Box 3: Women in leadership roles One of the grassroots organisations consulted during the research was led by women, organised mainly around issues linked to education. The emergence of women in community leadership roles marks a change in gender norms from Myanmar, where as noted above women are rarely allowed to leave their homes. Another grassroots organisation told the study that 50% of their leadership was made up of women. While a sign that attitudes may be changing among Rohingya men, none of the women leaders was present during the focus group discussion where this was raised, and women did not seem to be present in important meetings, for instance with donor representatives. A recent report by IRC notes instances where women have been actively blocked from effective participation in community decision-making and community affairs (IRC, 2019). Male majhis highlighted during focus group discussions that there were women majhis, and that there had been a push to ensure female leadership in the camps.1 However, male majhis have reportedly sought to block female participation in the majhi system, for instance in informal justice (see IRC, 2019). Women in leadership roles have reportedly been threatened by religious groups in the camps (Lewis et al., 2019). The top-down nature of community leadership, be it through the formal majhi system or more grassroot groups that may not always be representative of the wider community, may explain or have contributed to general feelings of not disengagement or lack of participation among individual refugees we interviewed. While one avenue to support more effective engagement could be through ‘engineering’ a less fragmented and healthier civil society dynamic among refugees, our evidence calls for more investment in gathering individual opinions as a way to represent diverse perspectives. 5.2  Refugee participation and engagement Generally, the research found that refugees participated in and engaged on issues such as shortterm needs and assistance, but not on medium- to long-term needs, aspirations and plans. Even with regard to short-term assistance, survey evidence suggests that Rohingya refugees do not feel that their opinions are taken into account when decisions about aid provision are made (Ground Truth Solutions, 2019). A large number of refugees we talked to said that they had not been engaged in any way, and were grateful to be listened to and given an opportunity to give their perspectives. Refugees spoke of individual face-to-face dialogue as the best way to engage them, particularly in their homes, where they could talk more freely about their personal circumstances. According to one male interviewee: This system you are doing now where you discuss things directly with us is the better way. Many men, many minds. We do not all have the same views, so it is best to consult individually. One refugee woman felt that engaging with refugees in their homes also had the benefit of interlocutors seeing their living conditions at first hand: Just like you, if you go and visit the houses and see the situation then better. If you go visit the house, you can see the situation and you can understand the situation better. And in some meetings some women will come and then some women will not come. A Christian Aid assessment provides further evidence of refugees’ preference for verbal and face-to-face complaints mechanisms and individual meetings (Christian Aid and Gana Unnayan Kendra, 2018: 5). Others felt that group meetings and small group gatherings were more effective because they enabled wider consultation. Refugees we interviewed also felt that small group gatherings would be better because they entail less work for researchers or others carrying out the consultation. Group meetings were mentioned by both men and women, though in practice the research team found focus group discussions difficult to facilitate, particularly as men were reluctant to disagree in public or in front of other men. This may also have been a function of the make-up of the research team (white, young women), which may not have been best suited to facilitate such discussions. Interviews with refugees also highlighted the lack of trust most had that their leaders, including the majhis, would automatically represent their views and interests, in particular in relation to women. As one refugee woman said: Humanitarian Policy Group 25