The 1984 edition of Webster's Collegiate Dictionary defines technology as "a scientific method of achieving a particular purpose" (p. 176). The meaning of the word "technology," however, is relative to the context and time period in which it is used. An additional characterization of technology, written 36 years ago in the American Heritage Dictionary (1970) reads "the application of science, especially to industrial or commercial objectives" (p. 187). These definitions vary according to the editor's perspective and the time period to which it is applied. Like its definition, technology itself has evolved and developed over time as it has broadened its reach and contributed to a multitude of changes in society. As new professional educators, recent technology education graduates find themselves entering an ever-changing technological field which is suffering an identity crisis. This crisis is manifested in the relentlessly erratic state of change in technology as well as in the current debate over an appropriate title for the field. The perceptions of technology education vary greatly from state to state, and, in some cases, from program to program. These disparities have lead to confusion even amongst educators in the field. Today, many technology educators are calling for a new name for the field. Three possible outcomes might result from such a name change: The change could prove to be beneficial. It could help unite the field and promote technology education to the public, to schools, to administrators, and to legislators. On the other hand, a name change could have no effect and leave educators with the same problems of having to explain and justify their programs as they continue to search for a cohesive identity. Or a name change could hinder the field by further confusing perceptions about technology education, thus leading to even less uniformity among technology educators across the nation. Just as some schools failed to transition from industrial arts totechnology education, another attempt at a name change could prove difficult to implement while, at the same time, attempting to maintain consistent curriculums and learning objectives. These authors take the position that the field of technology education should not change its name, as the nature and definition of the word "technology" allows for flexibility in the curriculum, and can easily be defined to encompass future changes in technology. They suggest, instead, that rather than searching for a new title, focusing on the current name and promoting technology education as a unified field is the best approach.