Findings show different fault-lines and conceptual levels that comprise RJ’s ambiguity with sterile or single-layered approaches such as definitions; the identification by this article of the different fault-lines and conceptual levels that comprise RJ’s definitional tension explains why single-dimensional approaches should be avoided. To approach these controversies, there needs to be to be an acknowledgement of the multidimensional nature of the conceptual problem of RJ and the impact it has on its application. Despite the literature on RJ and the efforts that have been carried out at national, regional, and international levels to reach a common understanding about RJ’s nature and applicability, the confusion continues to persist. People working in RJ tend to fall within the abolitionists’ school of thought while others have a more pragmatic, limited understanding and expectations from the RJ conception. The article identifies tensions that have negative and theoretical and practical implications for RJ: communication and collaboration between RJ stakeholders, funding procedures, research and evaluation, program designs, and parties’ expectations. Practitioners are often brought in confrontation with other practitioners; funders are brought against practitioners; practitioners against theoreticians; researchers against practitioners, and vice versa; researchers and evaluators against other researchers; and evaluators and private organizations against public bodies. The conceptual tensions encourage the carrying out of different professional battles within the movement, while at the same time these battles feed the conceptual tensions. Figure, notes, references