Characteristics and activities of the HOD "typical student" are reflected in the following "two years in the life…" description. This description is not that of an individual student, but more a composite of many HOD students.

"My first two years in the HOD program at Fielding. Reflections on My Journey as I Begin My Third Year"

I had been hearing of Fielding from several different sources. An OD consultant who came into my organization was a HOD alum who was very successful at helping us with some major changes. Then, at conferences and in various conversations, I started to hear about Fielding. At first, my friends and family were skeptical about the nature of a program that did not have a campus. But, slowly, as I learned more about Fielding, in particular about its self-directed learning program that would let me continue to work at my current job and not have to move out of my city, I became convinced that Fielding might be ideal for me.

It was important that it was accredited, as some of the other schools I considered were not. When I received the brochure, and read about the faculty and some of the students, the quality of the program itself became more "real" to me. Finally, I applied. I was excited when I received notice to have an interview with a faculty who lived about 50 miles away. My interview with her was great. While I was apprehensive at first, I found myself talking about my passion (better understanding how people with real differences in values can learn to better work together), in a way that I had never before discussed.

It was wonderful to receive my letter of acceptance. I was increasingly nervous as I prepared to go to Santa Barbara for a March NSO (New Student Orientation). I think if I hadn't told my co-workers, friends, and especially my family that I was determined to complete my PhD , I would have backed out at the last minute. But, I knew I couldn't stop now, so I went to the NSO.

MARCH Year 1

The week of the NSO was challenging, difficult, frustrating, amazing and wonderful. After presentations by several faculty and administrators at Fielding, we were divided into groups of six new students, one student anchor and one faculty anchor. While there was valuable information presented during the NSO sessions, it was the interaction within the small group that was most important to me. The turning point for me was the presentation of our "life lines." We were each given a sheet of paper, some colored pens, and invited to illustrate our life, our journey that brought us to Fielding. I found a little corner outside on the patio and stared at the paper, not knowing what I should write or draw or what was expected of me. At first, I felt that I did not want to go through with this. Then, the time (20 minutes) to prepare this lifeline, was running out. So, I decided to draw in a very unstructured way the events and relationships that seemed most important. Once I started, I was surprised at how the ideas just flowed. When the time was up, I rolled up my paper - not really sure that I wanted to share this with the others in my small group. The faculty anchor, who has been with Fielding for many years, began by telling his story, sharing his lifeline. I was totally captured by his story - it was not at all what I expected. Then, he invited us to ask questions - and I was surprised again by how special the time together was beginning to feel. As the others began sharing their life lines, I was really amazed at how different the stories were (some folks had amazing accomplishments, some had incredible traumas, and some seemed quite ordinary) and how differently the lifelines were presented. One person had just drawn a line, with events noted along the line. Another person drew an abstract image - without words or events - and spoke about feelings and emotions. Another person drew pictures of special people and places in his life. My life line seemed very different from the others - I had a circle that was divided into different sections for different phases of my life - and yet it seemed to fit right in, to belong - and to complete our group's shared life line. While there was a lot of information presented, the experience of sharing our life lines seemed to give me the courage to continue, and to feel as though I belonged in this program. At times I felt overwhelmed. However, all of the material seemed to be posted on FELIX, Fielding's web site, so I felt comfortable that I could access it when I arrived home. We also had some training in using the Fielding web site. Although a few of the new students were not too familiar with using the Internet for communication and information, most of the students were, like me, fully involved with electronic communication at work and at home. Our small group decided to stay connected using a forum on FELIX - and that was, for me, an important way to keep in contact.

There were several surprises at the NSO. I had not expected the students to come from such different backgrounds. There were OD consultants as I expected, but there were also nurses, technologists and engineers, Human Resource people, a diversity consultant, several college teachers, a lawyer and a law enforcement officer - among others. I was also surprised at how different the faculty were. Among the faculty at the OPS, there was one prominent OD consultant, another faculty was also professor at another university, one was involved in a major community social change initiative, and one was an information systems specialist. They also had some very different perspectives on learning, the HOD program, research - just about every issue we covered at the NSO. A few of the students expected that the faculty would have similar ideas, and were concerned about these differences - but most of us seemed to relish their debates!

