Communicating about the Counterinsurgency Program in the Philippines: Local Government Communication Practices

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. line 196- when you said " many emprial studies...(Please include some of them there to justify your statement).

2. For 3.1-Sampling: There is a need to decribe your sampling more perhaps include their designation, first line managers?middle managers? etc

3. The references used in the discussion section need to include more recent references because most of the references used are dated. It is understandable to refer back to some that are dated due to the original theoriest paper or some seminal paper but the findings need to be discussed with some recent findings to show contribution to the scholarship

3.

Author Response

The authors appreciate the reviewer's suggestion, including empirical studies to justify the statement. The wording and sentences have been revised to provide a clear statement in the manuscript. Furthermore, the reviewer's comment regarding the sampling section has been acknowledged, and more descriptions have been added to clarify the point. The revised paper now includes recent references in the discussion.

Thank you for your valuable feedback.

Reviewer 2 Report

1. The problem statement is vague. What is the issue or the problem that triggered the research? The need of this research was not established clearly. 

2. The theoretical contribution is vague. How does the study contribute to the body of knowledge? The author has stated that this study will be contributing to the communication scholarship but it is vague.

3. The methodology is not robust. Eg. How does the sample were chosen? What are the criteria of sampling? What is the informants background (background information to see if the samples are good)? How the interview protocol was developed? How the qualitative data was managed? I think the methodology needs some major revisions. 

4. The themes in chapter four can be presented more clearly. Maybe through NVIVO diagram or in a table form. 

5. The way chapter 5 was written is not appropriate. The way the discussion was written shows as though there is no new discovery or findings. The author stated ' this is similar to another study conducted by..." this defeats the nature of qualitative research which I think it must be revised. 

6. The significance of the study theoretically must be addressed.  

Author Response

The authors appreciate the reviewer's comment on the problem statement. In the revised paper, it is pointed out that there is limited scholarly attention on government communication practices in the Philippines. Despite the importance of communication in the public sector, comprehensive studies addressing the specific challenges and dynamics faced by government communicators in the country are lacking. Regarding the theoretical contribution, the paper provides an in-depth exploration of the communication practices of local government communicators in the Philippines, uncovering key themes and challenges. This contribution enriches our understanding of government communication in non-Western countries. The author also appreciates the reviewer's comment on the methodology, and more explanations have been added to address these important points. Additionally, a major revision has been made to chapter 5 to ensure that the discussion is properly written and contributes to the body of knowledge.

Thank you for your valuable feedback.

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Author/Authors

Your study can be published in present form. On the other hand, I would like to make a few suggestions.

I think the abstract of the study is explanatory. However the method of the study should be clearly stated in the abstract of the study. You state that you used a model. So, is your research qualitative or quantitative? Please elaborate.

It is stated that the purposeful sampling method was used in the sample of the study. So what was the key point or key points of your purposive sampling method? Please explain these too. As a matter of fact, the sample selection of an academic study is important in terms of revealing the universe of the study effectively.

Best regards.

Author Response

The author appreciates the reviewer's initial comment that the study could be published in its present form. The abstract has been revised to incorporate the suggestion of elaborating on the method used in the study. In the revised paper, the author added these statements "Drawing on the government public relations model by Liu and Horsley (2007), a qualitative research approach was employed to gain in-depth insights into the experiences and perspectives of local information officers. The study utilized semi-structured interviews as the primary data collection method." 

The purposive sampling has also been expanded, including the roles of government communicators, diversity and representativeness in the sample, and the work positions of the participants.

Thank you for your valuable feedback.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

1. Please highlight the research gap, especially the theoretical gap at the beginning of the study, as it is a fundamental/basic research. It must contributes to the body of knowledge. Please highlight how does your study contributes to the body of knowledge and it must be evident.

2. Please improve your methodology. Specifically, the interview protocol development lacks of details on how it was developed. I noticed that you have included it but it is too brief. The procedures are vague.

3. The data analysis is very weak, the procedures of data analysis lacks of details/vague. Eg. Why there is a need of having coders here? It seems you are not aware of the procedures involved in thematic analysis. The procedure needs to be explained. I suggest present the findings in table or in mind-mapping form if you have done the analysis manually. How do you manage your qualitative data is questionable.

4. Please be detailed in the data collection section. Please discuss the procedures of the data collection and justify it accordingly. Currently the discussion of the data collection part is weak.

Author Response

Dear Referee,

Greetings!

Below are our responses to your comments:

1. In response to the referee's comment on the research gap, particularly the theoretical gap associated with fundamental/basic research, the authors argue that the paper leans more towards empirical research rather than theoretical research. This argument is based on the primary objective of collecting empirical evidence on government communication practices at the local government level in the Philippines, specifically in the context of counter-insurgency campaigns. Additionally, the authors emphasize the importance of conducting further studies in developing countries, as they possess unique contexts, policies, aims, issues, and practices that shape the role of government communication.

Since Liu and Horsley developed the government communication decision wheel in 2007, there has been a need to gather empirical evidence that supports communication practices in the public sector. Furthermore, there is a need to test the model's ability to explain and predict how communication is practiced within the Philippine public sector. In this study, qualitative data were utilized to validate the underlying assumptions of the government communication decision wheel by confirming the strength of certain environmental attributes related to communication practices, particularly in the context of the Philippine government's counter-insurgency program.

1. In response to the referee's comment regarding the improvement of the methodology, specifically the development of the interview protocol, the authors have decided to integrate the interview protocol and data collection procedure. This section has been carefully revised to provide more detailed information about the data collection process, including the timeframe, duration of interviews, consent process, language usage, and transcription procedures. These revisions aim to offer a clearer understanding of the research procedures employed in the study.
2. The authors acknowledge the need to enhance the data analysis section as suggested by the referee. To address this, the authors have removed the term "coders," originally referring to the authors themselves, in order to eliminate confusion. The data analysis in this study follows the approach outlined by Braun and Clarke (2006), which involves a two-stage process. In the revised paper, it is emphasized that the first stage entails translation and transcription conducted by the authors. The second stage involves identifying and developing categories and themes that are relevant to the research questions. Thematic analysis was employed to extract key patterns, recurring ideas, and insights from the interviews. The revised paper highlights that the thematic analysis began with the listing of initial significant statements relevant to the research questions and overall objective of the study. From this listing, the information officers' responses to each research question were segmented, and key themes that emerged from the interviews were identified. It is also noted that the determination of each key theme was reached through mutual agreement among the authors.

Furthermore, the authors acknowledge the referee's viewpoint regarding the management of qualitative data. However, the authors have carefully included excerpts and ideas in the paper to facilitate the cross-examination of statements with the identified themes. These statements align with our manual analysis.

We hope that the revised paper to enhance the readability and comprehensiveness, particularly in the methodology section, taking into account the referee's comments.

Truly yours,

The Authors