risk management framework (AI RMF 1.0) (NIST AI 100-1). https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.AI.100-1
Parker, C., & Bickmore, K. (2020). Classroom peace circles: Teachers’ professional learning and implementation of restorative dialogue. Teaching and Teacher Education, 95, Article 103129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2020.103129
Parker, C., & Bickmore, K. (2021). Complexity in restorative justice education circles: Power and privilege in voicing perspectives about sexual health, identities, and relationships. Journal of Moral Education, 50(4), 471–493. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057240.2020.1832451
Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 751–783. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.751
Procter, C., & Dunlevy, E. (2015). Bridging restorative practices and group therapy: New evaluative measures for school groups. In C. Del Felice, A. Karako, & A. Wisler (Eds.), Peace education evaluation: Learning from experience and exploring prospects (pp. 67–82). Information Age Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-62396-975-220251007
Schabasser, C. (2026). Unlocking the power of artificial intelligence to develop people’s empathetic skills. London Journal of Social Sciences, (10), 19–46. https://doi.org/10.31039/ljss.2025.10.345
Sharma, A., Lin, I. W., Miner, A. S., Atkins, D. C., & Althoff, T. (2023). Human–AI collaboration enables more empathic conversations in text-based peer-to-peer mental health support. Nature Machine Intelligence, 5, 46–57. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-022-00593-2
Shneiderman, B. (2020). Human-centered artificial intelligence: Reliable, safe & trustworthy. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 36(6), 495–504. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2020.1741118
Torraco, R. J. (2005). Writing integrative literature reviews: Guidelines and examples. Human Resource Development Review, 4(3), 356–367. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484305278283
UNESCO. (2001). UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000127160
UNESCO. (2022). Recommendation on the ethics of artificial intelligence. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000381137
United Nations General Assembly. (1999). Declaration and programme of action on a culture of peace (A/RES/53/243). https://docs.un.org/en/A/RES/53/243
United Nations Security Council. (2015). Resolution 2250 (2015) (S/RES/2250). https://docs.un.org/en/S/RES/2250(2015)
Vaandering, D. (2014). Relational restorative justice pedagogy in educator professional development. Curriculum Inquiry, 44(4), 508–530. https://doi.org/10.1111/curi.12057
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Elif Dursun, Celil Akgobek, Mahmut Yilmaz
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
You are free to:
Share: copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format. The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms. Under the following terms: Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives-No additional restrictions.
Authors retain copyright and agree to license their articles with a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-
