3.2. Levels of Analysis

Figure 3.1. Macro, Meso, and Micro Levels of Analysis

In the hard sciences, researchers can study phenomena at very different levels—from stars and planets, to land masses and biomes, to microscopic cells and microbes, to the fundamental particles that constitute our material reality. In a similar way, sociologists study the social world using different levels of analysis. There are three broad levels of analysis: micro, meso, and macro. We can think of this as a continuum from the lowest levels of analysis to the highest—from interactions between individuals, to comparisons of entire societies.

At the micro level, sociologists examine the smallest levels of interaction—in some cases, just “the self” alone. Micro-level analyses might include one-on-one interactions between couples or friends. Or, perhaps a sociologist is interested in how a person’s perception of self is influenced by their social context. In each of these cases, the level of inquiry is micro.

In addition to deciding on a level of analysis, sociologists also need to figure out what are the units of analysis they wish to study (we’ll discuss units of analysis in depth in Chapter 6: Sampling). A unit of analysis is what we are really studying—the class of phenomenon we ultimately wish to comprehend better. Typical units of analysis include individuals, groups, organizations, and countries. The unit of analysis at the micro level is often the individual, but that’s not always the case. For example, when studying social interactions, we might focus not on individuals per se, but on dyads, pairs of people who are connected through that interaction. Or, we might focus on the interactions themselves—that is, making every conversation into a unit of analysis. This brings up another feature of units of analysis: they don’t have to be people. We can analyze texts like books and magazines, visual content like paintings and TV shows, or events like protests and strikes (we’ll talk more about some of these possibilities in Chapter 16: Materials-Based Methods). Our choice of a unit of analysis will depend on what we truly want to understand—individuals, or conversations, or books, or whatever.

When sociologists investigate groups, their inquiry is at the meso level. Sociologists who conduct meso-level research might study how norms of workplace behavior vary across professions (with specific occupations, like doctors or firefighters, being the unit of analysis), or how children’s sporting clubs are organized (with a club being the unit of analysis).

At the macro level, sociologists examine social structures and institutions. Research at the macro level examines large-scale patterns. For instance, sociologists have long studied the process and impacts of globalization, the growing interconnectedness of the economies and cultures of the world. A research project that examined how nations are connected economically or culturally would be an example of a macro-level study. The unit of analysis here would be a country, though sociologists can also design macro-level studies where the unit of analysis is larger—say, a region of the world—or smaller—say, cities or states in a particular country.

Note here that the boundaries between micro, meso, and macro levels of analysis are relative and somewhat arbitrary. For example, some international nongovernmental organizations, like the International Monetary Fund or United Nations, represent many countries: when we study them, are we operating at a meso or macro level? Likewise, a quantitative analysis of poverty using state-level data might be considered a “macro” approach relative to ethnographic observations in poor neighborhoods. Using these labels helps us situate our research alongside other work, but we don’t want to get hung up over the precise categories here.

Let’s take a closer look at some specific examples of sociological research to better understand each of the three levels of inquiry described previously. Some topics are best suited to be examined at one level, while other topics can be studied at each of the three different levels. The particular level of inquiry might shape a sociologist’s questions about the topic. Sociologists might also view the topic from different angles depending on the level of analysis being employed.

Work by Stephen Marks offers an excellent example of research at the micro level. In one study, Marks and Shelley MacDermid (1996) draw from prior micro-level theories to empirically study how people balance their various life roles—for instance, their identities and activities as parents, partners, and workers. In this study, the researchers found that people who experience balance across their multiple roles report lower levels of depression and higher levels of self-esteem and well-being than their less “balanced” counterparts. In another study, Marks and his colleagues (2001) examined the conditions under which spouses feel the most balance across their roles. For women, having more paid work hours and more couple time were crucial. For men, having leisure time with their families was important, and their “role balance” decreased as their work hours increased.

At the meso level, sociologists tend to study the experiences of groups or the interactions between groups. For example, Jason Spicer and Christa Lee-Chuvala (2021) studied a global network of banks dedicated to upholding social and environmental values. They examined how membership in the network changed over time, and found that credit unions and other banks owned by their customers rather than investors were more likely to remain within the network and stay committed to their values. In a much different study of group-level data, Michael Messner (2009) conducted research on children’s sports leagues. Messner studied interactions among parent volunteers, among youth participants, and between league organizers and parents. He found that the adults who run such leagues structure the children’s gameplay in ways that reinforce gender boundaries and hierarchies.

Sociologists who conduct macro-level research study interactions at the broadest level, such as comparisons across cities or nations. For example, David Frank, Bayliss Camp, and Steven Boutcher (2010) examined changes in laws regulating sex across a number of countries between 1945 and 2005. They found that laws regulating rape, adultery, sodomy, and child sexual abuse shifted in focus from protecting families to protecting individuals. In another macro-level study, Leah Ruppanner (2010) studied how national levels of gender equality in 25 different countries affected how couples divvy up housework. Ruppanner found that as women’s representation in a country’s parliament increased, so, too, did how much time men in that country participated in housework. (Note that we don’t always know what is driving the changes and associations we observe across these sorts of studies—in this case, how exactly greater women’s representation in a country’s government is linked to greater male participation in housework, or whether the first really causes the second. We’ll have more to say about these issues later in this chapter.)

Let’s consider one important sociological topic—poverty—and then consider how researchers study it from each of the levels of inquiry described above. At the micro level, they might study what everyday life is like for people who are homeless by observing them where they panhandle and sleep. One example of a micro-level study of extreme poverty that uses this approach is Gwendolyn Dordick’s book Something Left to Lose (1997), based on the author’s intimate observations of the lives of homeless people in New York City. At the meso level, sociologists often study poverty by looking at issues that arise within poor neighborhoods—as Robert Sampson has done intensively in the city of Chicago, as described in his book The Great American City (2013). And at the macro level, they might compare poverty across communities within a nation—or even compare rates of poverty by country. David Brady and Amie Bostic (2015) used survey data from 37 countries to test earlier theories about the mix of social policies that were most effective in reducing poverty rates across those countries. They found that policies providing generous government assistance that was more universal—that is, not targeted just at the poor—were associated with the sharpest reductions in poverty.

While it is true that some topics lend themselves to a particular level of inquiry, there are many social phenomena that could be studied from any of the three levels. The choice depends on the specific interests of the researcher, the approach they would like to take, and the sorts of questions they want to be able to answer about the topic.