Even complicated and confusing topics will be easily developed and covered if you request our help writing an essay. Place an order today!

BASE – Revista de Administração e Contabilidade da Unisinos10(4):340-354, outubro/dezembro 20132013 by Unisinos – doi: 10.4013/base.2013.104.04A BIBLIOMETRIC STUDY OF THE CULTURALMODELS IN INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS RESEARCHUM ESTUDO BIBLIOMÉTRICO DOS MODELOS CULTURAIS NA PESQUISA EM NEGÓCIOS INTERNACIONAISABSTRACTCulture and the influence of national cultures and cultural differences have been widelystudied in International Business (IB) research especially over the past three decades. To betterunderstand what culture actually means and its implications on firms’ international operations,several cultural models and taxonomies have been put forward. In this paper we review the maincultural models in the extant IB research – Hofstede’s (1980), Hall’s (1976) and Troompenaars’(1993) – and Kogut and Singh’s (1988) concept of cultural distance. In a bibliometric study ofover 3,600 articles published in seven top ranked journals for IB research, we examine citationsand co-citations to assess the relative use of the cultural models and the ties binding authorsand theories studied. This study offers a wealth of information on the current state of IB-relatedresearch using culture that may be used to better understand the intellectual structure of thesub-field of cultural issues in IB studies but also to identify gaps for future inquiry. The resultshelp setting a profile of the network of knowledge and permit us to conclude that Hofstede’s(1980) taxonomy on cultural characteristics is the most cited cultural taxonomy and holds tiesto many of the core streams of IB-related research. In fact, despite the well-known criticisms,there is an increasing use of Hofstede’s dimensions.Key words: Cultural models, Hofstede, Trompenaars, Hall, review, bibliometric study.RESUMOA cultura e a influência das culturas nacionais e das diferenças culturais têm sido amplamenteestudadas em Negócios Internacionais (NI), particularmente ao longo das últimas três décadas.Para compreender melhor o que cultura realmente significa e quais as implicações nas operaçõesinternacionais das empresas, vários modelos e taxonomias têm sido apresentados. Neste artigorevemos três principais modelos culturais na pesquisa em NI – Hofstede (1980), Hall (1976) eTroompenaars (1993) – e o conceito de distância cultural de Kogut e Singh (1988). Num estudobibliométrico de mais de 3.600 artigos publicados em sete periódicos altamente conceituadospara pesquisa em NI, examinamos citações e co-citações para aferir o uso relativo dos modelos culturais e os laços interligando autores e teorias. Este estudo oferece uma colectânea deinformações sobre o estado atual da pesquisa em NI que se debruça sobre cultura, que podemser usadas para melhor compreender a estrutura intelectual do tópico de assuntos culturaisem estudos de NI, mas também para identificar lacunas para futura investigação. Os resultadosajudam a traçar o perfil da rede de conhecimento e permite-nos concluir que a taxonomia dascaracterísticas culturais de Hofstede (1980) é a taxonomia cultural mais citada e está interliNUNO ROSA PORTUGAL ÃO CARVALHO RIBEIRO 10  Nº4  OUTUBRO/DEZEMBRO 2013NUNO ROSA REIS  MANUEL PORTUGAL FERREIRA  JOÃO CARVALHO SANTOS  FERNANDO RIBEIRO SERRAINTRODUCTIONCulture has long been capturing scholars’ attention.Over the last decades, management scholars have delved intocultural and cross-cultural issues especially in the internationalbusiness (IB) field. The impact of culture in the IB literatureis recurrently focused upon, namely in seeking to understandand explain the impact of national and regional culture, andcultural differences, in management decisions (e.g., Nes et al.,2007; Ralston et al., 2008) and, more widely, on a variety ofIB-related decisions such as the choice of location and foreignentry modes deployed. The manner in which firms respond tocultural differences may help explain why firms differ and whythere are performance differences across firms (Hawawini etal., 2003; Sirmon et al., 2007).Understanding the influence of culture on IB operations,but more broadly on business practices and managerial decisionmaking, requires explaining differences across cultures. Cultureinfluences managers’ ethical behaviors and may lead to intercultural business conflicts (French et al., 2001). Internationalnegotiations’ success depends on managers’ ability to adaptto cultural differences at the organizational and the nationallevel (Graham et al., 1994). Firms’ organizational structuresare also influenced by culture since it legitimizes both theorganization’s existence and the way it functions (Lachmanet al., 1994). Some cultural traits were found to have a strongeffect on organizational commitment since the sources oforganizational commitment are culturally conditioned (Geladeet al., 2008). Culture also influences marketing-related research(see Steenkamp, 2001), and, for example, cultural traits wereposited to influence the evaluation of advertising campaignsand trust in adverting brands (Chang, 2006). Culture furtherseems to influence the international strategic options whenoperating abroad (Guisinger, 2001) and has a strong impact onthe entry mode choice in foreign markets (Kogut and Singh,1988; Tihanyi et al., 2005). For example, firms seem to preferjoint ventures or acquisitions over greenfield investments whenentering culturally distant countries. Entrepreneurial activity isinfluenced by national culture and, for instance, the rate of innovation was noted to be higher in countries with higher levelsof uncertainty acceptance and individualism (Shane, 1993).In this paper we identified the main cultural models,or taxonomies, in the extant IB literature. We selected Hall’s(1976), Hofstede’s (1980) and Trompenaars’ (1993) models forfurther analysis because these are seminal works on culture,with a longer track record and are well known by IB scholars.Hall (1976) pioneered developing a taxonomy establishinghigh and low context cultures, which takes into accountthe importance of the context in decoding communicationand more broadly a set of aspects related to the interactionamong individuals. Hofstede’s (1980) pioneered in presenting aquantified taxonomy of cultural dimensions in a large sampleof countries and regions. Hofstede’s initial four cultural dimensions: individualism-collectivism, uncertainty avoidance, powerdistance and masculinity-femininity, were later extended toinclude a fifth dimension: the confucian dynamism (Hofstedeand Bond, 1988). Trompenaars (1993) offered an alternativecultural taxonomy to Hofstede’s, comprising seven culturaldimensions to characterize a culture and distinguish onecountry from another that now has a track record of almosttwo decades. Focusing on older models, with extensive trackrecords, we are able to better assess differences in the use andimpact of the models and circumvent biases that includingmore recent models could entail. We then use bibliometrictechniques to conduct citation and co-citation analyses of thearticles published in seven top ranked IB journals (followingDuBois and Reeb’s (2000) ranking): Journal of InternationalBusiness Studies (JIBS), Management International Review(MIR), Journal of World Business (JWB), International Marketing Review (IMR), International Business Review (IBR), Journalof International Marketing (JIM) and International Journal ofResearch in Marketing (IJRM). A sample of 3,639 publishedarticles supports citation and co-citation analyses.We focus on the cultural models to better understandthe intellectual structure of the extant IB research, by unveiling the linkages between the cultural models and the issuesresearched. Revealing the network of knowledge, or the intellectual structure, of culture-related research in IB studies, wecontribute to draw a baseline for tracking the evolution ofresearch on cultural issues but also to identify existing gapsthat future research may pursue. This bibliometric study maythus be especially useful for newcomers to the field and todoctoral students unfamiliar with the literature that may gaina fast grasp on the stock of accumulated knowledge. While weconclude that Hofstede’s (1980) taxonomy on cultural dimensions is by far the most employed, and its use has been increasing, the criticisms to Hofstede’s dimensions are well-knownand open avenues for novel conceptualizations of culture. Wealso observe the intellectual ties to many of the core researchissues that characterize IB as a discipline, namely providingthe contextual milieu.gada com muitos dos ramos fundamentais da pesquisa em NI. Adicionalmente, apesar das bemconhecidas críticas, existe um uso crescente das dimensões de Hofstede.Palavras-chave: Modelos culturais, Hofstede, Trompenaars, Hall, revisão, estudo bibliométrico.342BASE  REVISTA DE ADMINISTRAÇÃO E