I had to select an Interim Mentor during the NSO. I decided that I would ask the person with whom I originally interviewed as she lived close to me. Some of the students selected faculty they met at the OPS, and others called faculty who were not there, but had similar interests. We were all pleasantly surprised when faculty agreed to serve as our mentors.

In many ways, it was a shock to return home. Although I travel a lot in my work, this return was different. I had just been through an intense week, established close relationships with fellow students and faculty, and had an opportunity to delve deeply into my own dreams and hopes and interests for my doctoral studies. I was now a doctoral student - and found myself feeling really different in ways I couldn't describe. I think it was difficult for my family, especially, when I returned. I was different in ways that none of us had expected. But, they were wonderful and curious and actually seemed to be more interested in me and my ideas than they had ever been before. Now I was faced with developing my "Learning Plan." Although we had begun it at the OPS, as I reviewed it, I needed to add much more to it. We had to select the Knowledge Areas we wanted to study, and write brief abstracts about what we would do for the three parts (overview, in-depth and applied) of each overview, and which faculty we would choose as assessor. Then, we even were supposed to consider a dissertation topic! I had so many ideas, I wanted to learn and study so much, I didn't know where to begin. I read the Study Guides for each Knowledge Area, and found so many books that seemed so interesting! I had so many ideas, I suddenly found myself blocked - I didn't know where to begin or how to end. I was concerned about committing to one area and then finding out I really wanted to do something else. Right in the midst of this quandary, I was fortunate enough to attend a cluster meeting. The faculty I had selected as my mentor was there - as were about ten other Fielding students. They all seemed so confident and accomplished at this scholarly work. But, they were also friendly and welcoming. We started out with a "check-in." Although I wasn't planning to discuss it, I found myself sharing my frustration at not being able to complete my learning plan, especially since several of the others in my NSO small group had turned theirs in during the NSO itself. I was so glad that I brought this up. Almost everyone at the cluster meeting shared their own experiences. Two students offered to share their learning plans with me. And, my new mentor suggested that we meet the next week to talk about my ideas. This Fielding process of self-directed learning is really about networking and helping each other in the learning process! Over the course of the next few weeks, a meeting with my mentor, and discussions with two of the other students in the cluster, I was able to decide on which KA's I'd select to start. I knew that they were only tentative - they could be changed later. It took about two more weeks for me to revise the learning plan. I mailed it to my mentor, and she approved it and sent it to Santa Barbara for filing.

APRIL, Year 1

The next "big" event was the Research Session, in April, where I would begin work on my first Knowledge Area, KA1, Part A, Research and Inquiry. Again, I was uncertain whether to attend. Some of the people in my NSO small group were going, but others were not. One person had already submitted a knowledge area and felt she would concentrate on her next one, rather than attend. But, again, I did. There were several surprises at the Research Session. I was expecting some intense lectures - instead we had discussions, and were challenged to think about our own ways of knowing. As part of this session, we went out, in small groups, just exploring together. At first I though that this exercise was ridiculous. However, as my group of three decided to wander into a local park and notice what was happening there, we found that we were interested in very different things. One person wanted to move through quickly, another wanted to linger in one spot. One person wanted to sit on a bench next to a stranger and begin talking. Some of us were more interested in the animals and the flowers and another was paying attention to the people using cell phones. After about an hour, we started talking about how we were each interested in different things, and wanted to learn more about them using different approaches. When we returned to the session, and presented our experiences, we felt that we actually accomplished some very important learnings about our own styles of inquiry and those of others.

Just as at the OPS, I was impressed with how differently each faculty approached research. One of the faculty was a phenomenologist, one was an anthropologist, and another was a very concrete (seemingly) organizational researcher. This variety seems more "natural" now than when we first noticed it at the NSO - I think we are beginning to be comfortable with a program whose faculty are so different from each other!

