Meso level - Revision history

Livesadmin at 08:47, 10 December 2025

2025-12-10T08:47:11Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:47, 10 December 2025
Line 36:		Line 36:
	\| class = col-lg-3 mt-0		\| class = col-lg-3 mt-0
	\| exclude = Main Page ; Sitemap ; Worksheet		\| exclude = Main Page ; Sitemap ; Worksheet
			\| options= {{NetworkOptions}}
	}}		}}

Livesadmin: /* References */

2021-04-22T07:42:35Z

References

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:42, 22 April 2021
Line 27:		Line 27:
	McCarthy, T. (eds) (2011). ''Ethnography and language policy''. London: Routledge.<br>		McCarthy, T. (eds) (2011). ''Ethnography and language policy''. London: Routledge.<br>
	Reid, L., Sutton, P., & Hunter, C. (2009). Theorizing the meso level: the household as a crucible of pro-environmental behaviour. ''Progress in Human Geography'', 34(3), 309–327. <br>		Reid, L., Sutton, P., & Hunter, C. (2009). Theorizing the meso level: the household as a crucible of pro-environmental behaviour. ''Progress in Human Geography'', 34(3), 309–327. <br>
	Vacchiano, M. & Spini, D. (~~2020~~). Networked Lives. ''~~LIVES Working Papers~~''. ~~In press~~. <br>		Vacchiano, M. & Spini, D. (2021). Networked Lives. ''Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 1–17''. https://doi.org/10.1111/jtsb.12265<br>
	Van Duijn, M., Van Busschbach, J. & Snijders, T. (1999). Multilevel Analysis of Personal Networks as Dependent Variables. ''Social Networks'', 21(2), 187-210.<br>		Van Duijn, M., Van Busschbach, J. & Snijders, T. (1999). Multilevel Analysis of Personal Networks as Dependent Variables. ''Social Networks'', 21(2), 187-210.<br>

Livesadmin: /* Network perspectives */

2021-04-22T07:41:02Z

Network perspectives

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:41, 22 April 2021
Line 8:		Line 8:

	==Network perspectives==		==Network perspectives==
	What ‘in between’ means reflects differences across disciplines and approaches. Nevertheless, what social scientists who use this notion have most in common is their ~~emphasis on considering contexts that are more proximate than~~ macro~~-social ones~~, ~~thus addressing individuals’ opportunities and constraints more concretely~~. In this respect, Lazega and Snijders (2015) claim that network analysis has provided the most consistent attempt to address this issue. The reason is that by conceptualizing the emergence of interactions as different types of networks, scholars can streamline the opportunities and constraints arising from social relationships as a juncture within the micro-macro gap. The reason is that one of the main assumptions of network theory is that social relationships can be studied as social contexts: ego, personal networks can be seen as aggregate units of analysis located at a level of social reality higher than individuals (Van Duijn, Van Busschbach and Snijders, 2009). Although individuals are constantly interwoven with other people during the flux of social life, networks are different from face-to face encounters, because they are constituted by a (more and less) stable set of participants. This means that networks follow a hierarchical structure, and thus, individuals are nested within enduring forms of relational opportunities and constraints at the meso-level (Emirbayer, 1997; Bourdieu, 1986) that potentially shape individual [[Vulnerability\|vulnerability]] .		What ‘in between’ means reflects differences across disciplines and approaches. Nevertheless, what social scientists who use this notion have most in common is their research of the processes where the interaction between micro and macro can be observed (Vacchiano & Spini, 2021). In this respect, Lazega and Snijders (2015) claim that network analysis has provided the most consistent attempt to address this issue. The reason is that by conceptualizing the emergence of interactions as different types of networks, scholars can streamline the opportunities and constraints arising from social relationships as a juncture within the micro-macro gap. The reason is that one of the main assumptions of network theory is that social relationships can be studied as social contexts: ego, personal networks can be seen as aggregate units of analysis located at a level of social reality higher than individuals (Van Duijn, Van Busschbach and Snijders, 2009). Although individuals are constantly interwoven with other people during the flux of social life, networks are different from face-to face encounters, because they are constituted by a (more and less) stable set of participants. This means that networks follow a hierarchical structure, and thus, individuals are nested within enduring forms of relational opportunities and constraints at the meso-level (Emirbayer, 1997; Bourdieu, 1986) that potentially shape individual [[Vulnerability\|vulnerability]] .
	<br>		<br>
	<br>		<br>

