Level of analysis

Level of analysis is closely related to the term unit of analysis, and some scholars have used them interchangingly, 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". == 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. == 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. Domestic/state level The domestic level of analysis locates causes in the character of the domestic system of specific states. Thus, war is caused by aggressive or warlike states, not by evil, inept, or misguided people or the structure of power in the international system. The failure of domestic institutions may also cause war. Global level Global level factors are much like Systemic level factors, however the core difference is that global factors are not necessarily created by states, whereas systemic factors are. Global factors can be the outcome of individuals, interest groups, states, nonstate actors or even natural conditions – however they cannot be traced to the actions of any one state or even group of states. An example can be how the internet can shape how policy is formed, through social media or forums – where an idea is formed over time by a group of individuals, but the source is generally hard to determine. An environmental natural example is how global warming can help shape how society views certain policies, or help shape new policies themselves. Droughts caused by rising temperatures can cause global actors to form alliances to help procure critical resources – and as writers such as Peter Gleik and Michael Klare have shown, the possibility of "Water Wars" in dry countries in Africa and the Middle East are very possible. == See also ==