CONTABILIDADE DA UNISINOSA BIBLIOMETRIC STUDY OF THE CULTURAL MODELS IN INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS RESEARCHThe article proceeds as follows. First, we review thecultural models considered in this study. Second, we presentthe bibliometric method used, procedures and the sample.We follow with the key results on citation and co-citationanalyses. The fourth section comprises a broad discussion andsome suggestions for future inquiry.CULTURE AND CULTURAL MODELSAlbeit there is no unanimous definition of culture, wemay find a set of common components of what culture entailsin the literature, ranging from a ‘subjective perception’ (Triandis, 1972), a ‘subconscious mechanism’ (Hall, 1983), to an‘acquired behavior’ (Kroeber and Kluckhohn, 1952), or ‘learnedattitudes’ (Spencer-Oatey, 2000). Hofstede (1980, p. 25), forinstance, defines culture as “[t]he collective programmingof the mind which distinguishes the members of one humangroup from another, … the interactive aggregate of commoncharacteristics that influence a human group’s response toits environment”. Gould and Grein (2009, p. 238) stated that“[c]ulture consists of explicit and implicit patterns of historically derived and selected ideas and their embodiment ininstitutions, practices and artifacts; cultural patterns may, onone hand, be considered as products of action, and on the otheras conditioning elements of further action”.Regardless of the specific definition, cultural differenceshave a substantial impact in a plethora of issues. Understanding firms’ IB operations warrants a profound comprehensionthat firms are not in isolation and that they rather act andreact in a physical, technological, economic, social and culturalspace (Scott, 2002) to which they must adapt. In fact, cultureis a common element in several frameworks and taxonomies,including more recent approaches based on institutional environment arguments. For instance, Ghemawat (2001) identifiedthe CAGE framework, composed of Culture, Administration,Geography and Economy. Guisinger (2001) identified theECLIPTER, comprising eight environmental dimensions: Econography, Culture, Legal system, Income level, Political risk, Taxregime, Exchange rate, and Restrictions. Culture is thus a corecontext for IB research (Ferreira et al., 2009). For researchers, understanding culture is crucial. As Krathwohl (1985, p.74) put it “[w]ould this relationship replicate with people orother cultures, in other countries of the world?” Or, in otherwords, do the constructs and theories hold when subjected tocultural tests?The central role of culture in IB studies has warranted theeffort of many scholars. Ferreira et al. (2009) noted how muchof the research published in top IB journals takes culture as themain contextual factor. Some scholars have delved into findingwhat culture means and what the major components of cultureitself are. Three main such studies are Hofstede’s (1980) fourcultural dimensions, Trompenaars’ (1993) seven elements ofculture and Hall’s (1976) high and low context cultures, whichare the main focus of this paper. Albeit the past decade hasseen the emergence of GLOBE Project, its origin may be tracedto the work of House et al. (2004), which is a fairly short timespan of about eight years to permit meaningful examination.We examine the three models in greater detail.EDWARD HALL’S HIGH AND LOW CONTEXT CULTUREEdward Hall put forward the concepts of ‘high’ and‘low context’ cultures. In Hall’s (1976) model, context is everysituational surrounding including, but not limited to, thephysical environment, the participants’ roles, power relationships, status’ differences and non-verbal communication.In high context cultures one has to consider the context of themessage (e.g., non-verbal language, personal background) todecode the message. Hall (1976, p. 30) puts it as follows: “incultures in which people are deeply involved with each other…in which information is widely shared – what we will termhigh-context cultures – simple messages with deep meaningflow freely”. Conversely, in low context cultures, the culturalsurrounding is not as crucial since communication is moreexplicit and less dependent on non-verbal communication andsignals (Samovar et al., 2009).TROMPENAARS’ SEVEN DIMENSIONS OF CULTURETrompenaars (1993) advanced a cultural model composedof seven dimensions, arranged in a continuum. The dimensionsconcern time, relation with others, with nature, with rules andwith affections. One dimension is the continuum ‘Universalismvs. Particularism’, focusing on the relation of people of a groupwith rules and laws. Another dimension is ‘Individualism vs.Communitarianism’ which focuses on the relation of peoplewith others. To describe the way people deal with and displaytheir emotions Trompennars defined the continuum ‘Affectivevs. Neutral cultures’. To understand how people see their ownlives Trompenaars proposed to distinguish between ‘Specificvs. Diffuse cultures’. ‘Achievement vs. Ascription’ representsthe way society deals with accomplishment. A culture’s ‘Timeperception’ describes both the orientation of a society towards the past, the present or the future and the way peoplestructure their time and schedules. ‘Relation to nature’ dealswith the relation between people’s lives and their attitudetowards environment, following the approach by Kluckhohnand Strodtbeck (1961).HOFSTEDE’S CULTURAL DIMENSIONSIn 1980, Geert Hofstede published his book Culture’sconsequences: International differences in work-related values,presenting the results of his empirical study where he identified four basic cultural dimensions which, according to theHofstede, are able to explain half the variance in the countries’scores on cultural values. The quantification of each of the fourdimensions in an index allows for a straightforward comparisonbetween countries. Hofstede’s work was path-breaking notonly in presenting the role of culture on the different attitudes343VOLUME 10  Nº4  OUTUBRO/DEZEMBRO 2013NUNO ROSA REIS  MANUEL PORTUGAL FERREIRA  JOÃO CARVALHO SANTOS  FERNANDO RIBEIRO SERRAand values found across national cultures (Hofstede, 1980,2001), but, perhaps most importantly, on presenting a set ofcultural dimensions empirically quantified that permitted itsuse in future research. Hofstede’s cultural model is widely usedtoday, both for academia and professionals, possibly due toits simplicity to use and the comparability that a quantitativemeasure of culture allows.The four dimensions of culture identified by Hofstedewere: individualism-collectivism, uncertainty avoidance, powerdistance and masculinity-femininity. These are described below. Power distance is conceptualized as the degree to whichindividuals in a culture accept unequal distribution of power.Power distance reflects aspects such as the expectations ofsubordinates and managers regarding the manner in whichdecisions are taken, opinions are expressed, disagreementsare manifested and the style of leadership adopted in organizations (Hofstede, 1980, 2001). Another dimension is uncertainty avoidance, defined as the tolerance of members of thegroup to unstructured, ambiguous situations and whether themembers of the group accept or try to avoid such situations(Hofstede, 1980). Another dimension identified by Hofstedewas individualism-collectivism, defined as the extent towhich individuals in a national cultural setting “prefer to actas individuals rather than as members of groups” (Hofstede,1994, p. 6). Individualism reflects one’s preference for actingas an individual rather than as a member of groups. Finally,the dimension masculinity-femininity was conceptualized asthe degree to which traditionally ‘masculine’ values (e.g., performance, competition, success and assertiveness) prevail overstereotypically ‘feminine’ values (e.g., solidarity, care for theweak, cooperation, quality of life, personal relationships andfriendship) (see Hofstede, 1994, 2001). In later work, Hofstedeand Bond (1988) included a fifth cultural dimension, termedConfucian dynamism (a.k.a. long term orientation), which relates to the culture’s time horizon, and the importance ascribedto the future or the past. Cultures with long term orientationtend to value more aspect such as persistence, parsimony andthe individuals’ sense of shame, whereas short term orientedcultures value aspects related to personal stability and reciprocation of favors and gifts.BIBLIOMETRIC STUDYMETHODTo review the use of cultural models in IB research published in top ranked journals we conducted a bibliometric studyon top ranked journals for IB research. Bibliometric analyseshave been performed with multiple purposes. Some studieshave scrutinized the extant research to identify the evolution ofthe intellectual structure of a particular field (Ramos-Rodriguezand Ruiz-Navarro, 2004; Rehn and Kronman, 2006), the impactof a theory (Martins et al., 2010), the influence of a scholarin a field of study (Ferreira, 2011), the most cited authors ina discipline (Chandy and Williams, 1994), the research productivity of scholars and universities (Morrison and Inkpen,1991; Kumar and Kundu, 2004), the journals relative quality(DuBois and Reeb, 2000) and the stature of a single journal(Phene and Guisinger, 1998), patterns of research and schoolrankings (Chan et al., 2006), among others.Bibliometric analyses are especially useful to make senseof the extraordinary amount of publications taking place,especially when the reach of the traditional literature reviewsfalls short of producing a reliable view of the state of the art,or stock of knowledge in a field (Börner et al., 2003). To create a picture of the current intellectual structure we may usedifferent approaches, such as co-citations or co-occurrencesin the text (Rokaya et al., 2008; Hofer et al., 2010) since thereis no undisputed standard for conducting a bibliometric study(Hofer et al., 2010). Hence, our approach in this bibliometricstudy follows the procedures described by Ramos-Rodriguezand Ruiz-Navarro (2004). Ramos-Rodriguez and Ruiz-Navarro(2004) examined the extant research published in the StrategicManagement Journal to ascertain the intellectual structure ofthe strategic management field. We enlarge on this approachby extending the analysis to seven top ranked journals andnarrowing its scope to the analysis of only culture, and specifically cultural models to better observe how pervasive culturehas been in IB research and the intellectual ties to the core IBtheories and objects of study.Citation analysis is the assessment of the frequency andpatterns of citations used in academic research. When a scholardeems a given work is important for his own research, he citesit (Ramos-Rodriguez and Ruiz-Navarro, 2004). Therefore, wemay infer that the more a work is cited the more important andinfluential it is in a particular field of study (Tahai and Meyer,1999). However, it is worth understanding whether some references are ever cited together, thus revealing some conceptual,or intellectual, ties. Co-citation analysis involves analyzing thecombined use of references in a group of academic articlesto identify connections among works (Rehn and Kronman,2006; Rokaya et al., 2008; Hofer et al., 2010), thus revealingthe intellectual structure of the group of articles examined.PROCEDURE AND SAMPLETo select the articles on our sample we followed DuBois and Reeb’s (2000) ranking of IB journals. We used theJournal of International Business Studies (JIBS), ManagementInternational Review (MIR), Journal of World Business (JWB),International Business Review (IBR), International MarketingReview (IMR), and two other journals whose disciplinary focusis more on international marketing: Journal of InternationalMarketing (JIM), International Journal of Research in Marketing(IJRM). These journals were available on ISI Web of Knowledgefor download.We searched the entire archive of the seven journalsusing ISI Web of Knowledge and retrieved 3,639 articles for344BASE  REVISTA DE ADMINISTRAÇÃO E CONTABILIDADE DA UNISINOSA BIBLIOMETRIC STUDY OF THE CULTURAL MODELS IN INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS RESEARCHadditional analyses (see Table 1). We did not select particulararticles from each journal; instead, we retrieved the information of every article published in these journals available inISI Web of Knowledge. Some journals did not have their entiretrack record of publications available. For example, MIR wasonly available for the period 1966 to 1990 and from 2008 to2010. That is, there was an 18 years gap in the archive of MIRavailable on ISI Web of Knowledge. Conversely, it was possibleto examine JIBS since 1976, JIM since 1995, and so forth (seeTable 1). JIBS and MIR contribute with most articles to oursample: 1,176 and 891 respectively.We retrieved all the relevant information from the3,639 articles, including the journal name, title of the paper,authors, volume, issue, year, abstract and the references included in each article. The references were checked for typosand errors and corrected when needed. For instance, severalbooks may have multiple editions and in these instances weconsidered only the first edition. The corrected data wastreated using software Bibexcel1, which permits us to organizethe data and conduct citation and co-citation matrixes. Theco-citation networks were drawn using the social networkssoftware Ucinet.The procedure further involved a two-step analysis(Ramos-Rodriguez and Ruiz-Navarro, 2004). First we conducted a citation analysis to compute the citations of all thebibliographic references used in the articles retrieved. Citation analysis generates a ranking of the most cited authorsand works. Arguably, the most cited works are also the mostinfluential in IB research (Tahai and Meyer, 1999). The secondstep involved a co-citation analysis based on the 20 mostcited works identified in the previous step. Co-citation analysisforms all possible pairs of the most cited works and countshow many articles cite both documents jointly, arranged ina 20×20 square matrix. This matrix is used to draw the cocitation maps. The same two-step process was followed foreach of the seven journals.RESULTSCITATION ANALYSISThe data retrieved allowed us to assess the relative use ofeach cultural model in each journal, over the period identified.Table 2 presents a ranking of references to the three culturalmodels considered in this study – Hall’s (1976), Hofstede’s(1980) and Trompenaars’ (1993). It might not come as a surprise that in the journals examined in this study, Hofstede’scultural taxonomy was consistently found in the top 10 mostcited works in those journals. In fact, we found that Hosftede’s(1980) work on culture is the most cited reference in threejournals: JIBS, JWB and IMR – that is, it is the most citedwork in IB research published in these journals. By contrast,Hall’s (1976) high and low context culture distinction wasthe least cited of the three models – and it failed to appearin the top 20 most cited in any of the seven journals. Finally,Trompenaars’ (1993) seven cultural dimensions was more citedin the articles published in the JWB but it had relatively fewcitations in the remaining journals. Nonetheless, these resultsare evidence of some differences in the content of the paperspublished in these journals, but after reading the mission andthe editorial policies we cannot attribute to editorial guidelinesa reasonable explanation.To better understand whether there were significantshifts in the relative use of the cultural models we endeavoredin a longitudinal analysis. In fact, looking at citation dataJournal Period available in ISI Sample %Journal of International Business Studies 1976 – 2011 1,176 32.3Management International Review 1966 – 19902008 – 2010 891 24.5Journal of World Business 1997 – 2011 394 10.8International Marketing Review 1999 – 2010 315 8.7International Business Review 2005 – 2011 231 6.3Journal of International Marketing 1995 – 2011 319 8.8International Journal of Research in Marketing 1997 – 2010 313 8.6TOTAL 3,639 100Note: articles published in the period comprising the sample. % of total sample.Source: Data collected from ISI Web of Knowledge. Computations by the authors.1 Freely available for download at https://allaplusessays.com/order 1 – Journals and sample.345VOLUME 10  Nº4  OUTUBRO/DEZEMBRO 2013NUNO ROSA REIS  MANUEL PORTUGAL FERREIRA  JOÃO CARVALHO SANTOS  FERNANDO RIBEIRO SERRApertaining to a period, or in aggregate manner, may rendera biased perspective. For instance, a given work may be verycited in a period in response to an external event but it maybe overlooked afterwards. Moreover, possible fluctuationsmay signal theoretical, empirical or methodological changesin the discipline. To conduct a longitudinal analysis, andgiven that some journals had a small number of articles inour sample, we conducted this analysis jointly for all articlesin the sample. We divided the sample in four periods of nineyears, starting with the year the first work was published:1976-1984, 1985-1993, 1994-2002 and 2003-2011. Table3 presents the data and two main results become obvious.First, we observe an increase in the number of citations to allmodels which may be partially explained by the increasingnumber of articles published in the journals in our sample(Ferreira et al., 2013). Nonetheless, even with more articlespublished this is evidence that culture still maintains itsrelevance in providing the context for IB research. Second,Hofstede (1980) is overwhelmingly the most cited culturalmodel in every period. Indeed, during the more recent period(2003-2011), and despite all the well-known criticisms, citations to Hofstede’s (1980) work have widened the gap relativeto the alternatives and is being increasingly more cited byscholars, more than doubling the number of citations between1994-2002 and 2003-2011.COCITATION ANALYSISWe conducted