We all wrote up contracts for the KA1,Part A assessment. I was still unsure about which of many ideas I wanted to research and write about. So, I just wrote a pretty generic contract. We had to select a faculty assessor for the KA1,Part A. I decided to go with one of the faculty who was leading the research session. His ideas about action research and social change seemed to follow the direction I would like to go with my dissertation. He liked the assessment contract I had prepared and signed off on it.

Again, it was hard to be away from my family during this time - and yet it was also hard to leave my new colleagues. When I returned home, my colleagues told me that I seemed different, that I was noticing things that I didn't notice before. It was curious.

The next big challenge was finding the time to work on this first KA. At work, I was transferred into a new department. Although I was expecting a transfer, I didn't realize how much extra time this would take. At home, my family responsibilities suddenly increased as one of my relatives became ill and I had to spend quite a bit of extra time with her. Meanwhile, I was finding myself really interested in different research traditions. I was reading whenever I had the chance, and began to wonder if I would ever know enough to write this first paper. I had hoped to do the reading and writing in about six weeks. Yet, after six weeks, I was still reading and not writing. Our online forum, with the small group, was going well - but I was getting discouraged as several of the other students had already completed their KA1,Part A paper. Finally, I sent an email message to the faculty assessor I had chosen, asking for help. A few days later, the faculty assessor called me up (I was surprised) and we spoke for a while about the assessment - and other issues related to my transition into being a Fielding student. After this discussion, I was able to complete the writing of the KA1,Part A within the next month.

Meanwhile, several of the students at my NSO decided to have a collaborative online seminar for KA2, Human Development. This idea seemed to make sense, as it would give me the structure I felt I needed at this point - and I would have others to work with in my studies. We asked another faculty to assess with us, as a group. Although none of us had yet met her in person, she had a tremendous reputation with other students for giving careful, thorough and timely feedback. We had a conference call with her, and established a structure for this Knowledge Area. We decided to work together on the overview, be dividing up the major readings, and reporting to each other about them with an online forum on FELIX. Then, we agreed to write our in-depth papers separately, and post them on the forum. Finally, we agreed to discuss each other's papers using the forum and telephone conference calls. When we discussed our plans with the faculty assessor, she suggested we add a one or two page autobiography at the beginning of the seminar. Each of us then wrote up individual assessment contracts, which we emailed to the assessor. She approved our contracts and emailed them to Santa Barbara.

Life was now becoming complex! I was attending cluster meetings each month - that was so important for me. Many of my colleagues at the NSO were moving at a more rapid pace than I was, and my cluster colleagues were great at supporting me - as most of them had an even "slower" pace. It was also important to talk with them about the knowledge areas and the faculty - the sense of isolation that I had once been concerned about was no longer an issue as the cluster was becoming an important place to meet. I received feedback on my KA1,Part A assessment. At first I was concerned because the assessor asked me to develop one of my ideas more thoroughly, and suggested ways of improving my writing. I had hoped that I would just get a straight approval. But, after I calmed down a bit, and re-read the comments, I realized that the comments were not only reasonable, but that they would go a long ways towards building my own skills as a scholar (I was still getting used to using that term!).

JULY Year 1

I decided not to attend Summer Session in July. Although I would have liked to attend, my life was just too busy at that time to take a week away from my family and my work. Instead, I chose to concentrate on my KA2 assessment work. The online forum was taking much more time than I had expected. But, the dialogue was getting extremely fascinating. As we read each other's autobiographies and analyses of different theories, we were again struck by how different we were. Then, we found ourselves getting into very intense discussions about the relevance of some of the theoretical views to our own lives. One of the participants was going through a difficult family situation and she brought this experience into the forum for us to talk about with her. The Human Development theories seemed to be speaking directly to each of us - although in very different ways. The faculty assessor's contributions were wonderful. She was not lecturing us, but kept challenging us to think more deeply, and to read more of the relevant literature - both classic writings and current academic journals.

Writing this KA2 paper was a very different experience. This time, I was concerned about how my student colleagues would react when I posted the paper - but the writing seemed to flow. This time, the challenge was to know when to stop writing. The Human Development area is one that I could write a book on (or so I believed). Having a deadline for the paper (as part of the seminar group's plan) was helpful, as I knew that I had to draw some boundaries.

