The Stampede Toward Hofstede's Framework: Avoiding the Sample Design Pit in Cross-Cultural Research

Cultural background, human capital and self-employment rates among immigrants in Norway

“…However, Hofstede's variables have been frequently used in different disciplines (Sivakumar and Nakata 2001) and empirically verified by other researchers (Sondergaard 1994). These dimensions have been previously used in the studies on entrepreneurship and innovation (see Hayton et al 2002 for a review) in nonimmigrant samples.…”

A quarter century of Culture's Consequences: a review of empirical research incorporating Hofstede's cultural values framework

“…1 To fill this gap, we summarize and synthesize empirical research published between January 1980 and June 2002 that has applied Hofstede's framework to organizations. We focus on Hofstede's framework rather than others, given evidence that it has had far greater impact (Sivakumar and Nakata, 2001). For example, the Social Science Citations Index indicates that Hofstede's work is more widely cited than others (cited 1,800 times through 1999; Hofstede, 2001).…”

“…Long-term orientation refers to future-oriented values such as persistence and thrift, whereas short-term orientation refers to past-and present-oriented values such as respect for tradition and fulfilling social obligations. Hofstede's (1980a) work has been criticized for: reducing culture to an overly simplistic four or five dimension conceptualization; limiting the sample to a single multinational corporation; failing to capture the malleability of culture over time; and ignoring within-country cultural heterogeneity (Sivakumar and Nakata, 2001). In spite of criticism, researchers have favored this five-dimension framework because of its clarity, parsimony, and resonance with managers.…”

“…In spite of Hofstede's (1980aHofstede's ( , 2001) argument against using his dimensions for purposes other than country level studies, we found that a majority of researchers had adapted them for use at the individual or group/organization levels. All of these levels are valid, depending on the research question and on whether there is more commonality within, than between groups (Sivakumar and Nakata, 2001). Thus, we argue that excluding these studies would create an incomplete picture of Hofstede's impact.…”

Data equivalence in cross-cultural international business research: assessment and guidelines

“…Further, cross-cultural IB researchers, while attempting to establish sampling frame comparability, also work to maximize non-sample-frame differences to investigate the specific phenomena of interest (e.g., Cavusgil & Das, 1997;Peterson, 2001). Sivakumar & Nakata (2001) offer an empirical technique to strengthen cross-cultural sample designs ''by maximizing differences (between countries) on focal variable(s), while minimizing and/ or controlling differences on non-focal variables'' (p. 565).…”