Meso level

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 meso level: 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).

The meso level: a network perspective

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 opportunities and constraints at the meso-level (Emirbayer, 1997; Bourdieu, 1986).

References

Alexander, J. (1987). The Micro-Macro Link. Berkeley. California: University of California Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The Forms of Capital. InJ. G. Richardson (eds), Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education, New York: Greenwood.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). Recent advances in research on the ecology of human development. In Development as action in context (pp. 287-309). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
De Munck, V. (1994). A Micro-, Meso-, and Macro-level Descriptive Analysis of Disputes within a Social Network. A Study of Household Relations in a Sri Lankan Community. Anthropos, 89, 85-94.
Dopfer, K., Foster, J. & Poots, J. (2004) Micro–Meso–Macro. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 14, 263–279.
Emirbayer, M. (1997). Manifesto for a relational sociology. American Journal of Sociology, 103(2), 281–317.
Giuliani, E. & Bell, M. (2005). The micro-determinants of meso-level learning and innovation: evidence from a Chilean wine cluster. Research Policy, 34, 47-68
Jaspal, R., Carriere, K.R. & Moghaddam, F. M. (2015). Bridging Micro, Meso, and Macro Processes in Social Psychology. In J Valsiner et al. (eds.), Psychology as the Science of Human Being. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.
Kristjanson P., Radeny, M,, Baltenweck, I., Ogutu, J. & Notenbaert, A. (2005). Livelihood mapping and poverty correlates at a meso-level in Kenya. Food Policy, 30, 568– 583.
Lazega, E. &. Snijders, T. (2015). Multilevel Network Analysis for the Social Sciences: Theory, Methods and Applications. Oxford: Springer. Levy, R. (2002). Meso-social Structures and Stratification Analysis - a Missing Link?. Swiss Journal of Sociology, 28(2), 193-216.
McCarthy, T. (eds) (2011). Ethnography and language policy. London: Routledge.
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.
Vacchiano, M. & Spini, D. (2020). Networked Lives. LIVES Working paper. In press.
Van Duijn, M., Van Busschbach, J. & Snijders, T. (1999). Multilevel Analysis of Personal Networks as Dependent Variables. Social Networks, 21(2), 187-210.