a co-citation analysis to understand whichworks were cited together in each journal (Figures 1 to 4).Presumably two works are co-cited due to their similarity orproximity as to the subject delved into, theory or concept. Theseanalyses comprise only the 20 most cited works plus the threemodels scrutinized – Hofstede, Hall and Trompenaars – whenthey were not in the top 20. Analyzing the combined use ofreferences permits uncovering the relation between the worksand the strength of the ties intellectually connecting the works.Conducting a co-citation analysis is interesting to assess thepatterns of co-citations and the relative importance withinthe discipline. Reading co-citations results is straightforward:the more often two references are used together, arguably themore closely related they are and the more significant for thebody of research they are. It is further worth noting that in thefigures, the thicker the line connecting the works, the moreoften they are co-cited in the extant research published inthat journal. That is, the networks illustrations of the patternof co-citations reveal the strength of the ties binding works.Figure 1 depicts the co-citation map for JIBS. We maythus assess the use of the cultural models jointly with otherstreams of research in articles, as shown by the co-citationpatterns. For instance, in JIBS, there is a strong co-citationlinkage between Hofstede’s (1980) work and Dunning’s (1993)Journal Hall Hofstede TrompenaarsJournal of International Business Studies 897th (6) 1st (213) 94th (27)Management International Review 704th (2) 5th (28) 704th (2)Journal of World Business 228th (6) 1st (76) 11th (18)International Marketing Review 23rd (17) 1st (62) 61st (10)International Business Review 245th (5) 2nd (52) 91st (9)Journal of International Marketing 111th (8) 2nd (59) 181st (7)International Journal of Research in Marketing – (0) 8th (21) 430th (3)Table 2 – Ranking of references of the cultural models.Note: In parentheses, the number of articles citing the work.Source: Data collected using ISI Web of Knowledge, computations by the authors.1976-1984 1985-1993 1994-2002 2003-2011Hofstede (1980) 5 33 150 323Trompenaars (1993) – 0 19 57Hall (1976) 0 2 8 34TOTAL 5 35 177 414Table 3 – Longitudinal analysis.Source: Data collected from ISI Web of Knowledge.346BASE  REVISTA DE ADMINISTRAÇÃO E CONTABILIDADE DA UNISINOSA BIBLIOMETRIC STUDY OF THE CULTURAL MODELS IN INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS RESEARCHOLI framework, and also with the concept of cultural distance(Kogut and Singh, 1988). These strong ties are not surprisinggiven that the cultural distance index is based on the culturaldimensions of Hofstede. Moreover, the tie to the internationalization process of firms (Johanson and Vahlne, 1977) maybe reflecting the core of the Uppsala argument that internationalization is a gradual process whereby firms first selectcountries that are proximate (in terms of psychic distance)Figure 1 – Co-citation map for JIBS.Source: Data retrieved from ISI Web of knowledge. Drawn with Ucinet.Figure 2 – Co-citation map for MIR.Source: Data retrieved from ISI Web of knowledge. Drawn with Ucinet.347VOLUME 10  Nº4  OUTUBRO/DEZEMBRO 2013NUNO ROSA REIS  MANUEL PORTUGAL FERREIRA  JOÃO CARVALHO SANTOS  FERNANDO RIBEIRO SERRAand only incrementally they evolve to distant countries usinghigher commitment entry modes. This explains the strengthof the co-citation tie of Kogut and Singh (1988) and Johansonand Vahlne (1977). Hofstede’s (1980) is also used togetherwith a variety of subjects pertaining to the multinationals andsubsidiaries (Buckley and Casson, 1976; Bartlett and Ghoshal,1989) and generally with conducting international businessoperations (Caves, 1971; Rugman, 1981) and potential hazardsor liabilities of foreignness (Hymer, 1976). Trompenaars (1993)is seldom cited together with Hofstede (1980) and is nevercited together with Hall (1976).Figure 2 shows the co-citation network for MIR. The coreties among authors comprise the works by Hofstede (1980),Kogut and Singh (1988) and Johanson and Vahlne (1977)which are co-cited very often. This may be evidence of scholars’ concern with culture and specifically cultural differenceswhen studying internationalization processes and strategies.As noted previously, Johanson and Vahlne’s work is stronglyassociated to the internationalization process of the firm. Hofstede (1980) and Trompenaars’s (1993) study is co-cited onlyon a few occasions, and Hall (1976) is co-cited only with Kogutand Singh (1988). The ties from Hofstede’s (1980) extend toissues of multinational and subsidiaries (Bartlett and Ghoshal,1989), the costs and hazards of doing business abroad (Hymer,1976; Rugman, 1981), a behavioral approach to the firm (Cyertand March, 1963) and the international business environmentapproach (Farmer and Richman, 1965).The co-citation network of the research published in IBR(Figure 3) reveals a rather central position of Hofstede’s (1980)and Kogut and Singh’s (1988) works with frequent co-citationsto a variety of issues but a more peripheral positioning ofboth Trompenaars’ (1993) and Hall’s (1976) works. To a largeextent, the co-citation network of IBR and the ties bindingworks resemble those found for JIBS and MIR. This does notcome as a surprise given that these three journals are specifically dedicated to publishing IB research. Hence, the articlespublished in these outlets tend to focus on a broader scope ofissues pertaining to the internationalization of firms, multinational enterprises and on conducting foreign operations, evenif through diverse theoretical lenses, as shown by the worksencapsulated in Figure 3.The co-citation network for IJMR (Figure 4) reveals thatculture – or perhaps these cultural models examined – is not acore concern for scholars who publish in IJRM. Hofstede’s (1980)Figure 3 – Co-citation map for IBR.Source: Data retrieved from ISI Web of knowledge. Drawn with Ucinet.348BASE  REVISTA DE ADMINISTRAÇÃO E CONTABILIDADE DA UNISINOSA BIBLIOMETRIC STUDY OF THE CULTURAL MODELS IN INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS RESEARCHand Trompenaars’ (1993) works are placed on the outer layerof the network, representing their relative marginal standing infocus and Hall (1976) is not cited at all. Trompenaars’ (1993)work is co-cited with Steenkamp and colleagues (1999) andHofstede (1980). Hofstede’s (1980) work is co-cited with workson several subjects such as cultural antecedents of behaviors(Steenkamp et al., 1999), diffusion of new products (Bass, 1969),market orientation (Narver and Slater, 1990), methodologicalissues (Fornell and Larcker, 1981), and so forth. Albeit relevantin international marketing research, culture has a relativelymarginal standing on the discipline, as assessed here.The co-citation analyses (depicted in Figures 1-4) delveinto the joint use of cultural models as well as the combined citation with other highly cited works in each of the top journals.A number of conclusions may be drawn. For instance, Hofstede(1980) is often co-cited with Johanson and Vahlne (1977), aseminal work on the internationalization of firms as a gradualincremental process, usually referred to as the Uppsala School’smodel. In the evolutionary internationalization process, cultureis an important factor that increases the perceived distancebetween two countries (Johanson and Vahlne, 1977), renderingthat the farther the distance the later firms will seek to enterthat market. In IMR, Hofstede (1980) is highly co-cited withHall (1976), which may be explained by authors using twocontrasting perspectives or perhaps it might be an artifact ofthe authors building up the importance of what constitutesculture and different perspectives on it. Trompenaars (1993),on the other hand, is co-cited either with Hofstede (1980) andHall (1976) but is rarely co-cited with other articles. This isan especially interesting finding since it seems to point out tothe use of Trompenaars work mostly in a conceptual manneras authors present different approaches to the cultural issues.Another frequent co-citation is Hofstede (1980) and Kogut andSingh (1988). The cultural distance index (Kogut and Singh,1988) was built on the four cultural dimensions (Hofstede,1980) which we believe help partially explaining this pattern ofstrong tie that emerges from frequent co-citations. Moreover,Kogut and Singh (1988) are frequently co-cited with Johansonand Vahlne (1977), probably to ascertain or to demonstratethe effect of culture on the foreign markets entry mode.In IBR, Kogut and Singh (1988) are also frequently co-citedwith Shenkar (2001), an article that critically reviews andchallenges the assumptions of the culture distance construct.DISCUSSIONIn this paper we sought to review the use of the maincultural models, or cultural taxonomies, in extant IB researchand to identify the broad areas in which they are used. Ourbibliometric study resorted to the analysis of over 3,600 articlespublished in seven top ranked IB journals and entailed theanalysis of citations and co-citations. The analyses permit usto identify the intellectual links connecting works and researchFigure 4 – Co-citation map for IJRM.Source: Data retrieved from ISI Web of knowledge. Drawn with Ucinet.349VOLUME 10  Nº4  OUTUBRO/DEZEMBRO 2013NUNO ROSA REIS  MANUEL PORTUGAL FERREIRA  JOÃO CARVALHO SANTOS  FERNANDO RIBEIRO SERRAtopics, but partly understand the extent to which, and how,the cultural models are used.This study complements extant research on cultural andcross-cultural issues by presenting a comprehensive perspective on the role of culture in the extant IB research efforts.Hofstede’s (1980) model prevalence and almost ubiquity inculture-related research may not come as a surprise to IBscholars and experts in cultural research. This was deemedthe “so what effect” and White and McCain (1998, p. 329)argued: “We thus have an answer for the person who looks atour graphics and says, “I know all that already”. If indeed is thecase, then we have made technical progress, since we can nowreproduce much of the disciplinary expert’s view on behalf ofsomeone who does not know as much, and we can do it withoutbenefit of the expert”. We discuss our results and we presentthe most relevant criticism of Hofstede’s (1980), Trompenaars’(1993) and Hall’s (1976) cultural models as a motivation todebate novel conceptualizations of culture.We should point out the value of unveiling the networksbinding authors and theories or concepts that are made visible in the co-citation networks, permitting newcomers tothe discipline, junior faculty and doctoral students to gainan initial insight on accumulated knowledge and the existinginterplays among theories, concepts and works. Moreover,albeit the field of cross-cultural management has evolvedsubstantially over the past decades, namely adding novelmanners to assess cultures (such as Schwartz, 1994; Houseet al., 2004) and cultural differences, our results show theprevalence of Hofstede’s cultural taxonomy in the field of IB.Thus, we call for a larger effort in integrating cultural insightsand novel concepts of culture and possible dimensions thatbear an impact on how firms conduct their internationaloperations, from market selection to the entry mode choices,organization issues across borders, from the manner in whichfirms are organized, to the human resource managementpractices, and so forth. While these models have not beenfree from criticisms, they were utilized to encompass thecultural variations across countries thus providing us witha comparable starting point for IB research, focusing on aspecific environmental dimension: culture.Given that culture is one of the key elements that providethe context for international business research (Boyacigillerand Adler, 1997; Guisinger, 2001; Ghemawat, 2001; Ferreira etal., 2009), it is important to understand how the main culturalmodels are used in the extant research. The cultural models areused to explain the prevalent traits in the national culture ofa country and often are used in setting boundary conditionsfor differences across countries in a variety of issues, rangingfrom the entry modes (Brouthers and Brouthers, 2000) to theselection of location for foreign production (Hutzschenreuteret al., 2011), to explain the differences in managerial decisionsand behaviors (French et al., 2001; Gelade et al., 2008), andconsumers’ behaviors (Chang, 2006), among many others.The results show a prevalence of Hofstede’s (1980) modelover the other works considered in the study. In all the journalsHofstede’s is the most cited model and occasionally is the mostused reference by the authors. The use of Hofstede’s model isprominent in explaining differences in management practices.For instance, power distance seems to impact the leadershipstyle (Kirkman et al., 2009) and the information flow in theorganization (Wang and Nayir, 2009). Uncertainty avoidancehas been shown to influence the adoption of specific information systems (Hwang, 2005), and business ownership (Wennekers et al., 2007). The dimension individualism-collectivismhas been deemed to drive the teams’ performance (Gundlachet al., 2006), the extent of workgroup cooperation (Koch andKoch, 2007) and decision making processes (Zhang et al., 2007).Masculinity-femininity has been shown to impact advertisingdecisions (Chang, 2006), management of partnerships, such asinternational joint ventures and strategic alliances (Hofstede,2010) and organizational commitment (Gelade et al., 2008).The long (or short) term orientation influences, for instance,strategy shaping decisions (Buck et al., 2010), and ethical behaviors (Nevins et al., 2007), just to point out a few examples.The heavy emphasis on Hofstede’s (1980) model may leadto a less rich understanding of the cultural phenomena andeven flawed conclusions. The same reality analyzed throughthe lenses of different models might yield different results (Venaik and Brewer, 2010). Hence, an excessive usage of Hofstede(1980) may also bias the research as the five cultural dimensionsadvanced are arguably overly simplistic (Kirkman et al., 2006).The inclusion of a somewhat more qualitative analysis or thecomplimentary usage of two or more models could arguablyallow a better understanding of how specific cultural featuresimpact firms (Venaik and Brewer, 2010). In fact, it might beworth considering alternative cultural taxonomies and consideradditional cultural dimensions, perhaps such as those includedin House et al. (2004). GLOBE Project comprises nine dimensionsthat were quantitatively measured: (1) Uncertainty avoidance,(2) Power distance, (3) Collectivism I: Societal emphasis on collectivism, (4) Collectivism II: Family collectivistic practices, (5)Gender egalitarianism, (6) Assertiveness, (7) Future orientation,(8) Performance orientation, and (9) Humane orientation. Moreover, GLOBE assesses both actual societal practices (“As is”) andvalues (“Should be”) (Venaik and Brewer, 2010). Notwithstanding,reviews by Taras et al. (2009) and Taras and Steel (2009) notedthat virtually all later models of culture have included Hofstede’scultural dimensions. Yet another alternative to Hofstede may befound in Schwartz’s (1994) seven dimensions – Conservation,Hierarchy, Intellectual autonomy, Affective autonomy, Competency, Harmony and Egalitarian compromise – but according toSteenkamp (2001) these dimensions also have a major overlapwith Hofstede’s taxonomy.Our data shows that scholars often go beyond the idiosyncratic cultural traits to examine how cultures differ. Todepict the differences between countries and to ascertain their350BASE  REVISTA DE ADMINISTRAÇÃO E CONTABILIDADE DA UNISINOSA BIBLIOMETRIC STUDY OF THE CULTURAL MODELS IN INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS RESEARCHimpact, the past two decades have seen the emergence of theconcept of cultural distance, conceptualized by Luostarinen(1980, p. 131-132) as “the sum of factors creating, on the onehand, a need for knowledge, and on the other hand, barriers toknowledge flow and hence for other flows between the homeand the target countries”. However, it is the work by Kogutand Singh (1988) that has captured more citations, becausethey advance a manner to quantify those differences usingHofstede’s (1980) cultural dimensions. Thus, cultural differences across countries have been the focus of IB research inexplaining an array of firms’ actions such as foreign investmentlocation (Loree and Guisinger, 1995; Hutzschenreuter et al.,2011), entry mode choice (Kogut and Singh, 1988; Brouthersand Brouthers, 2000), international diversification (Tihanyi etal., 2005), subsidiary performance (Shenkar, 2001; Tihanyi et al.,2005) and affiliates’ performance (Shenkar, 2001; Hutzschenreuter et al., 2011).The three cultural models are complementary in characterizing national culture. Some of Hofstede’s (1980) fourdimensions find some similarities in Trompenaars’ (1993) sevendimensions, for example, Hofstede’s ‘Individualism-collectivism’ finds a parallel in the ‘Individualism vs. Communitarianism’and ‘Universalism vs. Particularism’ dimensions of Trompenaarsmodel. Nonetheless, other dimensions are novel, which makesit impossible to convert one model to another. It is noteworthythat these differences go beyond mere semantics. For instance,whereas Hofstede analyzes the different variables of nationalculture, Trompenaars deals with the process of culture creation (Hampden-Turner and Trompenaars, 1997). Also, Hall’s(1976) high and low context cultures are different from theother models, namely in that Hall’s work did not advance aninternationally comparable measurement and analyzes onesingle variable (context) in a binary output. The differencesand complementarities among models might render usefulthe use of the different taxonomies to encapsulate diversefacets of culture.It is thus worth noting that the co-citation analyses pointto a frequent use of more than one cultural model simultaneously. Our study fails to fully clarify these instances where wefind simultaneous citations to different cultural taxonomies,however, it seems reasonable to advance two explanations.First, scholars recognize the complexities involved when dealingwith culture and hence find the need to support their arguments with multiple works to cover more broadly the nuancesof a complex international business environment. Second, sincethe cultural models are not undisputed and often complementeach other, it is reasonable to suggest that scholars co-citedifferent models in an attempt to argue the choice of usingone model instead of another (Ferreira, 2011), for instance byreviewing characteristics of two (or more) models (Newmanand Nollen, 1996). A third alternative explanation, albeit lesslikely, is that scholars may pool cultural traits from differentmodels and use them in their research. Nonetheless, we oughtto consider that some studies are conceptual and deal with theconceptualization of culture and in these instances it seemsreasonable the use of multiple taxonomies in building their arguments (Hofstede, 1996). Future research may examine theseinstances to disentangle the simultaneous use of multiple cultural taxonomies and observe the novel knowledge generated.All three cultural models have been subjected to critique.High and low context cultures (Hall, 1976) are pointed at fornot being submitted to peer review and for being insufficientlyconfirmed by empirical works (Cardon, 2008). Hofstede’s fourdimensions were considered overly simplistic, ignorant of thecultural differences within a country, and for having a limitedsample (Kirkman et al., 2006). Trompenaars’ (1993) sevendimension model was criticized for not being supported byHofstede’s database and therefore not valid (Hofstede, 1996).Nonetheless, using a model greatly facilitates scholars’ taskof understanding the role of culture and of individual culturaltraits or differences in managerial decision-making.LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH PROSPECTSThis paper has some limitations. Some are limitationsrelated to the bibliometric method employed. A bibliometricstudy does not provide straightforward evidence of the contextin which a citation is used (Ramos-Rodrigues and Ruiz-Navarro,2004). An author may cite another work to build on existingknowledge, to complement or to criticize it. On the other hand,the co-citation analysis only deals with pairs of articles andnot with the entire pool of references included in each paper.Ideally, it could be interesting to analyze the entire referencelist of each article to draw dynamic networks of works andtheories – that is, of the ties binding authors and theories.Future research may endeavor in in-depth content analysis ofthe papers to understand the specific manner in which citationsare made to better capture how the cultural models are used.Other limitation emerges from the sample chosen. In thispaper we used seven highly reputed journals that publish IBresearch, but there are many other outlets that a larger samplestudy could include. Albeit we used a large dataset, comprising over 3,600 articles, we acknowledge that our sample isnot exhaustive of all research published. Future studies mayovercome these limitations including additional journals, eventually even assessing whether there are disciplinary differenceson how the cultural models are used. Moreover, by looking atthe top journals we may be ignoring different perspectivesnot published in the mainstream journals (Inkpen, 2001). It isarguable whether the top journals focus on the more criticaland innovative aspects in a field (Davis and Papanek, 1984).The focus on these three cultural models is also a limitation because there are other cultural models that may beused in IB research. For instance, Schwartz (1994) and theGLOBE Project. We did not include these models for two corereasons. Schwartz (1994) is very seldom used by IB scholars,possibly due to a significant overlap with Hofstede’s (1980)351VOLUME 10  Nº4  OUTUBRO/DEZEMBRO 2013NUNO ROSA REIS  MANUEL PORTUGAL FERREIRA  JOÃO CARVALHO SANTOS  FERNANDO RIBEIRO SERRAmodel (Steenkamp, 2001). The GLOBE Project was not includedbecause it has a rather small track record of citations due toits recent publication. The original paper by House et al. (2004)was published in 2004 and the short time span between thepublication and the end of the period covered is far shorterthan the other models. However, future studies may includeother models and taxonomies, among which the GLOBE Project,and seek to understand how they have been used differentlyin the extant research.CONCLUSIONCulture has been the international business environment dimension that most attention has captured in theextant IB research (Kirkman et al., 2006; Ferreira et al., 2009),particularly after 1980. Ferreira et al. (2009) suggested thatHofstede’s quantifiable, understood, available, applicable forinter-country comparisons, largely replicable, and generallyaccepted cultural taxonomy, fostered its inclusion in IB researchas the dependent, independent or moderating variable, drivingto the upsurge of culture-related research. It may be the ability to measure cultural characteristics that is, at least partly,facilitating the inclusion of culture in IB studies. This may beat the core of Hofstede’s advantage over alternative models.This bibliometric study, relying on citation and cocitation analyses of the articles published in seven top rankedIB journals, reveals the prevalence of Hofstede’s (1980) modelin culture-related research. Hofstede (1980) is the most citedof the three cultural models, followed by Trompenaars (1993)and Hall (1976). A large number of citations is revealing ofthe influence of his work. Moreover, the longitudinal analysisshow that Hofstede’s (1980) work is the most cited in everyperiod and that it accumulates an increasing number of citations. A growing number of citations reveals that not onlyis the culture-related research also increasing but also thatHofstede’s work is still the preferred one by scholars in spiteof the emergence of alternative conceptualizations of whatculture entails.The relevance of culture and of the existing culturalmodels in the IB literature is undeniable. Hofstede’s (1980)model is among the most cited references by IB scholars andit has been considered “a watershed conceptual foundationfor many subsequent cross-national research endeavors”(Fernandez et al., 1997, p. 43-44). However, this is a topic farfrom pacified. New models are being put forward (House etal., 2004) following the claim for research that delves deeperinto each cultural concept (Boyacigiller and Adler, 1997).Moreover, different approaches emerge, such as the emphasison measures of cultural distance. While it is likely that culturewill continue to play an important role in IB research for thecoming years, there is still much to understand in relationto both what culture comprises and how to measure thosefeatures and on how it impacts a large array of individuals’and firms’ decisions.REFERENCESBARTLETT, C.; GHOSHAL, S. 1989. Managing across borders: The transnational solution. Boston, Harvard Business School Press, 416 p.BASS, F. 1969. A new product growth for model consumer durables.Management Science, 15(5):215-227.https://allaplusessays.com/order, K.; CHEN, C.; BOYACK, K. 2003. Visualizing knowledge domains. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology,37(1):179-255. https://allaplusessays.com/order, N.; ADLER, N. 1997. Insiders and outsiders: bridgingthe worlds of organizational behavior and international management. In: B. TOYNE; D. NIGH (eds.), International business:An emerging vision. Columbia, University of South CarolinaPress, p. 396-416.BROUTHERS, K.; BROUTHERS, L. 2000. Acquisition or greenfieldstart-up? Institutional, cultural and transaction cost influences. Strategic Management Journal, 21(1):89-97.https://allaplusessays.com/order, T.; LIU, X.; OTT, U. 2010. Long-term orientation and international joint venture strategies in modern China. InternationalBusiness Review, 19(3): 223-234.https://allaplusessays.com/order, P.; CASSON, M. 1976. The future of the multinational enterprise. London, Macmillan, 116 p.CARDON, P. 2008. A critique of Hall’s contexting model: A metaanalysis of literature on intercultural business and technicalcommunication. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 22(4):399-428.https://allaplusessays.com/order, R. 1971. Industrial corporations: The industrial economics offoreign investment. Economica, 38(1):1-27.https://allaplusessays.com/order, K.; FUNG, H-G.; LEUNG, W. 2006. International business research: Trends and school rankings. International BusinessReview, 15(4):317-338.https://allaplusessays.com/order, P.; WILLIAMS, T. 1994. The impact of journals and authorson international business research: A citational analysis of JIBSarticles. Journal of International Business Studies, 25(4):715-728. https://allaplusessays.com/order, C. 2006. The influence of masculinity and femininity in different advertising processing contexts: An accessibility perspective. Sex Roles, 55(5-6):345-356.https://allaplusessays.com/order, R.; MARCH, J. 1963. A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall, 268 p.DAVIS, P.; PAPANEK, G. 1984. Faculty ratings of major economics departments by citations. American Economic Review,74(1):225-230.DUBOIS, F.; REEB, D. 2000 Ranking the international business journals. Journal of International Business Studies, 31(4):689-674. https://allaplusessays.com/order, J. 1993. Multinational enterprises and the global economy. Wokingham, Addison Wesley, 920 p.FARMER, R.; RICHMAN, B. 1965. Comparative management and economic progress. Homewood, Richard D. Irwin, 436 p.352BASE  REVISTA DE ADMINISTRAÇÃO E CONTABILIDADE DA UNISINOSA BIBLIOMETRIC STUDY OF THE CULTURAL MODELS IN INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS RESEARCHFERNANDEZ, D.; CARLSON, D.; STEPINA, L.; NICHOLSON, J. 1997.Hofstede’s country classification 25 years later. Journal of Social Psychology, 137(1):43-54.https://allaplusessays.com/order, M. 2011. A bibliometric study on Ghoshal’s managingacross borders. Multinational Business Review, 19(4):357-375. https://allaplusessays.com/order, M.; LI, D.; GUISINGER, S.; SERRA, F. 2009. Is the international business environment the actual context for international business research? Revista de Administração de Empresas, 49(3): 282-294.https://allaplusessays.com/order, M.; REIS, N.; ALMEIDA, M.; SERRA, F. 2013. Internationalbusiness research: Understanding past paths to design futureresearch directions. In: T. DEVINNEY; T. PEDERSEN; L. TIHANYI(eds.), Philosophy of Science and Meta-Knowledge in International Business and Management (Advances in InternationalManagement, Volume 26). New York, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, p. 299-330.FORNELL, C.; LARCKER, D. 1981. Evaluating structural equationmodels with unobservable variables and measurement error.Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1):39-50.https://allaplusessays.com/order, W.; ZEISS, H.; SCHERER, A. 2001. Intercultural discourseethics: Testing Trompenaars’ and Hampden-Turner’s conclusions about Americans and the French. Journal of BusinessEthics, 34(3-4):145-159.GELADE, G.; DOBSON, P.; AUER, K. 2008. Individualism, masculinity, and the sources of organizational commitment. Journal ofCross-Cultural Psychology, 39(5):599-617.https://allaplusessays.com/order, P. 2001. Distance still matters: The hard reality of global expansion. Harvard Business Review, 79(8):137-147.GOULD, S.; GREIN, A. 2009. Think glocally, act glocally: A culturecentric comment on Leung, Bhagat, Buchan, Erez and Gibson(2005). Journal of International Business Studies, 40(2):237-254. https://allaplusessays.com/order, J.; MINTU, A.; RODGERS, W. 1994. Explorations of negotiation behavior in ten foreign cultures using a model developed in the United States. Management Science, 40(1):72-95.https://allaplusessays.com/order, S. 2001. From OLI to OLMA: Incorporating higher levelsof environmental and structural complexity into the Eclecticparadigm. International Journal of the Economics of Business,8(2):257-272. https://allaplusessays.com/order, M.; ZIVNUSKA, S.; STONER, J. 2006. Understanding therelationship between individualism-collectivism and teamperformance through an integration of social identity theoryand the social relations model. Human Relations, 59(12):1603-1632. https://allaplusessays.com/order, E. 1976. Beyond culture. New York, Anchor Press, 320 p.HALL, E. 1983. The dance of life: The other dimension of time. GardenCity, Anchor Press/Doubleday, 250 p.HAMPDEN-TURNER, C.; TROMPENAARS, A. 1997. Response to GeertHofstede. International Journal of Intercultural Relations,21(1):149-159.https://allaplusessays.com/order, G.; SUBRAMANIAN, V.; VERDIN, P. 2003. Is performancedriven by industry-or firm-specific factors? A new look at theevidence. Strategic Management Journal, 24(1):1-16.https://allaplusessays.com/order, K.; SMEJKAL, A.; BILGIN, F.; WUEHRER, G. 2010. Conferenceproceedings as a matter of bibliometric studies: The Academy of International Business 2006-2008. Scientometrics,84(3):845-862. https://allaplusessays.com/order, G. 1980. Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills/London, Sage Publications, 328 p.HOFSTEDE, G. 1994. Management scientists are human. Management Science, 40(1):4-13.https://allaplusessays.com/order. 4HOFSTEDE, G. 1996. Riding the waves of commerce: A test ofTrompenaars’ “model” of national cultural differences. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 20(2):189-198.https://allaplusessays.com/order, G. 2001. Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations. 2nd ed.,Thousand Oaks, Sage, 616 p.HOFSTEDE, G.J. 2010. Why do international alliances fail? Some insights from culture and human social biology. In: J. ULIJN; G.DUYSTERS; E. MEIJER (eds.), Strategic alliances, mergers andacquisitions: The influence of culture on successful cooperation. Northampton, Edward Elgar, p. 30-59.https://allaplusessays.com/order, G.; BOND, M. 1988. The Confucius connection: Fromcultural roots to economic growth. Organizational Dynamics,16(4):5-21.https://allaplusessays.com/order, R.; HANGES, P.; JAVIDAN, M.; DORFMAN, P.; GUPTA, V. 2004.Leadership, Culture, and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62Societies. Thousand Oaks, Sage Publications, 848 p.HUTZSCHENREUTER, T.; VOLL, J.; VERBEKE, A. 2011. The impact ofadded cultural distance and cultural diversity on internationalexpansion patterns: A Penrosean perspective. Journal of Management Studies, 48(2):305-329.HWANG, Y. 2005. Investigating enterprise systems adoption: Uncertainty avoidance, intrinsic motivation, and the technologyacceptance model. European Journal of Information Systems,14(2):150-161.https://allaplusessays.com/order, S. 1976. The international operations of national firms: Astudy of direct foreign investment. Cambridge, MIT Press, 275p.INKPEN, A. 2001. A note on ranking the international business journals. Journal of International Business Studies, 32(1):193-196. https://allaplusessays.com/order, J.; VAHLNE, J. 1977. The internationalization process ofthe firm: A model of knowledge development and increasingforeign market commitment. Journal of International BusinessStudies, 8(1):22-32.https://allaplusessays.com/order, B.; CHEN, G.; FARH, J.; CHEN, Z.; LOWE, K. 2009. Individual power distance orientation and follower reactions totransformational leaders: A cross-level, cross-cultural ex353VOLUME 10  Nº4  OUTUBRO/DEZEMBRO 2013NUNO ROSA REIS  MANUEL PORTUGAL FERREIRA  JOÃO CARVALHO SANTOS  FERNANDO RIBEIRO SERRAamination. Academy of Management Journal, 52(4):744-764.https://allaplusessays.com/order, B.; LOWE, K.; GIBSON, C. 2006. A quarter century of Culture’s Consequences: A review of the empirical research incorporating Hofstede’s cultural value framework. Journal ofInternational Business Studies, 36(3):285-320.https://allaplusessays.com/order, F.; STRODTBECK, F. 1961. Variations in value orientations. Evanston, Row Peterson, 437 p.KOCH, B.; KOCH, P. 2007. Collectivism, individualism, and outgroupcooperation in a segmented China. Asia Pacific Journal ofManagement, 24(2):207-225.https://allaplusessays.com/order, B.; SINGH, H. 1988. The effect of national culture on thechoice of entry mode. Journal of International Business Studies, 19(3):411-432.https://allaplusessays.com/order, D. 1985. Social and behavioral science research. SanFrancisco, Jossey-Bass, 324 p.KROEBER, A.; KLUCKHOHN, C. 1952. Culture: A critical review of concepts and definitions. New York, Vintage Books, 223 p.KUMAR, V.; KUNDU, S. 2004. Ranking the international businessschools: Faculty publications as the measure. ManagementInternational Review, 44(2):213-228.LACHMAN, R.; NEDD, A.; HININGS, B. 1994. Analyzing cross-national management and organizations: A theoretical framework.Management Science, 40(1):40-55.https://allaplusessays.com/order, D.; GUISINGER, S. 1995. Policy and non-policy determinantsof US equity foreign direct investment. Journal of International Business Studies, 26(2):281-299.https://allaplusessays.com/order, R. 1980. Internationalization of the firm: An empiricalstudy of the internationalization of firms with small and opendomestic markets with special emphasis on lateral rigidity asa behavioral characteristic in strategic decision-making. Helsinki, Helsinki School of Economics, 260 p.MARTINS, R.; SERRA, F.; LEITE, A.; FERREIRA, M.; LI, D. 2010. Transactions Cost Theory (TCT) influence in strategy research:A review through a bibliometric study in leading journals.Journal of Strategic Management Education, 6(3):1-22.MORRISON, A.; INKPEN, A. 1991. An analysis of significant contributions