While graduate programs in instructional design provide education in communications theory, media research, information systems, motivation theory, and behavioral and cognitive psychology, practice in the field often reflects a more pragmatic approach. In October 1985, Training Magazine surveyed thousands of training professionals responsible for instructional development in business and industry. Results indicate that, although half of respondents did employ some method of writing objectives and conducting evaluation, the percentages of affirmative answers to the following questions were for: (1) write objectives in behavioral terms (60%); (2) assess entry level skills and knowledge (64%); (3) base media and method decisions on objectives (78%); (4) test programs as they are developed (65%); (5) evaluate the effectiveness of programs (65%); and (6) use feedback and test performance to revise (87%). Seventeen percent agreed with the statement "Our organization is too small to justify the processes and procedures implied by the above items," and 29% said yes to "Our management would never stand still for the time necessary to follow the processes and procedures implied by the above items." Results also indicate that only 27% of respondents reported using computer-based training or instruction, and just under 12% reported hooking a computer to a video or videodisc player to deliver training. It is concluded that graduate educators have a responsibility to do more than respond to the field, and they are encouraged to define it through research and development and model it through the graduates they produce. A list of references is provided. (JB)