Similar to the others, I found that a kaleidoscope could be used metaphorically to help in my understanding of my subject matter. I have applied the kaleidoscope to family literacy to conceptualize the relationships among family members and how outside factors affect family literacy in low–income homes. The small two–dimensional coloured shapes at the bottom of the kaleidoscope tube may represent the traits of the family members. By traits, I mean the family background and status, skills, knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, values, experiences and habits, which are implicated in determining their cultural capital as well. People acquire cultural capital through the social system and only if they have means of appropriating it (Jarvis, 1992).

When viewed alone from a perspective outside of the family, the pieces of glass are perceived merely as unconnected pieces or traits belonging to mothers, fathers, sons, daughters or extended family members. The pieces are not recognized as having much value on their own; they may be seen as nothing more than a variety of flat loose shapes trapped in a jumbled disarray between two pieces of glass. As the viewer changes focus and peers through the eyepiece, a rich mesmerizing medley of colour may be apparent. There is a magical sense of wonder in how the process of rearranging those pieces achieved harmony and balance in a series of uniform pie slices.

In my cross–case analysis of the family literacy data, I carefully studied the individual families alone with a myopic view as I created the various categories for my data. I then broadened my focus by comparing across categories and rearranging or reducing the complexity by sorting the data into related groupings. This process continued until I worked through the content analysis for the various data collected from each family. Through the inductive analysis, my themes began to emerge. The process of constant comparison lead to the creation of descriptive categories as Dye et al (2000) suggest will occur.