to the international business literature. Journal of International Business Studies, 22(1):143-153.https://allaplusessays.com/order, J.; SLATER, S. 1990. The effect of a market orientationon business profitability. Journal of Marketing, 54(4):20-35.https://allaplusessays.com/order, E.; SOLBERG, C.; SILKOSET, R. 2007. The impact of national cultureand communication on exporter-distributor relations and onexport performance. International Business Review, 16(4):405-424. https://allaplusessays.com/order, J.; BEARDEN, W.; MONEY, B. 2007. Ethical values and longterm orientation. Journal of Business Ethics, 71(3):261-274.https://allaplusessays.com/order, K.; NOLLEN, S. 1996. Culture and congruence: The fit between management practices and national culture. Journal ofInternational Business Studies, 27(4):753-779.https://allaplusessays.com/order, A.; GUISINGER, S. 1998. The stature of the Journal of International Business Studies. Journal of International BusinessStudies, 29(3):621-632.https://allaplusessays.com/order, D.; HOLT, D.; TERPSTRA, R.; KAI-CHENG, Y. 2008. The impact of national culture and economic ideology on managerialwork values: a study of the United States, Russia, Japan, andChina. Journal of International Business Studies, 39(1):8-26.https://allaplusessays.com/order, A.; RUIZ-NAVARRO, J. 2004. Changes in theintellectual structure of strategic management research:A bibliometric study of the Strategic Management Journal,1980- 2000. Strategic Management Journal, 25(10):981-1004. https://allaplusessays.com/order, R.; KRONMAN, U. 2006. Bibliometric handbook for KarolinskaInstitutet. Stockholm, Karolinska Institutet University LibraryPublications, 36 p.ROKAYA, M.; ATLAM, E.; FUKETA, M.; DORJI, T.; AOE, J. 2008. Rankingof field association terms using co-word analysis. InformationProcessing; Management, 44(2):738-755.https://allaplusessays.com/order, A. 1981. Inside the multinationals: The economics of internal markets. New York, Columbia University Press, 179 p.SAMOVAR, L.; PORTER, R.; MCDANIEL, E. 2009. Communication between cultures. 7th ed., Boston, Wadsworth Publishing, 480 p.SCHWARTZ, S. 1994. Are there universal aspects in the structure andcontents of human values? Journal of Social Issues, 50(1):19-45. https://allaplusessays.com/order. xSCOTT, R. 2002. Organizations, rational, natural and open systems.5th ed., New Jersey, Prentice Hall, 430 p.SHANE, S. 1993. Cultural influences on national differences in rateof innovation. Journal of Business Venturing, 8(1):59-74.https://allaplusessays.com/order, O. 2001. Cultural distance revisited: Towards a more rigorous conceptualization and measurement of cultural differences. Journal of International Business Studies, 32(3):519-535.https://allaplusessays.com/order, D.; HITT, M.; IRELAND, R. 2007. Managing firm resourcesin dynamic environments to create value: Looking inside theblack box. Academy of Management Review, 32(1):273-292.https://allaplusessays.com/order, H. 2000. Culturally speaking: Managing rapportthrough talk across cultures. London, Continuum.STEENKAMP, J-B. 2001. The role of national culture in international marketing research. International Marketing Review,18(1):30-44. https://allaplusessays.com/order, J-B.; HOFSTEDE, F.; WEDEL, M. 1999. A cross-nationalinvestigation into the individual and national cultural antecedents of consumer innovativeness. Journal of Marketing,63(2):55-69. https://allaplusessays.com/order, M.; SHAO, L.; KATZ, J. The effect of culture on the curvilinear relationship between performance and turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(1):46-62.https://allaplusessays.com/order  REVISTA DE ADMINISTRAÇÃO E CONTABILIDADE DA UNISINOSA BIBLIOMETRIC STUDY OF THE CULTURAL MODELS IN INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS RESEARCHTAHAI, A.; MEYER, M. 1999. A revealed preference study of management journals’ direct influences. Strategic ManagementJournal, 20(3):279-296.https://allaplusessays.com/order, V.; ROWNEY, J.; STEEL, P. 2009. Half a Century of MeasuringCulture: Approaches, Challenges, Limitations, and Suggestions Based on the Analysis of 121 Instruments for Quantifying Culture. Journal of International Management, 15(4):357-373. https://allaplusessays.com/order, V.; STEEL, P. 2009. Challenging fundamental assumptionsabout culture: A multi-level multivariate meta-analysis. In: C.NAKATA (ed.), Beyond Hofstede: Culture frameworks for globalmarketing and management. New York, Macmillan/Palgrave,p. 40-60.TIHANYI, L.; GRIFFITH, D.; RUSSELL, C. 2005. The effect of culturaldistance on entry mode choice, international diversification,and MNE performance: a meta-analysis. Journal of International Business Studies, 36(3):270-283.https://allaplusessays.com/order, H. 1972. The analysis of subjective culture. New York, JohnWiley, 383 p.TROMPENAARS, A. 1993. Riding the waves of culture: understandingcultural diversity in business. London, The Economist Books,275 p.VENAIK, S.; BREWER, P. 2010. Avoiding uncertainty in Hofstede andGLOBE. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(8):1294-1315. https://allaplusessays.com/order, K.; NAYIR, D. 2009. Procedural justice, participation andpower distance: Information sharing in Chinese firms. Management Research Review, 33(1):66-78.https://allaplusessays.com/order, S.; THURIK, R.; STEL, A.; NOORDERHAVEN, N. 2007.Uncertainty avoidance and the rate of business ownershipacross 21 OECD countries, 1976–2004. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 17(2):133-160.https://allaplusessays.com/order, H.; MCCAIN, K. 1998. Visualizing a discipline: An author cocitation analysis of information science, 1972-1995. Journalof the American Society for Information Science, 49(4):327-355.https://allaplusessays.com/order, D.; LOWRY, P.; ZHOU, L.; FU, X. 2007. The impact of individualism-collectivism, social presence, and group diversity ongroup decision making under majority influence. Journal ofManagement Information Systems, 23(4):53-80.https://allaplusessays.com/order: 23/06/2012Aceito: 27/09/2013NUNO ROSA REISSchool of Technology and ManagementPolytechnic Institute of LeiriaglobADVANTAGE – Center of Research on InternationalBusiness & StrategyMorro do Lena, Alto Vieiro2411-901 Leiria, PortugalMANUEL PORTUGAL FERREIRASchool of Technology and ManagementPolytechnic Institute of LeiriaUniversidade Nove de JulhoPrograma de Pós-Graduação em AdministraçãoAv. Francisco Matarazzo, 612, Prédio C – 2º05001-100, São Paulo, SP, BrasilJOÃO CARVALHO SANTOSSchool of Technology and ManagementPolytechnic Institute of LeiriaglobADVANTAGE – Center of Research on InternationalBusiness & StrategyMorro do Lena, Alto Vieiro2411-901 Leiria, PortugalFERNANDO RIBEIRO SERRAUniversidade Nove de JulhoPrograma de Pós-Graduação em AdministraçãoAv. Francisco Matarazzo, 612, Prédio C – 2º05001-100, São Paulo, SP, BrasilCopyright of Base is the property of Universidade do Vale do Rio dos Sinos and its contentmay not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyrightholder’s express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles forindividual use.

  • Assignment status: Already Solved By Our Experts
  • (USA, AUS, UK & CA PhD. Writers)
QUALITY: 100% ORIGINAL PAPER –  NO PLAGIARISM – CUSTOM PAPER

testimonials icon
looking for someone that has accounting experience. each chapter have a 10 question quiz, homework chapter, and a practice quiz, and practi...
testimonials icon
Nursing law ethics ESSAY PURPOSE This essay will give you the opportunity to develop your unders...
testimonials icon
  3 pages film analysis  of "In The Moon For Love" directed by Wong Kar-wai, it must include1)  a brief (one paragraph) summary...
testimonials icon
/*! elementor - v3.6.5 - 27-04-2022 */ .elementor-heading-title{padding:0;margin:0;line-height:1}.elementor-widget-heading .elementor-heading...
testimonials icon
Use the Internet or the Strayer Library to research the difference in the cash flow reporting requirements between US G...
testimonials icon
Job-Specific Orientation Plan Prepare a three- to four-page (not including the title and reference pages) job-specific orientation plan...
testimonials icon
EED 420 Week 4 Individual -- Curriculum Map-Assessment Section...
testimonials icon
Governments are not required to accrue interest on long-term debt in governmental funds even if the interest is applicable to a current period and...
testimonials icon
1. You’re figuring out the bid for a job that includes installing a device you’ve never installed before. To getan...
testimonials icon
Acute Myeloid Leukemia Essay SampleAcute myeloid leukemia forms in the bone marrow cells. The immature an...

Other samples, services and questions:

Calculate Price

When you use PaperHelp, you save one valuable — TIME

You can spend it for more important things than paper writing.

Approx. price
$65
Order a paper. Study better. Sleep tight. Calculate Price!
Created with Sketch.
Calculate Price
Approx. price
$65