As part of the Applied section of this KA, I decided to develop a workshop for a parents group to which I belong, in which we explored some of the different approaches to Human Development. It was interesting for me to be aware of the changes in my own perception of this workshop. I was not "teaching" as much as facilitating a learning dialogue.

Handing in this KA2, in September, was a great experience. All but one of the original participants had completed the KA on time! We had a final "celebration" phone call - that turned into planning for another collaborative KA.

FALL, Year 1

During the fall of my first year, I decided to contract, solo, in KA9, Management and Leadership. My work was becoming more challenging - and I was finding myself increasingly in need of more ideas about how I was working with the members of my team. I called one of the faculty who had been at the OPS, and asked her if she would consider assessing with me. We talked about my particular concerns at work, and the theoretical ideas I would like to explore. She suggested several organization and management journals - and encouraged me to become familiar with the ideas, research, and models that they presented. She also suggested some books on feminist approaches to management. I was somewhat surprised that these resources were not the popular books, the "best sellers" on management that I've been reading over the past few years. The faculty assessor also suggested I attend a national conference sponsored by the Academy of Management.

I did attend this conference, in late November. Here I had a chance to discuss ideas with other academics and practitioners. But, I also had the opportunity for discussions with other doctoral students. I was a bit envious of the structure of their courses and requirements - they did not seem to have the same uncertainties that I had at Fielding. However, the more I listed to them, the more I was assured that I had made the right choice for me. They had very little choice in faculty - and the sequence of courses was determined for them. As we continued our conversations, I realized that I was confirming, for myself, the importance of the Fielding self-directed process of learning. Out of the occasional chaos, there were real strengths emerging!

JANUARY, Year 2

In January, I attended Winter Session in Santa Barbara. What a marvelous, hectic, intense learning and connection opportunity. We started out on Sunday evening with a reception by the President. Here we had the opportunity to have discussions with other students and faculty. I was impressed by the atmosphere of community. Of course, there were close connections with people I had met at the NSO and the Research Session. But now there were also close connections, with other students seemingly as soon as we met.

Each morning began with a community meeting, with a different focus each day. Faculty were introduced, we had guest speakers, students who had attended the HOD Governance Retreat (held right before the winter session) reported back to us about this session. I was interested to learn that our HOD Program is governed by a consensus model of decision making and that each of the governance teams had voting faculty, student and staff members. Then, there were sessions each morning and afternoon. We had selected our sessions several months earlier. I attended one, all-day session about networked learning, a half day session on narrative research, a half day session on writing styles, and a full day workshop on international consulting. I also attended a half day presentation on Systems Thinking that was given by three faculty. Again, Fielding seems to put people with as different views as possible together! We had three very different perspectives on Systems. The entire group became very engaged in this energetic dialogue. I decided to assess with one of the faculty at the workshop, in another group assessment that she was organizing.

While the seminars were important, there were other important activities. I attended a dissertation committee meeting of one of the students from my cluster, who had asked me to be the student on his committee. It was a fascinating experience. The student, his mentor (who was chair of his committee) and the other faculty on his committee discussed the draft of his proposal. The one hour meeting was full, but relaxed. It began at 8pm at night. The student used a flip chart to present his timeline for completing his work, the model of his dissertation concept, and the conceptual design of his work. The questions from the faculty seemed to be about narrowing his focus, and the questions offered good suggestions for ways he could fine-tune his ideas. He was also encouraged to contact a colleague of one of the faculty who was doing research in a similar area, and might be a good person to be the external examiner for his dissertation. At the end of the session, there was agreement that he was on the "right track" and, with a bit more focus of his concept, and a more thorough development of his methodology, that his proposal would be accepted by the committee.

