Science has constantly suffered from the fact that in most cases conducted research will not be repeated by colleagues. Somewhere quite understandable because the personal benefits are low. Some eighty years ago Poppers sketched how to reform modern science. In his view replication should lead to refuting previous research and becomes as criticism the engine of scientific progress. What does this replication problem mean for my research? I really believe that a fellow researcher can replicate my research, but at the same time I know that the chance of a similar outcome is minimal if not impossible. In my research participants construct their view of the prevailing corporate culture, such a construction is a very time and emotion-related activity. Therefore, replication in this case will always lead to new knowledge. I have no fear for criticism because I believe that criticism will bring my research to a higher level and in this way will contribute to scientific progress. So, why shouldn't I replicatie my own research?