Distinction, Identification, and Recognition 6 107 every combination, we randomly contacted a teacher to participate. In total, we approached thirty-nine schools (with a 38.5% positive response). The teachers’ ages varied from 23 to 59 years (average: 34.5), with 1.5 to 35 years of teaching experience (average: 11.3). All teachers were trained in orthodox Protestant teacher training institutes. They were all interviewed twice by the first author, and the interviews took place at their respective schools.59 The interviewer was familiar with the participants’ religious backgrounds because she worked at an orthodox Protestant teacher training institute. This appeared to be especially helpful in terms of gaining the participants’ trust and understanding their religious language. However, there was still distance between the researcher and the participants because the researcher was not fully immersed in the stricter orthodox Protestant subculture, which made it easier to maintain a critical stance. Also, the members of the research group were of diverse backgrounds, which helped mitigate bias. We followed the ethical guidelines as well as the guidelines of data management for scientific research at Dutch universities (DANS, 2015; VSNU, 2005, 2012). The interviews were semi-structured, and the topic list usedwas composed on the basis of an earlier theoretical study (Markus et al., 2021a) and interview questions from earlier research by several authors (Afdal, 2006; De Ruyter & Kole, 2001; Versteegt, 2010). The interview guide was discussed in the research group and adapted after three pilot interviews. The interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. This provided 128–228 minutes of interview data per participant (173 minutes on average).60 At the time of the interviews, Europe was experiencing its biggest refugee crisis sinceWorldWar II as well as a higher number of attacks related to Muslim extremism than in previous years (European Commission, 2016; Tierolf et al., 2018). This resonated in the interviews, with the participants referencing specific incidents. 6.3 Data Analysis For our thematic data analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006), we used the general framework for descriptive/interpretivequalitativeresearch(Elliott&Timulak,2005).Followingthisframework, the first step in our analysis comprised initial reading and editing. We then divided the data into meaningful units and searched for an overall organizational structure by looking for the subjects discussed in the units. All units about a certain subject were placed into “a domain,” 59 Because of the teachers’ preferences, one situation differed from the others in several respects: two colleagues of the same school were interviewed together during one interview lasting 160 minutes (instead of one teacher being interviewed twice), and this interview took place in the interviewer’s office (instead of the participants’ school). Another interview took place in the interviewer’s office for practical reasons. 60 This procedure is described in a similar way in Markus and colleagues (2019).