This article contributes the following: First, it argues along previous works that rites of passage include continuous testing, which needs to be passed in order to gain a certain level of acceptance within the research field. Here besides the emotional effort, researchers have to position themselves and are confronted with questions of trust. Second, it is argued that the collected and analysed data on the rites of passage enable us to make sense of street-level bureaucrats' work and functioning of state institutions, especially in a police context. Reflections on research negotiations drew the author's attention to how mistrust towards the “other”, here defined as migrant other, prevails the migration regime. This mistrust is later transferred onto the researcher, whose stay is deemed questionable and eventually intrusive.,The collected data include semi-structured interviews, as well as several months of participant observation with street-level officers and superordinate staff, deepening previous discussions on research access and entrance. It further allows understanding street-level narratives, especially when it comes to the culture of suspicion embedded in police work, connecting the experienced tests with the everyday knowledge of police officers and case workers.,The analysis of rites of passage enable us to make sense of street-level bureaucrats' work, especially in a police context, since we find a specific way of suspicion directed towards the researcher. It is based on a general mistrust towards the “other”, here defined as migrant other, whose stay is deemed illegal and thus intruding. In this context, the positionality of the researcher becomes crucial and needs strategical planning.,Accessing and being able to enter the “field” is of crucial relevance to researchers, interested in studying, e.g. sense-making and decision-making of the respective interlocutors. Yet, ethnographic accounts often disclose only partially, which hurdles, limiting or contesting their aspirations to conduct fieldwork, were encountered.,The personal role of researchers, their background and emotions are often neglected when describing ethnographic research. Struggles and what these can say about the studied field are thus left behind, although they contribute to a richer understanding of the functioning of the chosen fields. This work will examine how passing the test and going through rituals of “becoming a member” can tell us more about the functioning of a government agency, here a Swedish border police unit.

中文翻译：

---

在怀疑，昵称和信任之间-与瑞典边防警察重新协商人种学访问

本文的主要贡献在于：首先，它与以往的工作一致认为通过仪式包括连续测试，必须通过连续测试才能在研究领域获得一定程度的认可。除了情感上的努力，研究人员还必须摆正自己的位置，并面临信任问题。其次，有人认为，收集和分析的关于通行仪式的数据使我们能够理解街头官僚的工作和国家机构的职能，特别是在警察的情况下。关于研究谈判的思考提请作者注意对“另一方”（此处定义为“另一方”）的不信任如何在移民制度中盛行。这种不信任感后来被转嫁给了研究人员，研究人员的逗留被认为是有问题的，并最终侵入。收集的数据包括半结构化访谈，以及与街头官员和上级工作人员进行的几个月的参与者观察，从而加深了先前有关研究获取和进入的讨论。它进一步允许理解街头叙事，尤其是涉及警察工作中的怀疑文化时，将经验丰富的测验与警务人员和案例工作者的日常知识联系起来。通过仪式的分析使我们更有意义街头官员的工作，特别是在警察的背景下，因为我们发现了一种针对研究人员的特定怀疑方式。它基于对“另一方”的普遍不信任，“另一方”在这里被定义为“移民的另一方”，其逗留被视为非法并因此受到侵犯。在这种情况下，研究人员的位置变得至关重要，需要战略计划。进入并能够进入“领域”对于感兴趣的研究人员（例如，各个对话者的感知和决策）具有至关重要的意义。然而，人种学的叙述往往只部分披露，这遇到了障碍，限制或挑战了他们进行田野调查的愿望。研究人员的个人角色，背景和情感在描述人种学研究时常常被忽略。尽管他们有助于对所选领域的功能有更丰富的理解，但这些挣扎以及他们对所研究领域的看法都被抛在了后面。