"The most frequently reported conclusion in 1997-2006 is that development theory needs more attention. In 1987-1996 this conclusion was even more frequently mentioned, indicating that scholars were being urged to continue thinking carefully about what development means. Researchers in 1997-2006 frequently concluded that development communication has a positive impact on social structure as they also did in 1987-1996. One difference is that negative impact on social structure is much less frequently mentioned as a conclusion in 1997-2006. Studies in 1997-2006 do not often conclude that there are positive impacts of development communication on individuals, while in 1958-1986, this was one of the most common conclusions, mentioned in one-quarter of all studies. Another important finding in the 1997-2006 period is the apparent dissatisfaction with the state of the art in theory and research in development communication. Aside from urging attention to development theory, the studies also urged more attention to development communication campaign planning by taking into account, local culture, gender issues, and multimedia delivery of information, and to improving research methods." (Conclusions in development communication research)

"The research referred to here was prompted in part by three assessments of development communication. Fair and Shah (1997) conducted a meta-research of 140 studies of development communication published between 1987 and 1996 which highlighted a number of trends: technological advances had forced development communication researchers to accommodate new media into development communication theory and practice; more critical theoretical approaches were used, acknowledging that development communication was a more complex affair than assumed by hypodermic needle models of media effects, prominent in an earlier era; conceptualizing development communication based on alternative theoretical approaches was running ahead of actual implementation of the new ideas.
In a 1998 meta-research, Wei examined published research about Asian countries and found the dominant paradigm of development communication exerted strong influence. Alternative approaches to development communication were at the “inception and awareness stages” and rarely implemented in projects (Wei, 1998), and researchers were heavily focused on new information and communication technology and its potential for stimulating modernization. Wei lamented that more attention was not given to alternatives such as folk media.
More than ten years after the meta-research by Fair and Shah (1997), a number of factors have had important potential implications for development communication. For example, the worldwide incidence of AIDS and other health concerns reached crisis proportions. Further technological innovation expanded the range and scope of communication networks through the World Wide Web. Access to new technologies improved to such an extent that, though serious gaps remain, unprecedented numbers of people now have access to telephony, computers, and satellite communication. Given these trends, what is the state of development communication research today? The research reported here was also prompted by a third overview of development communication published in the Journal of Communication (Kim 2005). That article seemed to confuse some concepts related to the study of development communication. There, the term neomodernization was applied to participatory, emancipatory, and action-research approaches to development communication, but it is more accurately applied to development communication approaches that retain an emphasis on high-end technology and industrialization as the bases for national development (see So, 1990). The participatory, emancipatory, and action-research approaches fall within so-called postmodern approaches that do not view industrialization and sophisticated technology as central to development (see Fair & Shah, 1997)." (Assessments of development communication research)