Another important event was the Final Oral Review. I attended three final orals. They were each one and one half hours long - and, again, very different. One man had done a phenomenological dissertation. It was interesting to hear this man, a very successful consultant, speaking about the personal transformation that occurred for him, as he delved deeply into his area of research. Another final oral was on ways in which minority women are successfully overcoming barriers in the workplace. The celebratory atmosphere in this session was amazing. Several of the participants in her research were present, as well as a large contingent of students. The third final oral was an extensive case study about organizational learning during the complex integration of two health care systems. The student's model, developed through this research, was already acknowledged by the health care industry as a critically important approach to the difficult integration process. Although his dissertation was complete, he was now completing a book that was extending this model and his research. By attending these final oral reviews, I knew that I, too, could reach my goal of completing a doctoral dissertation.

During this week of Winter Session, I also had several meetings with faculty. Some of the meetings were half hour discussions about assessments, while others were focused on my area of research that seems to be emerging. These discussions all seemed to focus on me, on my interests and my work. It is a tremendous bonus to have the opportunity to discuss these issues with so many different faculty. Of course, there were also many discussions with other students. As the session was held at a hotel on the Santa Barbara beach, we were able to walk on the sand while discussing all sorts of aspects of our studies and our lives. I wish I had more time for personal reflection during this week - but I chose to spend as much time as possible with others.

I attended graduation - it was memorable. It was held, outdoors, in the back lawn of Fielding's Santa Barbara Street administrative building. Chairs were set up for friends and family of the graduates. The faculty and graduates were on an elevated stage. There were more than twenty-five graduates. Each graduate was introduced by the Chair of her or his committee, and was hooded by the First Faculty/AD on the committee. Then, each graduate had a chance to speak. There were many expressions of thanks to family, friends and faculty - tears of joy - anticipation of new opportunities - and glimpses of the extensive journey that brought each of them to this moment. It was special.

Returning home was again a challenge as I was exhausted and energized. Next year, I expect to bring my family with me. They will enjoy the location while I am focusing on my Fielding work.

MARCH, Year 2

At the end of the first year, I was still in close contact with some of the members of my small group - and we are determined to graduate, but are becoming more aware of the differences in our own paths. One group member already has completed four KA's and has a committee formed. Another member has only completed one KA, and is working through his current KA with a depth that seems to me to be more like a dissertation. But, he is choosing to work this way - and I sometimes envy him for being able to take this route! One member of the group had dropped out because of increasing work and family demands that did not leave enough time for studies.

In March, my mentor and I had another discussion about my Fielding journey. At this point, I had completed my learning plan, KA1,Part A, KA2 (Human Development), KA9 (Management and Leadership) and was working on KA3 (Systems). We scheduled my Portfolio Review, which was held in April. My mentor and another faculty read many of my papers, and the comments by the faculty assessors. We had a one hour conference call, during which we had the opportunity to discuss my next steps, the areas of my focus, and ways in which I could expand the academic resources I was using. We also discussed the research approaches that I would be studying next. While I was a bit anxious before the Review, the actual Review was both supportive and focused on where I felt I now need to go.

The next year was a continuation of this rich and challenging journey. I spent longer than anticipated on the KA3 assessment. The group decided to have an intensive weekend in the Santa Fe area, where we lived, worked and studied systems theory. Then, my paper had several starts - and many middles! Although I initially thought I would work through it quickly, I found that this area required more intense work on my part, so I chose to spend longer to read more books, and to create a much more thorough in-depth than originally planned. I handed in the KA3 in June and it was accepted "as is." I was exhilarated - and energized for the next phase of studies. With the completion of this KA, I met all of the requirements for a Master's degree - and it is a beautiful document now hanging on my wall, encouraging me onward.

During my second year at Fielding, I attended two, "special event" workshops. The first was a week long intensive on Action Research for social change. There were three faculty and twenty students involved in this week-long intensive which was particularly important to me as it was built on the philosophy of Paulo Friere. I was able to integrate this workshop into my studies through as an applied and overview for my KA in Social Change, and used the learnings from this experience in completing my KA1,Part B portion of the Research & Inquiry assessment. The faculty who specialized in Action Research, and with whom I completed my initial KA, was there, and I contracted with him to complete my KA1,Part B. The other workshop was a three day intensive in Knowledge Management. Here there were also three faculty and twenty other students - but we also had several non-Fielding corporate participants and two alumni. I was able to use the learnings from this workshop to complete my KA for information systems. I contracted with one of the faculty at this workshop, whose special interest is the social impact of telecommunities. In addition, I integrated knowledge management concepts and models into my KA for Social Change.

