Comparative case study examines educational justice advocacy by Muslim women politicians in Indonesia and Malaysia, highlighting distinct strategies in different political contexts.
Using an intersectional framework, this study critically examines how Muslim women politicians in Indonesia and Malaysia advocate for educational justice. A comparative case study design was employed, drawing on reflective memos and in-depth interviews with 110 participants. The findings show that these politicians strategically leverage their intersecting religious and gender identities as symbolic capital to gain legitimacy within male-dominated Islamic political arenas. Yet, their advocacy agency is significantly shaped by distinct national politico-religious configurations: Indonesia's pluralist context fosters network-based, entrepreneurial strategies, while Malaysia's statist system encourages formal bureaucratic negotiation. These results demonstrate that the struggle for educational equity is inherently a political contestation against embedded, intersectional forms of injustice. The study concludes that effective transformative advocacy requires not only contextual intelligence but also the skillful navigation of complex identity politics within specific institutional environments.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lestari et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: