Arguments in support of hofstede
While the criticisms may be sound, Hofstede's research is one of the most widely used pieces of research among scholars and practitioners, it has many appealing attributes. Sondergaard found that Hofstede's 1980 study received 1,036 citations, while another highly regarded study on strategy by Miles and Snow received only 200 citations. Many researchers agree on the following points which reinforce the value of the study.
Relevance
During the time of its delivery there was very little work on culture, and at this time many businesses were just entering the international arena and were experiencing difficulties; they were crying out for credible advice. Hofstede's work met and exceeded this demand for guidance. Scholarly attention was also turning toward culture during this period, and Hofstede was considered a pioneer and pathfinder.
Rigour
The research framework used by Hofstede was based on rigorous design with systematic data collection and coherent theory. This is just what scholars and the marketplace had been asking for. However, many critics claim the sampling was flawed, being sparse and unevenly distributed.
Relative Accuracy
In Sondergaard's bibliographical analysis he compared the replications (research similar to Hofstede's IBM study, originated to compare his findings) of Hofstede's research. 61 replications were analysed. The majority of the replications confirmed Hofstede's predictions. Four of the replications concurred in their entirety, and 15 showed partial confirmation. The only dimension of Hofstede's that could not be validly confirmed was 'Individualism', however, Hofstede addressed this issue by predicting that cultures will shift over time.
Several studies were developed not as replications, but along similar lines, to test the relevancy of Hofstede's questions. These have also confirmed the accuracy of Hofstede's four dimensions.