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

By K. Sivakumar, C. Nakata. 2001

558 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/8ea3d3ccfd15a4dcad31df28ee766cbb72e8957d

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Strategy and Management

Citations in the corpus

A quarter century of Culture's Consequences: a review of empirical research incorporating Hofstede's cultural values framework (2006, background): “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).”
Empowerment effects across cultures (2007, background): “This is further substantiated by Sivakumar & Nakata (2001) who report that since the release of Hofstede’s (1980) work it has been cited 1,101 times between 1987 to 1997 and has been applied across a number of areas and disciplines.”
An investigation of the cross-national determinants of customer satisfaction (2011, background): “Hofstede defines culture as “the collective programming of the mind which distinguishes the members of one group or category of people from those of another” (1994, p. 4). Furthermore, despite heterogeneity among individuals, Sivakumar and Nakata (2001, p. 559) observe that “within any nation-stat”
Risk aversion vs. individualism: what drives risk taking in household finance? (2014, unknown): “Hofstede’s work (Sivakumar and Nakata 2001), academic research has relied extensively on his framework to analyze the impact of culture (Kirkman, Lowe, and Gibson 2006).”
CULTURE, CORPORATE GOVERNANCE, AND DIVIDEND POLICY: INTERNATIONAL EVIDENCE (2012, background): “…include (1) reducing culture to an overly simplistic five dimension conceptualization; (2) limiting sample to a single multinational corporation; (3) failing to capture the malleability of culture over time; and (4) ignoring within-country cultural heterogeneity (Sivakumar and Nakata, 2001).”
Cultural distance and psychic distance: refinements in conceptualisation and measurement (2008, background): “The question is, therefore: can culture be validly conceptualised at the national level? The literature indicates that culture can be validly conceptualised at the national level because of the existence of some meaningful degree of within-country commonality and between-country differences in cultu”
Package Design as a Communications Vehicle in Cross-Cultural Values Shopping (2009, methodology): “The method for testing our hypotheses draws from international marketing research (Dawar and Parker 1994; De Mooij 2004; Sivakumar and Nakata 2001; Steenkamp and Baumgartner 1998), research on values (Batra, Homer, and Kahle 2001; Kropp et al.”
Combining Multicultural Management and Diversity Into One Course on Cultural Competence (2008, background): “…research has long been criticized for oversimplifying complex cultures, generalizing from a limited number of firms, assuming that culture and social structures are static, and ignoring withincountry heterogeneity (McSweeney, 2002; Sivakumar & Nakata, 2001; Kirkman et al., 2006: 286; Tung, 2008).”
The Concept of Distance in International Business Research: A Review and Research Agenda (2016, unknown): “The four cultural attributes proposed by Hofstede (1980) are used predominantly in the literature (Sivakumar and Nakata 2001; Tung and Verbeke 2010), although different conceptualizations of culture are available (e.g. House et al. 2004; Schwartz 1994) and some, such as the GLOBE project provide a…”
What type of relationship do we have with loved brands (2014, methodology): “From a theoretical viewpoint, using the U.S. and a Japanese sample is appropriate according to the method Sivakumar and Nakata (2001) suggest for suitable country combinations to strengthen the hypothesis testing.”
Methodological issues in cross-cultural sensory and consumer research (2018, background): “However, country is frequently considered as proxy for culture, based on conceptual and empirical studies that have demonstrated the existence of within-country commonalities and between-country differences in cultural values and social norms (Sivakumar & Nakata, 2001).”
Exploring the impact of cultural values on project performance: The effects of cultural values, age and gender on the perceived importance of project success/failure factors (2014, result): “There is evidence in some studies, including Hofstede (1980), of cultural heterogeneity within nations (Sivakumar and Nakata, 2001, Lenartowicz and Roth, 1999), some even suggest within-country differences (on some dimensions) could be larger than between-country (Au, 1999).”