JANUARY, Year 3

I attended Winter Session, this time taking my family with me. I am not sure if it was because they were with me, or if I was just at a very different stage in my studies, but this session was really focused for me, as I knew the faculty with whom I wanted to meet. I was able to select workshops and seminars that now seemed to be very focused on my areas of dissertation research interest. Of course, I still had time to take some workshops that were of personal interest, such as Spirituality in the Workplace, even though I do not believe that they will be part of my dissertation. I also attended several workshops that were conducted by alumni - and am impressed by the networking possibilities with the alums I have met. Again, the Final Orals were extremely important - and this year I focused on the research methodologies that were used, and attended as many Final Orals as possible where Action Research was involved.

The second year was difficult for some of the people in my initial NSO small group. One member had to take a two month leave of absence from Fielding to address some serious family issues with her partner. Another member's corporation was involved in a take-over and she lost her job. She took a four month leave of absence while she searched for new employment, and eventually relocated. I considered myself very lucky, in this respect. My spouse is extremely supportive of these studies. The finances are challenging, especially with teenage kids at home, but we are committed to this process. In addition, my work is now less demanding of overtime, so I am able to leave it behind when I come home. Although I am not progressing at the pace I had hoped to be, I am continuing to make regular progress.

MARCH, Year 3

At the end of this second year, I still have two Knowledge Areas to complete. One KA will be KA4, an Area of Specialization. I have become intrigued with some of the current literature on Thriving, which addresses phases of individual growth from trauma to transition and then to a new phase of thriving. I would like to apply this theoretical model to phases of community growth - from disaster to transition to thriving. The last KA will be on Global Studies, as I am interested in how communities in different countries recover from disasters and would like to know more about the patterns of change in communities around the globe.

I also decided to switch mentors. My initial mentor has been a wonderful colleague and guide for these first two years. However, now that I have a clearer idea of where I would like my dissertation to go, I know that I need to have a mentor who will be able to serve as Chair of my dissertation research. It was very difficult to say "good-bye" to my initial mentor. I was apprehensive about discussing the switch with her. When I finally got the courage to set up an appointment to discuss the situation with her, I was relieved - although not unexpectedly after all - to find that she fully agreed with this decision and genuinely supported my choice. I have selected the faculty whose special area is Action Research to be the chair of my committee, and my new mentor. At the same time, I asked the faculty with whom I assessed in both the Information Systems studies and will assess with the Global Studies KA, to serve as the First Faculty of my committee.

Now, as I begin my third year at Fielding, I am working on a draft of my Comprehensive Exam questions. My new mentor and I have been discussing some of the options I have with the Comps. I have the contracts written and signed for my two remaining KA's. I am also drafting my concept paper and expect to have it complete and accepted in time for a Committee Meeting at Summer Session. Although I cannot be certain of the amount of time that will be required to write my proposal, complete my dissertation research, and complete the dissertation itself, I expect it will be another one and a half years. A few of my colleagues from the NSO expect to graduate in about three years. Yet, I was surprised to find out that I am "further along" than many others, who now expect to graduate in four years or more. I sometimes feel that it would be nice to take that long, to continue to savor the wonderful learning here at Fielding. However, I know that I cannot afford that pace. Now that I have a fairly clear idea about my dissertation research, I believe I will stay right on this track that I have designed for myself. It is also really good to know how active alumni are in HOD. I'm looking forward to my own graduation and then continuing as part of this community, as an alum.