Livesadmin: /* Definition and use across disciplines */

2021-04-22T07:37:39Z

Definition and use across disciplines

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:37, 22 April 2021
Line 3:		Line 3:
	<br>		<br>
	==Definition and use across disciplines==		==Definition and use across disciplines==
	~~What ‘in between’~~ means ~~thus reflects differences across disciplines and approaches~~. ~~Nevertheless, what social scientists who use this notion have most in~~ common ~~is their research~~ of the ~~processes where~~ the ~~interaction~~ between ~~micro~~ and ~~macro can be observed~~ (~~Vacchiano & Spini~~, ~~2020~~). ~~In this respect, Lazega and Snijders~~ (2015) ~~claim that network analysis has provided~~ the ~~most consistent attempt to address this issue. The reason is that by conceptualizing~~ the ~~emergence of~~ social ~~interactions as different types~~ of ~~networks, scholars can streamline~~ the ~~opportunities and constraints arising from social relationships as a juncture within the micro-macro gap~~. ~~The reason is that one~~ of ~~the main assumptions~~ of ~~network theory is that social relationships~~ can be ~~studied as social contexts: that is~~, ~~personal networks can be seen as aggregate units of analysis located at a level~~ of ~~social reality higher than individuals~~ (~~Van Duijn~~, ~~Van Busschbach~~ & ~~Snijders~~, ~~2009~~). ~~Although individuals are constantly interwoven with other people during the flux of social life~~, ~~networks are different from face-to face encounters~~, ~~because they are constituted by a~~ (~~more and less~~) ~~stable set~~ of ~~participants~~. ~~This means that networks follow a hierarchical structure~~, ~~and thus~~, individuals ~~are nested within enduring forms of~~ social ~~relationships that provide structural opportunities and constraints~~ (~~Emirbayer~~, ~~1997~~; ~~Bourdieu~~, ~~1986~~).		Literally, meso means “in between”. The focus on intermediate levels of analysis responds to the common urgency among researchers to get a parsimonious abstraction of the functioning of social life. Among sociologists, Turner (2012) describes the notion of meso level as a place for interactions between collective agents, such as groups and organizations. In social psychology, Bronfenbrenner (1979, p. 25) considers meso-systems as: « (…) interrelations among two or more settings in which the developing person actively participates », what brings Jaspal et al. (2015, p. 265) to locate the meso level: « (…) on the various social group memberships of the individual ». Examples of economists' use of meso-unit of analysis can be found into studies on the flow of knowledge among firms (Giuliani & Bell, 2005), the evolution of economic systems (Dopfer, Foster & Poots, 2004) and poverty indicators at community level (Kristjanson et al., 2005). Among anthropologists, de Munck (1994) use the notion of meso-level to look at specific behavioral models. In addition, other scholars address this notion by spatially locating the meso-level into neighborhoods, schools or classrooms as intermediate dimensions between individuals and larger social contexts (McCarthy, 2011; Reid, Sutton & Hunter, 2010).
	<br>		<br>
	<br>		<br>

	==Network perspectives==		==Network perspectives==
	What ‘in between’ means reflects differences across disciplines and approaches. Nevertheless, what social scientists who use this notion have most in common is their emphasis on considering contexts that are more proximate than macro-social ones, thus addressing individuals’ opportunities and constraints more concretely. In this respect, Lazega and Snijders (2015) claim that network analysis has provided the most consistent attempt to address this issue. The reason is that by conceptualizing the emergence of interactions as different types of networks, scholars can streamline the opportunities and constraints arising from social relationships as a juncture within the micro-macro gap. The reason is that one of the main assumptions of network theory is that social relationships can be studied as social contexts: ego, personal networks can be seen as aggregate units of analysis located at a level of social reality higher than individuals (Van Duijn, Van Busschbach and Snijders, 2009). Although individuals are constantly interwoven with other people during the flux of social life, networks are different from face-to face encounters, because they are constituted by a (more and less) stable set of participants. This means that networks follow a hierarchical structure, and thus, individuals are nested within enduring forms of relational opportunities and constraints at the meso-level (Emirbayer, 1997; Bourdieu, 1986) that potentially shape individual [[Vulnerability\|vulnerability]] .		What ‘in between’ means reflects differences across disciplines and approaches. Nevertheless, what social scientists who use this notion have most in common is their emphasis on considering contexts that are more proximate than macro-social ones, thus addressing individuals’ opportunities and constraints more concretely. In this respect, Lazega and Snijders (2015) claim that network analysis has provided the most consistent attempt to address this issue. The reason is that by conceptualizing the emergence of interactions as different types of networks, scholars can streamline the opportunities and constraints arising from social relationships as a juncture within the micro-macro gap. The reason is that one of the main assumptions of network theory is that social relationships can be studied as social contexts: ego, personal networks can be seen as aggregate units of analysis located at a level of social reality higher than individuals (Van Duijn, Van Busschbach and Snijders, 2009). Although individuals are constantly interwoven with other people during the flux of social life, networks are different from face-to face encounters, because they are constituted by a (more and less) stable set of participants. This means that networks follow a hierarchical structure, and thus, individuals are nested within enduring forms of relational opportunities and constraints at the meso-level (Emirbayer, 1997; Bourdieu, 1986) that potentially shape individual [[Vulnerability\|vulnerability]] .

