Skewed Allegiances: Recalibrating Humanitarian Accountability towards Gender

Abstract

Abstract Humanitarian actors often face competing accountabilities that may skew “upwards” in favour of donors. With increasing requirements on humanitarian actors to demonstrate efficiency and impact, accountability has often become depoliticised, reduced to technical frameworks and bureaucratic processes. Within humanitarian work focused on promoting gender equality, the problems in how accountability is framed have particular ramifications, affecting how gender issues are positioned, how gender-related data are presented and the assumptions underlying interventions that seek to address gender inequality. This article is based on ethnographic research in Jordan, specifically interviews with humanitarian practitioners and Syrian refugees. It explores how accountability for gender issues is positioned within the humanitarian sector. The article challenges the fixation on collecting quantitative data on gender-based violence and suggests that humanitarian assumptions about refugee populations may lead to stereotypical and homogenous representations about refugees that fail to recognise complexity. It provides examples of gaps in humanitarian assistance experienced by Syrian refugees in Jordan. The article also suggests that accountability for social transformation and change may be shifting from humanitarian actors towards refugees themselves. The article recommends that approaches to humanitarian accountability should prioritise listening, and being honest about failures and gaps in knowledge.