4. How much teaching goes on? What are the various ways in which learning is supported?

A student once wrote, "teaching is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire." The HOD Program encourages this form of learning. Teaching occurs in many ways. Faculty offer seminars, share their papers, guide students to appropriate resources and occasionally present "lectures" in the traditional mode, at sessions. However, there are other forms of teaching. Students "teach" each other, particularly through collaborative assessments in which students pursue different aspects of a particular knowledge area, and then share their learnings with each other. During online forums, cluster meetings and seminars, faculty and students often "teach" each other, as we contribute ideas, resources and content. The truest teaching may be that of guiding others to become self-directed learners. That form of teaching does not fit into the stereotype of a teacher with specific knowledge and/or expertise, conveying that information to others. Rather, this form of teaching through shared experience and by introducing self-directed ways of learning is truly "classic." In this classic form of teaching, the teacher is not the one with the pail full of facts, but the one who helps the others reach out to attain a fuller potential.

Learning is supported in a multitude of ways. HOD has national and regional sessions and local cluster meetings. Each are for sharing experiences, networking, and attending seminars and workshops. We have extensive online seminars, forums and interactive Internet-based communication. Even though we may not have the opportunity to meet face to face very often, we have a extremely active networking environment, in which people are very interactive. The communications among students and faculty during seminars, assessments and particularly during the dissertation process is often more extensive than in traditional, face to face, learning environments. People are often transformed by this process.

People come into the HOD PhD program to fulfill their dreams. Successful, mid-career adults who choose to enroll in this program do so because they want to become someone beyond the person they are, because they have hopes, dreams and plans that they see as attainable through their doctoral studies. When these students enter the HOD program, they are challenged to learn - and supported in this process by the faculty, staff and by their student colleagues.

Other types of "teaching" is currently occurring in the HOD Program in the structured evaluation and advising of students during the Portfolio Review. This is a key time in their work relative to their development as researchers. The Portfolio Review is designed to engage students in conversation with two or three faculty who review all of their academic work and related activities with an eye to the extent to which students are developing doctoral level competencies in research and scholarship. (The HOD faculty was involved in a two year study defining these competencies. They are found in the HOD Study Guide and on FELIX).

In HOD we would also contend that much teaching occurs during the dissertation process. The Associate Dean for Research approves the appointment of all dissertation committee members, to ensure that each committee adequately covers content, methods, theory and process expertise. The AD for Research also assigns a consulting faculty (research expert) to each committee depending upon the type of research the student is proposing. An external examiner is apppointed to each committee who is a well known published expert in the area of the dissertation. The AD for research approves the credential of all external examiners. Typically HOD students will have several dissertation committee meetings at national sessions (an on conference calls) where there are discussions from the development of the proposal through the final analysis of data. The Final Oral Review is a time for students to become teachers and to share their research process and results with the entire HOD community.

5. How is time structured? What is the role of face-to-face meetings?

Time within the program is structured in many ways. The student is, ultimately, responsible for self-direction in accomplishing program requirements. While many students choose to meet requirements through group assessments or attend Knowledge Area Workshops that might be highly structured, others choose to work in a less structured manner.

There are two required structured events, that all students must attend. While the other sessions are optional, students are encouraged to participate in as many of the events as possible. The first required event is the New Student Orientation (NSO), a week long introduction to the HOD program. The NSO is held in March and September of each year. All students participate. They are divided into small groups for some sessions, and in larger groups for others. The role of the face to face meeting, as the initial phase of the PhD program is essential. The face to face meetings during this initial week build the trust in each other, the solid relationships, the connection with the learning community, and the mutual support systems that often continue well past graduation. Many of the personal connections made during this initial face to face week become strong professional, research, and personal linkages. This NSO is structured in order to accomplish a full range of initial objectives - and this structure provides ample opportunity for face to face meetings.

The only other required face to face meeting, is the Final Oral Review (FOR) that normally occurs at a national session just prior to graduation. All of the other structured events are optional - but highly recommended.

While some students continue to work at a self-directed pace, increasingly students are participating in structured events. Our summer and winter national sessions involve one week of seminars, workshops and other learning sessions in a tightly time-structured setting. There are morning and afternoon seminars (normally of two and one-half hours) for research, knowledge area content, and practice. Students and faculty have face to face appointments, often of one-half to one hour. While some of these are arranged prior to the sessions, students have the opportunity to meet and arrange interviews with all faculty and associate deans during the sessions. During National Sessions students have pre-scheduled, Dissertation Committee meetings with the members of their dissertation committees (faculty, research consultants and student members). In addition, some students present their comprehensive exams or participate in knowledge area seminars - all during pre-scheduled times.