Livesadmin: /* Semantic network visualisation */

2021-03-09T14:38:50Z

Semantic network visualisation

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:38, 9 March 2021
Line 31:		Line 31:
	==Semantic network visualisation==		==Semantic network visualisation==
	Click to activate zoom- and drag-fonctionnality		Click to activate zoom- and drag-fonctionnality
			''(scroll to zoom, drag nodes to move, click and hold nodes to open next level)''
	{{#network:		{{#network:
	\| class = col-lg-3 mt-0		\| class = col-lg-3 mt-0
	\| exclude = Main Page ; Sitemap ; Worksheet		\| exclude = Main Page ; Sitemap ; Worksheet
	}}		}}

Livesadmin: /* semantic network visualisation */

2021-03-09T14:31:59Z

semantic network visualisation

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:31, 9 March 2021
Line 29:		Line 29:
	Van Duijn, M., Van Busschbach, J. & Snijders, T. (1999). Multilevel Analysis of Personal Networks as Dependent Variables. ''Social Networks'', 21(2), 187-210.<br>		Van Duijn, M., Van Busschbach, J. & Snijders, T. (1999). Multilevel Analysis of Personal Networks as Dependent Variables. ''Social Networks'', 21(2), 187-210.<br>

	==~~semantic~~ network visualisation==		==Semantic network visualisation==
	Click to activate zoom- and drag-fonctionnality		Click to activate zoom- and drag-fonctionnality
	{{#network:		{{#network:

Livesadmin at 14:21, 9 March 2021

2021-03-09T14:21:13Z

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 The macro-micro divide has been on the foreground of the social science debate since its inception. While the macro-level identifies societal structures characterizing institutional and normative settings, the micro-level captures behavioral, cognitive, and emotional processes at the individual level. In this sense, the macro-level is synonymous of «global», «system» or «structure», opposed to the microscopic insight on the «actors», their «behaviors» or «agency» (Alexander, 1987). Emerging from this debate, more recently social scientists have proposed to differentiate between three interdependent micro-, meso- and macro-levels to improve understanding of an increasingly complex social world (Levy, 2012). In this framework, the term “meso” has been used to define intermediate units of analysis among economists, anthropologists, sociologists, criminologists or social psychologists. Although many epistemic differences emerge from this literature, network analysts seem to provide a consistent attempt to operationalize this notion for an interdisciplinary audience (Lazega & Snijders, 2015).
 <br>
@@ Line 32: / Line 28: @@
 Vacchiano, M. & Spini, D. (2020). Networked Lives. ''LIVES Working Papers''. In press. <br>
 Van Duijn, M., Van Busschbach, J. & Snijders, T. (1999). Multilevel Analysis of Personal Networks as Dependent Variables. ''Social Networks'', 21(2), 187-210.<br>

