At the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, the Ottawa Dialogue shared a document detailing our approach to online facilitation. Today, we interview Ali İhsan Akbaş, Political Officer at the Turkish Embassy in Oslo and PhD candidate at Bilkent University. He shares insights from his research on digital technologies and their impact on peacebuilding and mediation practices, as well as his career as a diplomatic practitioner.

In this interview, Ali İhsan focuses on how digital technologies can shape and, at times, interfere with peacebuilding and mediation processes, as well as influence diplomatic interactions. His dissertation centers on a peacebuilding initiative led by the Berghof Foundation between 2018 and 2022 in Georgia and the de facto region of Abkhazia. He examines how the initiative adapted to online-only workshops following the COVID-19 outbreak, and the dynamics of this transition in terms of workshop design, facilitation, and knowledge transfer.

Disclaimer: The perspectives shared in this interview reflect Ali’s personal academic and professional observations. They do not represent the official stance of the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

1. Could you please tell us a bit about yourself and your current work/research?

My academic background lies at the intersection of political science and communication studies. I completed my undergraduate degree in Political Science and International Relations at Boğaziçi University in Türkiye, and went on to earn a master’s in Social Sciences with a specialisation in Digital Media and Society at Uppsala University in Sweden. I’m currently a Ph.D. candidate in Political Science at Bilkent University, Türkiye.

In addition to my academic career, I have been serving as a career diplomat with the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs since 2020. I completed a two-year posting at the Turkish Embassy in Tbilisi, Georgia, and currently serve as Third Secretary at the Turkish Embassy in Oslo, Norway.

My doctoral research brings together my academic interest in digitalization with my professional interest in mediation. I investigate how technological advancements are reshaping diplomacy, particularly in the areas of peacebuilding and dialogue. My dissertation focuses on a Georgian-Abkhaz peacebuilding initiative that began with in-person facilitation in 2019 and transitioned to a virtual format during the COVID-19 pandemic. I analyze the two dialogue formats utilized in the same context in my dissertation.

2. What are some key differences you have observed between in-person and online facilitation?

I observed considerable differences between in-person and online facilitation. Online meetings are far more practical. They remove the need for travel and make it easier to bring people together from different locations. But the physical setup of in-person meetings creates a very different kind of atmosphere. For example, coffee breaks often lead to spontaneous, sincere conversations that cannot easily be replicated in Zoom breakout rooms. Those in-between moments often carry more emotional weight than we expect.

One of the biggest differences is the sense of physical presence and shared atmosphere that you naturally get in an in-person setting. Being in the same room creates a kind of energy, it helps with building rapport, reading emotional cues, and simply feeling connected. You also have informal moments, as in the case of coffee breaks, that can be just as important as the structured dialogue itself.

In online facilitation, you lose a bit of that intimacy, but you gain new ways of managing the space. For example, features like muting, hand-raising, or using the chat allow facilitators to structure discussions more deliberately. And surprisingly, some participants found it easier to speak or express emotions in the virtual space, especially those who were hesitant in person.

So, while the medium changes, what stays the same is the need for intentionality and emotional awareness in how the facilitation is conducted. The process just adapts to new tools to meet the same goals.

3. What do you see as some advantages of online or hybrid facilitation for peacebuilding and mediation training?

One clear advantage of online or hybrid facilitation is accessibility. It allows people who might otherwise be excluded due to travel restrictions, financial barriers, or age gaps to take part in dialogue processes. In my research, I observed that this was especially important for bringing together participants from Georgia and de facto Abkhazia, who often could not meet physically.

Online facilitation offers its own strengths. Platforms like Zoom give facilitators more tools to structure and shape discussions. I also noticed that visual tools like emojis, memes, or reactions were used by participants to show support and build rapport. In some cases, these created an unexpected layer of emotional connection.

I think digital technologies introduced new methods for adaptive peacebuilding, and that’s really the key. The project I focused on was nearly cancelled when the pandemic hit, but facilitators pivoted to virtual formats out of both necessity and commitment. That decision did not just save the project; it opened the door for hundreds of new Georgian and Abkhazian participants to join. It’s quite striking that a global crisis known for isolating people actually became the driver of a historic increase in connection between these two communities.

Lastly, hybrid formats, when designed properly, give us the best of both worlds: the emotional depth of in-person dialogue and the reach and flexibility of digital tools. I think they are not a temporary fix but a long-term opportunity for more inclusive and resilient peacebuilding. 

4. What challenges have you noticed in the setting up or delivering phases of organizing an online or hybrid workshops, especially in sensitive contexts?

One of the biggest challenges was simply that online facilitation felt unconventional. In-person meetings are often perceived as more sincere, trustworthy, and respectful. So, when the project first transitioned to a virtual format, there was noticeable resistance. Some participants even described it as feeling impersonal or, in some cases, slightly rude. That was a reminder that peacebuilding is not just about logistics, and it’s deeply shaped by cultural expectations and emotional norms. In other words, virtual formats, at first, were not regarded as suitable when it comes to the shared, often unspoken expectations about how emotions should be expressed, managed, or responded to in the context of the Georgian-Abkhazian conflict.

From a practical side, there were also technical and infrastructural challenges, particularly in regions with unreliable internet or limited access to digital devices. Setting up the online space in a way that felt safe, private, and inclusive took a lot of effort. Facilitators had to work behind the scenes to build confidence in the process, and in many cases, trust had to be re-earned in a completely new environment.

