A Critique of “The Hofstede Model and National Cultures of Learning: A Comparison of Undergraduate Survey Data”

Using an online survey to university students (n=625) in the following countries: USA  (n=181), South Africa (n=l03), China (n=64), Turkey, (n=60), Russia, (n=59), Finland (n=58), Vietnam (n=52), and France (n=48), Whalden (2016) in his The Hofstede Model and National Cultures of Learning: A Comparison of Undergraduate Survey Data tests if the findings of Hofstede (2001) can be generalized to student and teacher behavior in the classroom. Afterward, the study has shown that generalizing Hofstede's (2001) findings in the classroom could result to a misuse of his work. It also indicates that Hofstede's speculation about how his dimensions affect cultures of learning requires further study, as these preliminary findings draw its reliability into question. 

Furthermore, the broad implications of his study are that: (1) Hofstede's (2001) published scores may not be useful for predicting values and behavioral norms in modern, English-medium university classrooms; (2) Hofstede's dimensions may not be replicable with modern, English-speaking university students; and (3) There may be a superior model for systematizing and predicting the way that national culture influences cultures of learning around the world.

Whalden’s (2016) study has a small number of participant countries (n=8) with university students as the participants (n=625) to represent nationalities. Hence, the small number of participant countries to correlate with may possibly lead to unsound results; bearing this in mind, this can undermine the reliability of the research. Additionally, previous researchers have expressed their criticism regarding the use of students as sample. Han and de Vijver (2012) state that many cross-cultural studies use college students, implicitly assuming that they constitute matching samples, however, this assumption may be invalid. Students vary as often as the general population, both within nations and throughout the country. Generalizing from students to the public can be troublesome when personally and attitudinally differentiated (Hanel & Vione, 2016).

Further, Whalden (2016) adapted some items from Hofstede’s Values Survey Manual (2013) as part of his survey. However, as indicated by Hofstede et al. (2008), the instrument is not valid enough and cannot be multidimensional, as the instrument is constructed specifically for national use. Therefore, it is strongly suggested that when trying to correlate Hofstede’s (2001) study to a research, one should first take into consideration the general public rather than the student populace only. Also, regarding the number of participants involved, it should be at least comprised of a hundred or more per country, and must be conducted in at least twenty countries.

References

Hanel, P., & Vione, K. (2016). Do student samples provide an accurate estimate of the general public? Plos One. 11(12). Available at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/ PMC5176168/

He, J., & van de Vijver, F. (2012). Bias and equivalence in cross-cultural research. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2, 1-19. Available at https://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/ cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1111&context=orpc

Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Available at https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/cultures-consequences/book9710

Hofstede, G. (2013). Values survey manual 2013. Available at http://www.geerthofstede.nl/vsm2013

Whalen, J. (2016). The Hofstede model and national cultures of learning: a comparison of undergraduate survey. Fort Collins, Colorado: Colorado State University. Available at https://pqdtopen.proquest.com/doc/1815557054.html?FMT=ABS