Why was Hofstede’s work criticized? What are some of the strengths from Hofstede’s work?

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

key points from the text include: criticized for its less than rigorous theoretical framework and less than perfect research methods; Hofstede’s work has been criticized on several levels, including its limited conceptualization of culture, its less than rigorous methodology, and its inherent Western cultural bias; The work was criticized because it seemed to identify culture with nations and because it has operated under the assumption that within each nation there was a uniform and relatively static culture. This notion of a unified national culture is particularly problematic in light of the increased diversity within nations. One glaring example from Hofstede’s (1980) initial study was the use of an all-White sample (because of the apartheid regime of the time) to represent the totality of the South African national culture. Another stream of criticism related to the validity and reliability of the study’s measures as well as the limited research methodology; Hofstede’s (2001) claim that the sample sizes were sufficient because of the homogeneity of values within national samples is highly questionable because the basic premise of homogeneous national cultures cannot be substantiated (McSweeney, 2002). Finally, an interesting analysis by Ailon (2008) uses a mirroring technique to deconstruct Hofstede’s book Culture’s Consequences (1980) using the book’s own assumptions and logic. The author demonstrates that, despite his explicit efforts to remain “culturally neutral,” the book’s specific Western cultural lens is evident throughout the chapters. For example, with respect to the uncertainty avoidance dimension, Ailon (2008) notes, “Hofstede strongly disagrees with the claim that company rules should not be broken, thus expressing low uncertainty avoidance value” (p. 423), yet the book itself manifests what appears to be a very high intolerance for the unpredictable, ambiguous, or uncertain; A central concern among all of Hofstede’s critics is the author’s central premise that national cultures are uniform and therefore could be represented by relatively small samples (1980, p. 65) and could be measured, quantified, compared, and graphed quite precisely on the continuum of each of the five dimensions.