Livesadmin at 13:23, 4 March 2021

2021-03-04T13:23:33Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:23, 4 March 2021
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{#network:
			\| class = col-lg-3 mt-0
			\| exclude = Main Page ; Sitemap ; Worksheet
			}}
	The macro-micro divide has been on the foreground of the social science debate since its inception. While the macro-level identifies societal structures characterizing institutional and normative settings, the micro-level captures behavioral, cognitive, and emotional processes at the individual level. In this sense, the macro-level is synonymous of «global», «system» or «structure», opposed to the microscopic insight on the «actors», their «behaviors» or «agency» (Alexander, 1987). Emerging from this debate, more recently social scientists have proposed to differentiate between three interdependent micro-, meso- and macro-levels to improve understanding of an increasingly complex social world (Levy, 2012). In this framework, the term “meso” has been used to define intermediate units of analysis among economists, anthropologists, sociologists, criminologists or social psychologists. Although many epistemic differences emerge from this literature, network analysts seem to provide a consistent attempt to operationalize this notion for an interdisciplinary audience (Lazega & Snijders, 2015).		The macro-micro divide has been on the foreground of the social science debate since its inception. While the macro-level identifies societal structures characterizing institutional and normative settings, the micro-level captures behavioral, cognitive, and emotional processes at the individual level. In this sense, the macro-level is synonymous of «global», «system» or «structure», opposed to the microscopic insight on the «actors», their «behaviors» or «agency» (Alexander, 1987). Emerging from this debate, more recently social scientists have proposed to differentiate between three interdependent micro-, meso- and macro-levels to improve understanding of an increasingly complex social world (Levy, 2012). In this framework, the term “meso” has been used to define intermediate units of analysis among economists, anthropologists, sociologists, criminologists or social psychologists. Although many epistemic differences emerge from this literature, network analysts seem to provide a consistent attempt to operationalize this notion for an interdisciplinary audience (Lazega & Snijders, 2015).
	<br>		<br>

Livesadmin at 10:24, 18 February 2021

2021-02-18T10:24:24Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:24, 18 February 2021
Line 10:		Line 10:
	<br>		<br>
	<br>		<br>
			Authors: Mattia Vacchiano, Dario Spini

	==References==		==References==

Widmere: /* Network perspectives */

2020-10-08T20:40:21Z

Network perspectives

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:40, 8 October 2020
Line 7:		Line 7:
	<br>		<br>
	==Network perspectives==		==Network perspectives==
	What ‘in between’ means reflects differences across disciplines and approaches. Nevertheless, what social scientists who use this notion have most in common is their emphasis on considering contexts that are more proximate than macro-social ones, thus addressing individuals’ opportunities and constraints more concretely. In this respect, Lazega and Snijders (2015) claim that network analysis has provided the most consistent attempt to address this issue. The reason is that by conceptualizing the emergence of interactions as different types of networks, scholars can streamline the opportunities and constraints arising from social relationships as a juncture within the micro-macro gap. The reason is that one of the main assumptions of network theory is that social relationships can be studied as social contexts: ego, personal networks can be seen as aggregate units of analysis located at a level of social reality higher than individuals (Van Duijn, Van Busschbach and Snijders, 2009). Although individuals are constantly interwoven with other people during the flux of social life, networks are different from face-to face encounters, because they are constituted by a (more and less) stable set of participants. This means that networks follow a hierarchical structure, and thus, individuals are nested within enduring forms of ~~social relationships that provide~~ the meso-level ~~opportunities and constraints~~ (Emirbayer, 1997; Bourdieu, 1986) that shape individual vulnerability.		What ‘in between’ means reflects differences across disciplines and approaches. Nevertheless, what social scientists who use this notion have most in common is their emphasis on considering contexts that are more proximate than macro-social ones, thus addressing individuals’ opportunities and constraints more concretely. In this respect, Lazega and Snijders (2015) claim that network analysis has provided the most consistent attempt to address this issue. The reason is that by conceptualizing the emergence of interactions as different types of networks, scholars can streamline the opportunities and constraints arising from social relationships as a juncture within the micro-macro gap. The reason is that one of the main assumptions of network theory is that social relationships can be studied as social contexts: ego, personal networks can be seen as aggregate units of analysis located at a level of social reality higher than individuals (Van Duijn, Van Busschbach and Snijders, 2009). Although individuals are constantly interwoven with other people during the flux of social life, networks are different from face-to face encounters, because they are constituted by a (more and less) stable set of participants. This means that networks follow a hierarchical structure, and thus, individuals are nested within enduring forms of relational opportunities and constraints at the meso-level (Emirbayer, 1997; Bourdieu, 1986) that potentially shape individual [[Vulnerability\|vulnerability]] .
	<br>		<br>
	<br>		<br>