Multi-sited ethnography has been used for decades in the fields of anthropology and political geography. This approach has been mobilized to study and follow the production and trade of commodities (Cook 2004; Mintz 1986; Tsing 2015) or to trace transnational migration (Amelina and Faist 2012; Williamson 2015). While “multi-sited ethnography” was coined in 1995 by Marcus, it is fair to say that ethnographic research has always been geographically “multi-sited.” Even if the researcher settles in a specific town, they usually visit various locations and learn from multiple perspectives on their subject of study (Hage 2005; Hannerz 2003; Marcus 1995; Weißköppel 2009). The fundamental shift brought by the multi-sited approach is not so much about mobility but about the merging of the global and the local (Marcus 1995, 1998). A multi-sited approach considers the phenomenon under study as constituted through relationships—not necessarily linear nor permanent—among sites of research. Therefore, starting from the assumption that the multi-sited approach is essentially about interdependence and (dis)connections, can its logic be applied to concepts? What can we learn about the constitution, meaning, and function of concepts in conducting multi-sited research?