Kozma, R. (2000). The relationship between technology and design in educational technology research and development: A reply to Richey. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(1), 19-21. The Relationship between Technology and Design in Educational Technology Research and Development: A Reply Robert Kozma Center for Technology in Learning, SRI International I will be brief in my reply to Richey’s response (this issue). Of the many topics that Richey discusses, I will focus on just one: the role of technology in educational technology research and development. In her article, Richey advances a fundamental misrepresentation of my position, as it is delineated in my article in this issue and in previous articles (Kozma 1991, 1994a, 1994b). According to Richey, I suggest that the field of educational technology research and development will grow “only when research, product development, and academic programs focus on technology-driven instruction and learning” (p. xx) [emphasis added]. She goes on to say that I suggest that “media research should have a paramount, if not exclusive, role in the field’s research agenda” (p. xx) [emphasis added]. I find these techno-centric representations to be a common and unfortunate misconception of my position, particularly among those researchers that adhere to the tradition ISD position. Further, it is difficult for me to understand the origin of this misconception when I explicitly articulate a position otherwise. Let me quote from my own article (this issue): “The design of learning materials and environments is the core of our field” (p. xx). I go on to say that, “If we understand the media we use, they can inspire our creativity and enable powerful designs” (p. xx). I believe our research focus should be on the nexus of these two things: design and technology—media and method—not just one or the other. Neither alone accounts for all the variance in our research findings. Neither alone is sufficient to sustain our field. It is the interplay of the two within the learning context that should be the focus of our research and theory. This is a position I stated in my response to Clark (Clark, 1983; 1994; Kozma, 1994b) and it is a position I will reiterate here. I do not push technology to the exclusion of design. Instructional design—or as I prefer, the design of learning environments—is essential to our field. On the other hand, I feel that there is a large number of traditional educational technology researchers who focus only on design. Clark (1983, 1994) and others contend that it is method not the medium that accounts for learning. They disparage or ignore the role of technology in our field. To them it is just an inert, passive vehicle by which method is delivered. To hear Richey (this issue) talk, it sounds like our focus of our field is exclusively design. In reading her article, it is difficult to distinguish between our field and other design sciences, such as organizational psychology, behavior management, or program evaluation. What distinguishes our field from these?