ABSTRACT
An increasing focus on the visual, visuality and the use of visual methods has been evident across a wide range of disciplines and fields of study for quite some time now (e.g., Banks 2001, 2007; Banks and Morphy 1997; Crang 2003; Deveraux and Hillman 1995; Edmonds 1974; Elkins 2008; Emmison and Smith 2000; Hall 1997; Harper 1989, 2002, 2003, 2005; Hill 2008; Hockings 2003; Loizos 1993; Manghani et al. 2002; Mirzoeff 1999, 2002; Mitchell 1994; Pauwels 2000, 2004; Pink 2001, 2006; Pink et al. 2004; Prosser 1998; Prosser et al. 2008; Prosser and Loxley 2008; Rogoff 2000; Rose 2007; van Leuween and Jewitt 2001; Taylor 1994; Stanczak 2007; Wiles et al. 2008). In the context of tourism research a significantly greater focus on the visual has also been seen (e.g., Crouch and Lübbren 2003; Crouch et al. 2005; Crang 1997; Urry 2002; Selwyn 1996; Jaworski and Pritchard 2005), although discussions surrounding visual research methods have only just recently surfaced (e.g., Feighey 2003; Rakić and Chambers 2009; Rakić and Chambers 2010). Nonetheless, there is a growing recognition of the merits of visual methods within the study of tourism which has, arguably, resulted both from the increasing legitimisation of qualitative research, and the willingness of tourism researchers to explore innovative approaches to research.
