Global Entrepreneurship Monitor - 2009 Flanders & Belgium report. An integrated overview of entrepreurship and its antecedents

Abstract

This article responds to the issues Samiee (2010–this issue) raises in his recent comment on Roth and Diamantopoulos (2009). The overall focus of the criticism (Samiee, 2010–this issue) on the missing critical considerations of the study is somewhat surprising. Samiee (2010–this issue) criticizes Roth and Diamantopoulos (2009) not on what they did but on what they did not do. Such criticism would, at least in principle, be justifiable if directed at omissions that are directly relevant to the core construct of Roth and Diamantopoulos' (2009) paper, namely the country image (CoI) construct. However, most of the critical issues Samiee (2010–this issue) raises apply to research on country-of-origin (CoO) effects in general and not to Roth and Diamantopoulos' (2009) study that provides concrete guidelines on how to conceptualize and operationalize CoI in future research. This response first highlights how Roth and Diamantopoulos' (2009) study, centering on the CoI construct, differs from studies on the CoO effect. The article then directly addresses the specific critical issues Samiee (2010–this issue) raises and also discusses the relevance of CoI and CoO research. The paper concludes by suggesting that, while demanding rigor in CoO and CoI research is indeed timely and important, completely rejecting this research stream is both premature and unwise.