Ethnography consists of a few different research methods, including participant observation, which involves the researcher immersing and observing a particular social context . Sometimes, if too immersed, the researcher may begin to use alternative research methods such as informal interviews. The main objective, however, is to obtain an understanding and qualitative description of everyday life without recording detailed data which will be analyzed later. Usually the observer takes brief notes in a small field journal. Observers can take on different roles depending on how involved they want to be in the context. These include a full observer; an observer as participant; a participant as an observer; and a complete 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 attempt to find a solution or "try to change the world." This is why, in the 1970s, many positivist geographers changed their ways and began to be more proactive rather than just explaining and documenting the world's problems. Potentially, ethnographic research methods are common among Marxist geographers because they can look at a situation as an outsider and try to find a solution, whereas a positivist can simply analyze, record data and look at the situation from one point of view. objective view. of view. This essay will highlight and aim to evaluate what are the main strengths and weaknesses of ethnographic research methods when talking about Marxist geography. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an Original Essay The first strength of ethnographic research methods is that the researcher can get a real sense 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 mentions that ethnography is completely different from any other qualitative method in that "the ethnographer gains insight through an analysis of everyday activities." For a Marxist geographer who views situations from a subjective point of view, ethnographic methods and especially observation can be the perfect form of research because they can witness a certain social context with a negative idea or problem already implanted in their heads and proceed to the evaluation. whether this is really the case or not and whether the problem can be fixed. Additionally, in some scenarios it is difficult to conduct quantitative research and therefore a more descriptive approach is necessary. “Ethnography uniquely explores lived experiences in all their richness and complexity.” From this line and specifically from the words “richness” and “complexity”, it is obvious that another research method such as a survey would not be appropriate simply due to the information and results being too vague. Herbert is in fact one of the leading advocates of ethnographic methods, describing them as largely "underutilized." Although Marxists see the world from a certainpoint of view, it is rare for researchers to use a single research method to compile their work; Often a combination of qualitative methods will be used, along with quantitative measures to prove and provide numerical insights. The main weakness and difficulty when discussing 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. Groups of people in prisons, the army or navy and pilots are just a few to name a few. In these cases, "covert participant observation" should be used so that the people being researched do not know. In theory, this can be considered unethical or dishonest, but sometimes it is necessary to gain insight into "sociocultural spaces that would otherwise be denied." Not to mention, if a group of strangers plans to be observed, the language barrier can be a serious problem. The criticism that positivists often level at 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 to some. As participant observation is not one of the easiest research methods to implement, it is often time consuming and therefore only one or a few groups can be targeted. This often leads to making general presumptions, 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 in fact formulated the main criticism that ethnography leads to generalizations and cannot be used solely as a research method. This is potentially why Herbert (2005) stated that “geography has always neglected ethnography”; because it doesn't really provide concrete answers. When it comes to Marxist geographies, the reason why 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 - like a positivist would. In theory, it is rare for an observer to observe and analyze a situation by taking only a few notes without any interaction with those being observed. This can often lead to interviews, but not formal interviews as we know them, but rather simple more open discussions. Atkinson and Hammersley (2007) support this point by mentioning that often "the line between participant research and informal interviews is difficult to discern", meaning that in reality it is not just observation that is used for research, but also dialogue. This is a strength because it allows for a deeper understanding of what is being studied and by whom. Based on the idea that ethnographic methods have strengths, they can also be considered useful, informative and credible due to the fact that the researcher has been completely immersed in a completely new situation or way of life. They would have no reason to lie about their findings. This idea is expressed by Geertz when he states that “anthropologists have the capacity to convince us of what they say thanks to their immersion in the situation” (1988). As mentioned previously, Herbert makes countless arguments about how ethnographic methods are both?