Hofstede’s cultural dimension theory tries to describe some effects of cultures in the society on values of the members, as well as how the stated values are related to the behavior of its members by using structures that have been derived from the factor analysis. The main purpose of the Hofstede’s theories on the cultural dimensions is that, the theory helps researchers in collection of data for a particular study and it has also been widely used in various fields for the researches, more so in the cross-cultural psychology and cross-cultural communication.
The original model of Hofstede’s was developed as a result of using a factor analysis for examining the world-wide survey results of the employees, making the theory to be one of the first theory to be quantified, and could be sometimes used for explaining the observed differences flanked by cultures. In his work, Hofstede has managed to establish research traditions in the psychology in cross-cultural along with being drawn upon by different researchers in various fields related to the international business and communication. This has continued to be the major resources in the cross cultural fields. His work has also inspired other cross-cultural studies of different values and researches on the aspects of social beliefs entailing culture.
The method used by Hofstede for data collection included two different types of multivariate statistical analysis. These included the discriminant data analysis for the Ng et al.‘s and the factor analysis for the Hofstede data. However there were some problem issues that came up from the factor analysis. For instance, take a case where someone uses data analysis for the Ng et al.‘s, in this case, a full matrix of 10 cultural groups and value items can be still performed using a factor analysis by getting the mean scores of all the value items for each cultural group. However one problematic issue of using a factor analysis is that, there is a great concern to the number of the factors that is to be extracted.
The analysis and findings of this research has been derived from the primary research such as collecting data from Ng et al.‘s and Hofstede . The analyzed data findings are then compared to the findings sampled from the literature review so as to help the researchers to understand the differences as well as the similarities brought about Hofstede’s study in his work. In summary, Hofstede’s work, the cultural dimension is about some of the effects of the cultures in different societies and how the culture itself relates to ones behavior using structures derived from factor analysis.
Relevance of the paper
There are many cross cultural studies that are being done by many researchers. The paper is relevant since it is important to validate a particular study against another .the validation that is presented in the paper is therefore very important for cross cultural researchers. The paper is relevant since it takes into account the comparison between two cross cultural research studies that have been done by different researchers. Significant correlations exist even in results that had been obtained using different methods of analysis hence an indication that there is a relationship between the results (Hofstede & Bond 1984). The paper clearly shows the cultural dimensions that exist evidenced by the existing correlation between the results obtained by the different researchers. It is important for one to be aware of the cultural differences; this is because culture can be a potential conflict source rather than synergy. The paper is therefore relevant since it gives an insight on how to apply the theory that has been put forward. The practical applications include the understanding of international business. This is in aspects such as international communication, international negotiation and management.
Theoretical framework
The theoretical framework of the paper is Hofstede’s cultural dimensions. The cultural dimensions that were to be used as variables include power distance, uncertainty, individualism versus collectivism and masculinity versus femininity. This dimensions were thus to form the theoretical framework to be used in the research. The findings would them be compared to those of Hofstede and a correlation determined.
Methodological choice
The methodology chosen was debatable since putting into use an instrument that had been designed and tested for use within a country into another country and further comparing the results is an issue that can be debated upon. A comparison between the two methods of analysis used by Ng et al and Hofstede showed that the one used by Ng et al was problematic however the results that were got still showed correlation between the findings from the two different methods used (Hofstede & Bond 1984).
Data against findings
When a comparison is made between Ng et al finding and that of Hofstede there can be an association that is established which an example of synergy that exists between cross-cultural studies. The synergy content however is limited due to the fact that the researchers used different research instruments. In spite of the existing limitations of the methods used there are still four dimensions that are significantly correlated. This significant correlation between the dimensions is added knowledge by the paper. The information is presented in an organized way with headings and tables clearly indicated and hence easy understanding.
Reference
Hofstede G and Bond M. (1984). Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology: An Independent Validation Using Rokeach’s Value Survey Hofstede’s Culture Dimensions.
