Multi-sited research has become a quality criterion for ethnographic research. This applies especially to studies on forced migration. Here, a site is often equated with a state, where researchers are usually required to be physically present. In this article, however, we ask: Must multi-sited research necessarily be multi-national? Do researchers have to be physically present at all sites? By discussing ethnographic material collected with forced migrants in Malta, we demonstrate that multi-sitedness is viewed in too narrow terms when site is equated with the nation-state. Adopting this approach also obscures refugees’ lived realities, their patterns of movement and their often truncated mobility. Instead, we carve out an understanding of multi-sited ethnography within one locality, introducing the concept of un-participated sites to include sites researchers are not able to physically visit. While the inaccessibility of sites is often inherent to ethnographic studies, it is all the more relevant for migration research.

中文翻译：

---

不在场时在场

多点研究已成为民族志研究的质量标准。这尤其适用于关于强迫迁移的研究。在这里，一个站点通常等同于一个州，研究人员通常需要亲自到场。然而，在本文中，我们要问：多地点研究必须是跨国的吗？研究人员必须亲自到所有地点吗？通过讨论在马耳他收集的强迫移民的民族志资料，我们证明了当站点等同于民族国家时，多站点被视为过于狭隘。采用这种方法也掩盖了难民的生活现实、他们的行动模式和他们经常被截断的流动性。相反，我们在一个地方开辟了对多地点民族志的理解，引入未参与站点的概念，以包括研究人员无法实际访问的站点。虽然网站的不可访问性通常是民族志研究所固有的，但它与移民研究更相关。