Qualitative study reveals institutional barriers limiting expert influence on Rohingya response policies, highlighting advantages granted to international over domestic advisors.
Bangladesh hosts nearly one million Rohingyas who live in several congested camps in Cox’s Bazar, making it the largest refugee camp in the world. Many NGOs and several UN agencies support the Rohingyas with essential basic needs. The enormity and complex nature of the crisis have created spaces for practitioners, researchers, academics, and activists to get involved in the quest for a dignified and sustainable solution for the Rohingyas. Based on 25 interviews with various “experts” (including academics, researchers, and activists) working on the Rohingya crisis, this paper explores to what extent the “experts” can play a meaningful role in resolving this crisis. Our evidence suggests that a nonchalant, non-responsive practice limits the roles of “experts” in making meaningful contributions towards effective policy formulation for this crisis. Traditionally, there remains a lack of evidence-based policy formation in various sectors in Bangladesh. The case of the Rohingya is no exception. The lack of evidence-based policy culture makes it difficult for the experts, although “international”: experts enjoy some advantages over national experts.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Siddiqi et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: