Ethnography consists of a few different research methods, most notably participant observation, which involves the researcher immersing themselves in and observing a particular social context . Occasionally, if one becomes too immersed, the researcher may begin to use alternative research methods such as informal interviews. The main goal, however, is to gain an understanding and description of everyday life in a qualitative way without recording detailed data that will be analyzed in the future. Usually, however, the observer takes short notes in a small field diary. Observers can take on different roles depending on how much they want to be involved in the context. These include a full observer; an observer as participant; one participant as observer; and a full participant. Hay (2005) defines ethnography as “a method in which the researcher studies a social group while being part of that social group”. When discussing Marxist geographers and Marxism as an ideology, the main goal is to analyze the problem (crisis) and then proceed to try to find a solution or "try to change the world". This was why in the 1970s many positivist geographers changed their ways and began to be more proactive instead of simply explaining and documenting the world's problems. Potentially, ethnographic research methods are common among Marxist geographers because they can see a situation as an outsider and try to find a solution, while a positivist can simply analyze, record data and look at the situation from an objective point. of sight. This essay will highlight and aim to evaluate what the main strengths and weaknesses of ethnographic research methods are when it comes to Marxist geography. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay The first strength of ethnographic research methods is that the researcher can get a real-life idea of ​​what a certain situation is like. Although an observation sometimes turns into an interview or informal conversation, a formal interview is much more serious and the interviewee may feel inclined to give unnatural answers. The influential Marxist geographer David Harvey states that ethnography is completely different from any other qualitative method since "the ethnographer acquires information through the analysis of everyday activities". For a Marxist geographer who sees situations from a subjective point of view, ethnographic methods and especially observation can be the perfect form of research as they can testify to a certain social context with a negative idea or problem already planted in the their head and proceed to evaluate whether this is really the case or not and whether it is solvable. Furthermore, in some scenarios it is difficult to carry out quantitative research and therefore a more descriptive approach is needed. “Ethnography uniquely explores lived experiences in all its richness and complexity.” From this point of view, and more specifically from the terms “richness” and “complexity”, it is evident that another research method such as survey would not be appropriate simply because the information and results are too vague. In fact, Herbert is one of the main supporters of ethnographic methods, describing them as greatly "underused". Although Marxists see the world from a certain point of view, it is rare for researchers to use just one research method to compile their work, often a combination of qualitative methods will be used, as well as quantitative measures to demonstrate and provide numerical information. The main weakness is The main onedifficulty when talking about the use of ethnographic methods is that they are often difficult to implement. Some groups may be difficult to access and may not want intruders monitoring them at all times; for whatever reason it may be. Groups of people in prisons, in the army or navy and pilots are just a few to mention. In theseIn some cases it is necessary to use "hidden participant observation" so that the people being researched do not know. In theory, this may be considered unethical or dishonest, however sometimes it is necessary to gain insight into "sociocultural spaces that would otherwise be denied." Not to mention that if a foreign group of people intends to be observed, the language barrier can be a serious problem. The criticism that positivists often have against Marxists is that, in the end, they always end up explaining that capitalism and class struggles are the root of all the world's problems, which may seem very narrow-minded to some. Because participant observation is not one of the easiest research methods to carry out, it is often time-consuming and as a result it is possible to focus on only 1 or a few groups. Often this leads to general assumptions, which is why ethnographers turn to other research methods that provide them with solid evidence to try to support their original ideas. Many geographers have indeed put forward the main criticism that ethnography leads to generalizations and cannot be used exclusively as a research method. This is potentially why Herbert (2005) stated that “geography has always neglected ethnography”; as it doesn't really provide concrete answers. Bringing it back to Marxist geographies, the reason it is popular among them is that their general research procedure is: observe, analyze and aim to find a solution rather than finding patterns and creating laws, as a positivist would do. It is rare for an observer to watch and analyze a situation by taking only a few notes without the slightest interaction with those being observed. This can often lead to interviews, but not formal interviews as we know them, but simply more open discussions. Atkinson and Hammersley (2007) support this point by mentioning that often "the boundary between participant research and informal interviews is difficult to discern", meaning that in reality it is not only observation that is used for research, but also dialogue . This is a strength as it allows for a deeper understanding of what and who is being studied. Following the idea that ethnographic methods have strengths, they can also be seen as useful, informative, and credible because the researcher has been completely immersed in a completely new situation or lifestyle. They would have no reason to lie about their findings. This idea is expressed by Geertz when he states that «anthropologists have the ability to convince us of what they say because they have penetrated the situation» (1988). As mentioned above, Herbert makes countless points about how ethnographic methods are better and more useful than standard research techniques. He explains how time spent, and relationships built during time spent observing, mean that "the ethnographer acquires information through the analysis of everyday activities" and that ethnography is a particularly useful method for discovering... sociospatial life. The final takeaway is simply that “some types of research are only available through first-hand research” and that “practices can be accessed rather than just talked about.” For Marxist geographers, then, it is the deep immersion and experience involved in ethnographic research methods that aids their understanding of?