10th Biennial ACSPRI Social Science Methodology Conference in conjunction with the Australian Social Network Analysis Conference (ASNAC)

Comparative qualitative research faces a persistent methodological challenge: how can researchers systematically compare cases without overlooking the contextual differences that make each case analytically valuable? This paper addresses this question through a multi-site study of religious diversity governance in Indonesia. It reflects on a methodological approach developed to examine how central government, local governments, and civil society actors interpret, negotiate, and implement policies concerning religious diversity.

The research employs a qualitative multiple-case study design combining policy and document analysis, semi-structured interviews, focus group discussions, and non-participant observation. Fieldwork was conducted with 93 participants in Jakarta and three purposively selected cities: Singkawang, Bekasi, and Depok. The cities were selected through a maximum-variation strategy because they represent contrasting records and institutional approaches to religious tolerance. This design enables an examination of how similar national policies are interpreted and implemented differently within distinct political, institutional, and socio-religious contexts.

The data are analysed using three techniques drawn from Yin’s case study methodology: cross-case synthesis, pattern matching, and explanation building. The analysis begins by developing a detailed narrative for each city to preserve its specific historical, political, and social context. Cross-case synthesis is then used to compare the three cities and identify recurring patterns, important differences, and context-specific variations. Pattern matching compares empirical patterns across cases with theoretically informed expectations concerning recognition, accommodation, minority rights, interaction, participation, and social cohesion. These expectations are derived from selected multiculturalism and interculturalism approaches developed mainly in Western contexts and adapted as analytical lenses for Indonesia. Explanation building is used iteratively to investigate how and why governance practices and outcomes vary across the three cities.

To support systematic comparison, evidence is organised by case, stakeholder group, and key analytical theme, drawing on an interculturalism framework adapted to the Indonesian context. These themes include commitment to diversity, religious education, community engagement, access to public and shared spaces, conflict prevention and resolution, communication, participation, and institutional support. Evidence from documents, interviews, focus groups, and observations is triangulated not merely to confirm a single account, but to identify agreements, contradictions, silences, and differences between formal policies and everyday governance practices.

The paper also considers how researcher positionality affects access, interaction, and interpretation. As an Indonesian Muslim researcher and lecturer at a state Islamic university, I occupied shifting insider and outsider positions across research sites, government institutions, and minority communities. Reflexive field notes were used to consider how these relationships shaped the research process and interpretation.

This paper offers a practical analytical strategy for conducting theory-informed, multi-site qualitative research on sensitive and politically contested issues. It demonstrates how Yin’s three techniques can be combined to enable systematic comparison while preserving contextual complexity and generating explanations for similarities and differences across cases.