Search results

In all its stages, qualitative research inhabits a visible world. Yet the use of visual data across the life of a research project is a visual span seldom considered in the methodological literature (Albrecht, 1985; Brannen, 2002). From a study largely based on observation and interviews in which visual data did not feature at the outset, we illustrate this longer perspective by focussing on two aspects of span. One refers to the inclusion of visual data throughout a project, from the search for a research setting to the final stage of dissemination. The other concerns the more frequent approach that includes a mix of visual methods, ranging from visual documents of film and photographs (Denzin, 1989) to other visual images and sights fleetingly observed. We argue that to use our eyes in the peripheral as well as the central data gathering stages, and to glean data from what is incidentally noticed as well as harvested with specific visual tools, generate an extended sociological understanding. The visual widens the window on the world of those being studied, bringing the intricacies of their lives closer to both researcher and audience. In this latter regard, we note the value of visual data at the dissemination stage, particularly for audiences of practitioners and those with interests in policy formation.

When it comes to measuring and managing corporate impacts on the multiple capitals (financial, natural, social, human and built), Impact Management and Impact Valuation have emerged as best practices in the interrelated fields of corporate social responsibility and Environment, Social and Governance (ESG) investing. These practices have two significant shortcomings that are largely unacknowledged: they don't attend to ecological and social thresholds (or the carrying capacities of capitals); and they assume impacts on the various capitals are fungible, and therefore impacts on one capital can substitute for impacts on another capital, which clearly does not reflect reality.

This chapter proposes solutions to both gaps: respect ‘critical capital’ thresholds to retain vital capital stocks necessary to fuel continuing flows of value (and avoid systemic collapses of capital resources), and aggregate impacts across capitals via the common factor of ‘progress towards sustainability’. These steps will mature the fields towards the creation of System Value, where capitals are continually regenerated sustainably in ways that support healthy living systems.