A response to Richard E. Clark's conclusion that media research needs to stop emphasizing descriptive research and focus on prescriptive research designs and questions, this paper reiterates the distinctions between disciplines and applied fields of study, and suggests that these distinctions should be evident in the descriptive/prescriptive research reports generated for each; imparts the author's belief that replicating the theoretical and inquiry strategies of descriptive research may be debilitating to applied research; and discusses instruction in reality and the implications of a holistic research paradigm to study learning from instruction. The paper argues that commitment in the past to the constructs imposed by a particular discipline has failed to produce the consistency, generality, and commonality needed for the development of a comprehensive paradigm for applied research on learning from instruction. It also warns that research without a theoretical domain may provide new directions that are no more beneficial as a guide than the paths of the past, and that, although applied research in this area should be based upon the constructs of learning/cognitive theory, instructional theory should not be confused with learning/cognitive theory. A research paradigm is presented which is based on the presumption that there is both theoretical and intuitive commonality among the researchers and practitioners interested in learning from research. It is noted that such a paradigm needs to be broad enough to include psychological, sociological, and physiological experimental and naturalistic research interests, and dynamic enough to allow for the inclusion of various theories pertaining to how, when, where, and why learners become competent. (8 references) (BBM)