Level of analysis is used in the social sciences to point to the location, size, or scale of a research target. It is distinct from unit of observation in that the former refers to a more or less integrated set of relationships while the latter refers to the distinct unit from which data have been or will be gathered. Together, the unit of observation and the level of analysis help define the population of a research enterprise.
Level of analysis vs unit of analysis Level of analysis is closely related to the term unit of analysis, and some scholars have used them interchangeably, while others argue for a need for distinction. Ahmet Nuri Yurdusev wrote that "the level of analysis is more of an issue related to the framework/context of analysis and the level at which one conducts one's analysis, whereas the question of the unit of analysis is a matter of the 'actor' or the 'entity' to be studied". Manasseh Wepundi noted the difference between "the unit of analysis, that is the phenomenon about which generalizations are to be made, that which each 'case' in the data file represents and the level of analysis, that is, the manner in which the units of analysis can be arrayed on a continuum from the very small (micro) to very large (macro) levels."
Analytical levels in social science Although levels of analysis are not necessarily mutually exclusive, there are three general levels into which social science research may fall: micro level, meso level or middle range, and macro level.
Micro level The smallest unit of analysis in the social sciences is an individual in their social setting. At the micro level, also referred to as the local level, the research population typically is an individual in their social setting or a small group of individuals in a particular social context. Examples of micro levels of analysis include, but are not limited to, the following individual analysis type approach:
Alien, stateless person, asylum seeker, refugee Person Citizen Partnership, marriage Families Household Neighborhood
Meso level In general, a meso-level analysis indicates a population size that falls between the micro and macro levels, such as a community or an organization. However, meso level may also refer to analyses that are specifically designed to reveal connections between micro and macro levels. It is sometimes referred to as mid range, especially in sociology. Examples of meso-level units of analysis include the following:
Clan Tribe Community Village, town, city Formal organization State
Macro level Macro-level analyses generally trace the outcomes of interactions, such as economic or other resource transfer interactions over a large population. It is also referred to as the global level. Examples of macro-level units of analysis include, but are not limited to, the following:
Nation Society Civilization International Global
Level of analysis in cognitive science
Marr's tri-level hypothesis
According to David Marr, information processing systems must be understood at three distinct yet complementary levels of analysis – an analysis at one level alone is not sufficient.
Computational The computational level of analysis identifies what the information processing system does (e.g.: what problems does it solve or overcome) and similarly, why does it do these things.
Algorithmic/representational The algorithmic/representational level of analysis identifies how the information processing system performs its computations, specifically, what representations are used and what processes are employed to build and manipulate the representations.
Physical/implementation The physical level of analysis identifies how the information processing system is physically realized (in the case of biological vision, what neural structures and neuronal activities implement the visual system).
Poggio's learning level After thirty years of the book Vision (David Marr. 1982. W. H. Freeman and Company), Tomaso Poggio added one higher level beyond the computational level, that is the learning.
I am not sure that Marr would agree, but I am tempted to add learning as the very top level of understanding, above the computational level. [...] Only then may we be able to build intelligent machines that could learn to see—and think—without the need to be programmed to do it.
Level of analysis in international relations In international relations, level of analysis is generally divided into three categories – individual, state, and international system. However, newer discussions of globalization have led to a newer level of analysis to be considered. The framework of analysis originated from K. Waltz's 1959 book entitled Man, the State, and War. An examination is J. Singer's "The Level-of-Analysis Problem in International Relations" (1961). While the framework is widely discussed, not many scholarly articles use it. Two writings may shed light on its advantages and disadvantages: M. Brawley's 2005 case studies of international economic relations and S. Hu's 2015 analysis of small states' diplomatic recognition of Taiwan. The three (or four) levels of analysis cannot describe every effect and there is unlimited number of levels between the three primary ones, levels of analysis will help understand how one force in political power affects another. Generally, power is the concept that collects all the analysis together. For example, the struggle for power may be the cause of war, but the struggle for power may originate in the individual human being's lust for power. The lust for power is individual level of analysis, while the struggle for power is systemic level of analysis.
Individual level The individual level of analysis locates the cause of events in individual leaders or the immediate circle of decision makers within a particular country. It focuses on human actors on the world stage identifying the characteristics of human decision making. For example, the cause of World War I is from the particular leaders in power at that time. Kaiser Wilhelm II is considered to be the level from which the cause originated. It may have been his need for power to hide a sense of inferiority, or it may have been his inability to understand the intricacies of statecraft, the way Otto von Bismarck did. Or it may have been his idea about the monarchy and German destiny. All three possibilities are drawn from an individual level of analysis.
… excerpt ends here. Continue reading the full article.
