While I think I understand the meaning of micro-social environment and marco-social environment, I am trying to work out concise and meaningful definitions of the two concepts.
I don't think I have a clear definition that is universally applicable, nor do I think such definition could exist. It is easy to consider settings with more than two aggregation levels, which shows the need to define micro- and macro- specifically for the problem at hand. For instance, one could easily think of students who have social networks (micro-social) in different classes (meso) in schools (macro). But if this study would be performed cross-nationally, the macro-social environment would be some characteristic of the country. So, what can be defined at micro- or macro- depends on the number of aggregation levels considered.
The famous Australian demographer Jack Caldwell was very interested in the microscocial environment (ie personal and family levels) and postulated that the epidemiological rransition was driven partly from there (modern attitude, scientific thinking, non-acceptance of death, maternal autonomy, use of western hlth serviees). His writings, and many other interesting articles, are stored in the Health Transition Review .... available freely at http://htc.anu.edu.au/html/htrV1new.html
Agree with Rense. It depends on the aggregation level. At the national level - You can either think of individual or household characteristics as micro-influences; and regional, state and country level indicators as macro influences (like- time trend in employment, inflation rate, food prices, GDP; if it's a cross-sectional study -regional differences in the above variables, so state level differences in employment or health expenditure. )
Across countries - as Rense mentions above.
Micro and macro are relative notions. A micro level is only micro relatively to a more macro level, and a macro level is only macro relatively to a more micro level. In sociology, there is little consensus about what are more macro levels, but almost everybody agrees that there is an ultimate micro level relating to individuals. Another even more important problem, or rather disagreement, about levels is an ontological one : some sociologists consider that levels are levels of things, or systems, whereas others, like Rense and Nisha above (don't know about Adrian), see levels as referring to properties ("characteristics") of things or systems.
Thank you all for the very insightful comments and they are very helpful
Great discussion! In human development and family studies, Uri Bronfenbrenner is the theorist credited with the ecological model which includes the micro-, the meso-, the exo- and finally the chronosystems; he depicts this model with a series of concentric rings. The family is usually considered the micro system, as indicated in the previous posts, and is situated in the centermost ring. The family is nested in the exosystem of community including church, schools, work settings, etc. This is surrounded by the mesosystem which is surrounded by the macro system. All of the layers interact, e.g., parents' work environment impacts the family and the individuals who comprise it. The macrosystem may be an environment of peace and prosperity or of war, terror, and sparse resources, which will reverberate across the layers of the system. Finally, Bronfenbrenner added the chronosystem to recognize that the historical times also impact the entire system.
Based on relationship of attributes Micro and macro are the domains you may categrorise but depends on the Association or ecological perspective, one to one relationship refers micro level and those of one to many or many to one/many may be Macro.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Social Science
- Sociology