There are similar events at Regional Sessions, such as spring and fall Research Sessions. During these sessions, students normally attend a full week of sessions devoted to a particular level of Research studies. We have three different research requirements. At each research session, there are week-long tracks devoted to each research requirement.

For many students, an important session is the monthly Cluster meeting. The HOD program supports student-led clusters in most areas where there are six or more HOD students. These cluster meetings are organized by the local student group. They often include Knowledge Area Assessments, presentations by faculty on special areas of expertise, shared support for student progress and special topics. During cluster meetings, there is ample opportunity for face to face meetings with other students and with faculty. For students who are not located near a cluster, we also support a virtual cluster, where students can meet and work online.

The online interconnection is often critical for some students, particularly those who live at too great a distance from a cluster to attend face to face meetings. For example, one student in the United Arab Emirates has weekly, online discussions (in real time) with the Chair of her committee. When face to face meetings are wanted by students, and are not possible because of time and distance, then we have developed very successful ways of bridging the distance through online communication.

6. How much is the program able to be customized for each student?

In HOD the answer would essentially be the entire program is customized. This is accomplished by allowing students to define their own assessment contracts, and their own dissertations within broad guidelines prepared by faculty. Most of the details and the focus of assessment plans meet the students' individual learning needs; these are accomplished within a broad context mutually negotiated between the student and the faculty member.

7. How is diversity present and honored in the program?

The HOD program was founded with valuing diversity as a fundamental principle. This diversity and respect for differences is supported in many different ways. Of course, the content of the program encourages a diversity of perspectives, resources and objectives within the Knowledge Area and dissertation process. The HOD program is also one in which social justice is a basic value. Many faculty are actively involved in initiatives that promote a just society in which diversity is nourished and honored. Within the HOD program, in addition to faculty initiatives, there are also many student developed initiatives that have a profound impact on the participants. For example, one research initiative had Women of Color and White Women spending a year working together to better understand each other and learn together better ways of working within, and transforming, our society.

Another way in which diversity is valued is that there is a genuine attempt to increase the diversity of faculty as well as the diversity of the students. We have a genuine mixture of economic, social, national and professional backgrounds among both faculty and students. The program is also mindful and proud of its diversity among the faculty. The faculty has diversity on gender, race, and sexual orientation in ways that are evident to the students. However, the program is careful not to categorize individuals in various ways, but to respect them as individuals who bring their background and who they are to the learning community.

We have guest presenters from many different perspectives, from Buddhist scholars to social activists such as Paulo Friere. Through our self-directed learning, students are encouraged to include topics, resources, and applied experiences that tap into the wealth of knowledge and wisdom from different cultures, belief systems and ways of living. Spirituality and technology studies thrive together. A student from Venezuela collaborates with a student from Japan. There are different ways of knowing that are possible within the program - and that are equally respected.

Diversity is honored in the formal HOD curriculum with Knowledge Areas that substantively examine multiple perspectives and the structural dimensions of diversity. These Knowledge Areas include Structural Inequality, Theories of Personality, Human Development. The program also recognizes and honors diversity by facilitating different groups to have meetings during the National Sessions, and by providing electronic facilities for these groups to maintain contact and foster community. These electronic facilities include FELIX teams on the Web and alias email group names.

Regarding diversity of thought in the HOD research culture, the study guide to KA1 (research and inquiry) stresses what HOD faculty call the "cultures of inquiry". This expresses the commitment of the faculty and the program to diversity, the process of research as well as in the content and topics of the knowledge areas and the dissertations. Some of the faculty have begun to incorporate non-Western ways of knowing. The diversity in research methods is amply demonstrated by the methodologies of dissertations which range from quantitative to varieties of qualitative research, including phenomenology, ethnography, hermeneutics, and narrative analysis.