So, the challenge was not only about delivering the content. It was about reframing the entire experience in a way that made sense to the participants, without losing the emotional depth and legitimacy that in-person dialogue usually provides. 

5. Cybersecurity is a growing concern. How do you ensure the safety and privacy of participants, before, during and after online or hybrid sessions?

Consent and trust are the fundamentals when it comes to workability in online or hybrid settings. The digital world is never completely secure. There are always potential risks, especially in sensitive contexts. That’s why it’s so important to be transparent with participants from the beginning. In my research, facilitators made sure that participants gave informed consent, understood the risks, and felt confident about how their data and stories would be handled.

Of course, the level of risk really depends on who’s in the room. If it’s a grassroots dialogue, the concerns might be different from a track-one or high-level negotiation. But regardless of the level, building digital trust takes active work.

Interestingly, in the research, I observed that online platforms actually became a tool for building trust with authorities as well. In de facto Abkhazia, for instance, facilitators used the visibility of virtual meetings as a quiet reassurance to officials that the initiative was not political or threatening. It was a subtle yet effective way of communicating intentions. That’s one of the things I find most inspiring: that technology does not just pose risks. It can also create space for confidence-building, even in environments where suspicion runs deep. 

6.  How do you build trust and engagement in virtual environments, particularly with youth and vulnerable participants?

Trust is always a complicated issue, especially in virtual settings. Many of the facilitators I interviewed felt that online meetings alone were not enough to establish the kind of deep trust that peacebuilding often requires. When people are meeting each other for the first time, it’s harder to create that sense of emotional safety through a screen.

But that does not mean trust cannot be built. In fact, one of the advantages of virtual facilitation is that it allows for more frequent meetings, which makes repetition possible—and repetition, I think, is the key. The more regularly people meet, the more comfortable they become. Over time, relationships start to form.

Facilitators also played a huge role in building engagement through consistency and sensitivity. Being present, checking in, and designing spaces that felt respectful and inclusive. Over time, even participants who were initially quiet or hesitant began to open up. So, while online settings may feel limited at first, with thoughtful facilitation and repeated exposure, trust and connection can emerge. 

7. What practical tips or tools would you recommend to other practitioners for creating safe and effective dialogue in virtual spaces?

One of the first tips I’d give to practitioners is that choose your digital platform carefully. Do not just pick what’s popular and really think through which application suits your needs. Look into the built-in features and ask whether they allow you to manage participation effectively. Just as importantly, ask whether your participants actually have access to that platform and whether they are comfortable using it. For example, Zoom is ideal for structured dialogue sessions because of its built-in tools like screen sharing, breakout rooms, and live interpretation. Instant messaging applications are often better suited for informal group communication or quick updates, especially in contexts where bandwidth is limited. Facebook can serve as a semi-public engagement space for community-building or discussion, but it may not be appropriate for sensitive or high-trust environments. Specialized platforms, such as Mentimeter, can help address situated needs, such as making virtual or hybrid dialogues more interactive and inclusive, or allowing facilitators to collect anonymous input in real time through polls, word clouds, or Q&A sessions. Each platform has its own “affordances”, so knowing your participants’ needs, preferences, and constraints is essential for choosing the right tool.

In the case I studied, many participants in de facto Abkhazia lacked access to mobile data. So, the project management reallocated funds originally meant for coffee breaks and in-person logistics towards data plans and devices. I think that kind of flexible and creative thinking is critical. It is natural to expect digital infrastructure to be a challenge and plan for it proactively.

Also, acknowledge the affordances that digital technologies provide. Tools like screen sharing, real-time text, and visual media can create new opportunities for people to express themselves, especially if they’re hesitant to speak out loud. In the project I researched, facilitators integrated things like animations, images, and even emojis to enrich the process and build emotional connections in the virtual space.

My final point is that don’t aim for perfection, aim for responsiveness. Be open to adjusting your format as you learn what participants need. Safe and effective dialogue in virtual spaces does not come from rigid control. It rather comes from careful listening, thoughtful design, and a willingness to adapt.

8. What is the most valuable lesson you have learned about hosting online/hybrid sessions in the past few years, and as per your research? 

I think there are many valuable lessons I’ve come across during this process, but if I had to choose one, it would be this: people often do not realise what they are capable of until they are forced to adapt.

Before the pandemic, the facilitators in my case study did not consider digital technologies as tools for peacebuilding. It simply was not part of their mindset. Facilitation meant being in the room, face to face. But when COVID-19 disrupted everything, they were pushed to try something they hadn’t really imagined before. And to their surprise, they found that they could adapt. They discovered new ways of conducting dialogue, connecting people, and supporting narrative transformation, even across screens.

It took a major crisis for that shift in perception to happen, but it was incredibly impactful. I actually wrote a paper on this—it’s currently under review—where I explore how facilitators’ perceived affordances of digital technologies evolved during the pandemic. What started as an emergency workaround ended up becoming a long-term learning moment, not just for the facilitators but for the peacebuilding field more broadly.

So, I think the lesson is not just about using Zoom or running hybrid workshops. It’s about openness to change, and the importance of recognising that even in difficult circumstances, people can find new tools, new strategies, and new forms of connection they didn’t think were possible before.