Revisiting Relationship Cultivation Strategies: A Comparative Analysis of Strategic Communication Practice in Kenya’s County Governments and Corporate Sectors

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript under review presents high-quality academic research that rigorously and originally analyses relationship-building strategies in two distinct institutional contexts: Kenyan county governments and the corporate sector. The study is highly relevant to the field of Media & Journalism as it contributes to the analysis of strategic communication, public participation and democratic governance in non-Western contexts, an area still largely unexplored in the international literature.

The title and abstract of the article adequately fulfil their informative function, as they clearly identify the comparative methodological approach, the empirical context and the theoretical framework of reference. The abstract effectively summarises the context of the study, the methodological design based on in-depth interviews, the main findings and the theoretical contributions. The keywords are relevant and specific, although the title could benefit from slight condensation to improve its fluidity without losing conceptual precision.

The introduction clearly establishes the relevance of the topic, positioning public participation as a legal obligation in the Kenyan context and highlighting the gap between regulatory mandates and actual communication practice. The manuscript solidly justifies the comparative approach between sectors and clearly presents relationship management theory as the central theoretical framework. Particularly noteworthy is the articulation between Kenya's constitutional framework and public relations practice, as well as the justification of the inductive approach over more common deductive approaches. The identification of the gap in the literature, particularly in relation to the public sector and sub-Saharan Africa, is well-founded and adds significant value.

The literature review is one of the main strengths of the article. It presents a logical and coherent structure that integrates the historical evolution of the field, the legal framework, relationship management theory and specific cultivation strategies. The coverage of the six strategies is comprehensive and supported by up-to-date literature, combining contributions on strategic communication, relationship management and democratic governance. The manuscript demonstrates remarkable critical capacity in analysing the limitations of the theory in governmental contexts and incorporates relevant critical perspectives that enrich the conceptual framework.

The theoretical and conceptual framework is clearly defined and consistently supported by relationship management theory, using established operational definitions. The research questions are well formulated, present a logical progression, and are appropriately aligned with the study's objectives and methodological design.

From a methodological point of view, the article stands out for its exceptional rigour. The inductive qualitative approach and comparative design are well justified, and the sample allows for a robust cross-sectoral comparison. Particularly noteworthy are the attention to research ethics, the follow-up interviews with all participants, and the multiple safeguards against confirmation bias. The analytical process is described with a high level of transparency, and the limitations of the study are honestly acknowledged.

The results are presented clearly and systematically, supported by extensive citations that reinforce interpretative validity. The discussion makes a central theoretical contribution by questioning the universality of relationship management theory and introducing the concept of ‘institutional possibility,’ which allows us to understand how structural conditions condition the implementation of strategies. The practical and academic implications are well developed.

Overall, the article stands out for its methodological rigour, original theoretical contribution, genuine inductive approach, and intellectual honesty. It addresses a relevant gap in the literature and offers findings with implications beyond the case studied, and is therefore recommended for acceptance with minor revisions.

Author Response

We have attached a document with responses to the reviewer comments. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article examines how relationship cultivation strategies are interpreted and enacted by strategic communication practitioners in Kenya’s county governments and corporate sector. Drawing on 38 in-depth interviews and guided by relationship management theory, the study employs a theory-informed inductive approach to explore how six key strategies - access, assurances, openness, networking, positivity, and task sharing - manifest in structurally distinct institutional contexts, extending scholarship on relationship cultivation to an underexamined sub-Saharan African setting. The topic is relevant for public relations studies and particularly for strategic communication. The paper is theoretically ambitious, drawing on relationship management theory and relationship cultivation strategies.

However, in its current form the manuscript suffers from several important weaknesses that limit its scientific contribution and clarity. 

At the end of the section Literature Review, the authors state that the study explores three interconnected research questions:
RQ1: Which relationship cultivation strategies are enacted by public relations professionals in Kenya’s county governments and corporate sectors?

RQ2: How do institutional structures such as legal mandates, bureaucratic systems, and political dynamics influence the application of these strategies?

RQ3: What do the sectoral differences in strategy enactment reveal about the contextual limits and adaptability of relationship management theory?

Beside the fact that the Literature Review section should serve to build the theoretical framework and justify the questions, rather than explicitly stating them, as they are more appropriately placed at the end of the introduction, we note that the presentation of the results is not in tune with the research questions.

The results address mainly the first research question (RQ1: What relationship cultivation strategies are implemented by public relations professionals in county administrations and the corporate sector in Kenya?), being structured around the six basic strategies for relationship cultivation.

The Discussion section provides insight into sectoral contrasts in strategic communication practice, offering partial answers to research questions 2 and 3, but greater consistency is recommended in terms of establishing research questions and how they are addressed.

The Results and Discussion sections should be restructured to respond explicitly and systematically to each research question stated, in order to ensure the clarity and avoid the impression that the analysis provides only partial answers to the research questions.

The authors use expressions such as "community barazas" in lines 122, 124 or "public barazas" in lines 148, 197, etc. Authors should explain these expressions for international readers who are unfamiliar with them.

Author Response

We have attached a Word doc with responses to the comments and suggestions from the reviewer. Thank you for your helpful input.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for allowing me to revise this manuscript again.

This version is improved compared to the previous one, and I noted that the authors provided rigorous responses to all the comments made during the previous evaluation stage. The authors have made a significant effort to restructure the text, and the changes and amendments made to the manuscript improve the content and bring greater clarity.

I have no other comments or suggestions regarding the content of this manuscript.

However, after thoroughly reading the revised version, I noticed that there are a few editing errors. I recommend that the manuscript be carefully proofread.

For example, the first sentence of the Abstract begins with a lowercase (Abstract: study examines how relationship ...) and the word "this" seems to be missing (Abstract: This study examines how relationship ...). Capital letters are used in keywords when they should not be, for example “relationship cultivation strategies; Public relations in Kenya;”.

References should be carefully checked to ensure they are written in the same style. For example, in line 82, the full names of the authors appear (Artan Özoran & Müge Yıldız, 2025).

References should also be checked to ensure that all works cited in the text are included in the list of references at the end of the paper. For example, in line 88, the study/article (Zerfass et al., 2018) is mentioned, but it cannot be found in the list of references.

Author Response

Thank you for your feedback. I carefully reviewed the manuscript and made the requested changes in the areas you identified, along with a few additional corrections I found during my review. The changes and additions are marked in green in the manuscript and are listed below:

1) I revised the abstract so that it now reads, “This study…”. I believe the earlier error may have occurred during the conversion of the manuscript to the peer-review format.

2) I corrected the keywords so that they now appear in the appropriate lowercase style.

3 I corrected the in-text citation to read: (Özoran & Yıldız, 2025).

4) I added Zerfass et al. (2018) to the reference list.

5) I also identified two in-text citations that were missing from the reference list and have now added them: Toledano (2016) and Mersham et al. (2011).

6) In addition, I removed Creswell and Poth from the reference list because it was not cited in the manuscript.

7) I also corrected a few DOI and reference formatting inconsistencies in the reference list.

If I missed anything else, please let me know, and I will be happy to correct it.

Thank you.