Maha Bali, who has worked as a Soliya Connect facilitator and trainer of facilitators, has written in her PhD thesis (2013) and subsequent articles about "the difficulties and paradoxes of putting the empowerment rhetoric [around virtual exchanges] into practice" (2014). In a hard-hitting critique that asks in its title, "Why doesn't this feel empowering?" (2014), she describes power imbalances as being embedded in the online dialogues, even though they “clearly had equality and justice as end-goals."

 

On linguistic advantages, for example, she observes that

• the use of English as the default language of communication privileges native speakers

• requiring facilitators to provide translation can distort meaning and also affect their ability to moderate the discussion by distracting or overwhelming them

• students who request translation have to draw attention to themselves as needing more support than their peers.

​

While English dominance remains a serious current concern, the simultaneous translation software that is becoming ever more sophisticated should help address this problem before long. Bali also notes that the more reliable Internet access and superior computer equipment and technical support in better-resourced universities (in the U.S., for example) can reinforce imbalances of power, disadvantaging other participants (in the Arab/Muslim world, for example).

 

She points to other power asymmetries stemming from differences in pedagogy and personality that may be even more challenging to overcome. For example:

• familiarity with a participatory educational model:

"Dialogue assumes, incorrectly, that all members have equal power to speak ... but it actually privileges students comfortable with spontaneous and oral, rather than reflective and written communication. It privileges Western students generally more familiar with the idea of interactive classrooms, than those unfamiliar with it, such as Arabs schooled in traditional ways that discourage student participation altogether."

​

• personality differences, and the influence of introversion and extroversion on participation: 

"Silence has many unclear interpretations and it is difficult to decide whether it indicates a problem to overcome, or a student position that needs to be respected. But respecting a student’s decision to remain silent limits the dynamics of learning through dialogue for both the silent individual and her colleagues, as the colleagues’  potential to learn from the silent student is reduced."

​

• modal inequalities (audio versus text): Though shy students can opt to write in the comment box provided on a virtual exchange platform rather than to speak, 

"audio had more prominence than written text in these dialogues, and some of what was written was not necessarily ‘heard’  as clearly as what was said aloud. Voice is not just about what is spoken, but what ends up being actually 'heard'."

​

Bali offers a trenchant critique of virtual exchanges and urges vigilance around programs that can perpetuate inequalities and be "potentially colonizing": 

"The question is: how do we reconceptualize intercultural dialogue/communication programs in order to improve student learning and empowerment while adequately addressing the inevitable imperfection and inequality of the dialogue situation?" (2014)

​

However, she still believes the approach has value. In a 2019 presentation titled "Why virtual exchange matters," she notes the various barriers and limitations with the dialogues that she has identified over the years, but concludes that "power dynamics are a challenge but also an opportunity for reflection."

​

Learn more

​

• Bali (2013). Critical thinking in context: practice at an American liberal arts university in Egypt

​​

• Bali (2014). Why doesn’t this feel empowering? The challenges of web-based intercultural dialogue​​

​

• Bali (2019). Why virtual exchange matters; Erasmus+ Virtual Exchange National Information Day 

​​