Requirements for the IPER Ph.D.
Originated January 1, 2006; revised April 3, 2008

VISION
The Interdisciplinary Graduate Program in Environment and Resources (IPER) is designed to create leaders in research and problem solving on the environment and sustainability.  IPER spans a broad interface between natural and human systems, crossing Stanford’s school and department boundaries to offer a unique graduate school experience.  IPER students acquire an integrated understanding of environmental processes and problems and gain the tools required to address these complex issues in the real world.  Their work is fueled by a powerful combination of idealism and determination to advance knowledge and improve the world.

IPER STUDENT RESPONSIBILITY
Students are IPER’s greatest source of strength, bringing extraordinary and diverse academic backgrounds and life experiences, from around the world.  IPER is more challenging than traditional, disciplinary graduate programs in important respects.  It offers tremendous scope and flexibility, and at the same time demands focus and leadership on the part of students.

With support from IPER faculty and staff, each student manages his or her own academic experience and career. Students often work in domains beyond the ken of their advisors and therefore must take the lead in finding the appropriate methods, collaborators, and other resources for their research.  IPER students encounter a wide array of scholars with distinct ways of doing research, and must assess which mix of advisors and approaches best serve their goals.  Each student is encouraged to cultivate a relationship with two lead faculty advisors, starting during the first two years as research projects are formulated.  Lead advisors serve as champions, critics, and sources of financial and other professional support. 

REQUIREMENTS
The minimum requirements outlined here represent fundamental steps in developing first-rate research and in acquiring skills key to success in both academic and non-academic careers.  IPER core courses provide exposure to current environmental problems, familiarity with research design and qualitative and quantitative methods, and an opportunity to get to know diverse faculty.  Beyond the core courses, the program is structured to be rigorous yet flexible, accommodating the needs of a tremendous range of individual problem-solving approaches while serving the principal goal of providing training in advanced interdisciplinary problem-solving.

I. COURSEWORK

As interdisciplinary researchers, IPER students should demonstrate an understanding of several intellectual Fields of Inquiry, with facility in using their language and methods, and a general appreciation of what constitutes knowledge in these fields.  Specifically, IPER students work with their faculty advisors in designing a course of study that must achieve three goals:

(A)  familiarity with a wide variety of analytical tools and research approaches for interdisciplinary problem-solving, and mastery of those tools and approaches central to the student’s thesis work, acquired through the IPER core courses;

(B)  facility in each of four Breadth Areas, defined below; and

(C)  mastery in two distinct Fields of Inquiry, defined by the student and his/her Lead Advisors.

In pursuit of these goals, each student will take a combination of IPER core courses, and additional course work and independent study, as determined in consultation with his or her advising team. 

Students should develop deep knowledge and understanding in areas of their particular research interests, with the aim of conducting innovative, first-rate research.  Students can demonstrate that they have attained the necessary skills in the Breadth Areas and their selected Fields of Inquiry through a combination of coursework, experience, and research, to be assessed and approved by each student’s qualifying committee.  Students should work closely with their Lead Advisors and committee in developing a course of study tailored to the student’s background and desired future work.

A.  CORE PHD COURSES: INTRODUCTION TO ANALYTICAL TOOLS AND APPROACHES FOR INTERDISCIPLINARY WORK
The following three core courses, designed to introduce students to research methods and techniques, will be taken by all IPER students for a letter grade. A grade of B or higher must be earned. Following these introductory courses, students will develop in-depth expertise in the research methods and techniques necessary to advance their particular research interests.

1) IPER 310, Environmental Forum Seminar (AUT, WTR 1-2 units).Conceptual framework, analytical approaches, validity of conclusions from an interdisciplinary perspective, and alternative approaches. Autumn Quarter: participants attend the Woods Institute’s Environmental Forum series or other appropriate seminar on campus selected by faculty and students. Winter Quarter: features invited Stanford faculty to discuss environment and sustainability research to coincide with the introduction of various research designs in IPER 320. Students will facilitate the class discussions and gather and distribute readings and questions in both quarters.

2) IPER 320, Designing Environmental Research (WTR, 4 units). Introduction to research design options for environmentally related research.  Review of the major philosophies of knowledge and how they relate to research objectives and design choices.  Evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of alternative research designs of (particularly the ëfití among the methods, data and argument).  Development of individual research design proposals, including clear description and justification understandable to a non-specialist.

3) IPER 330, Research Approaches for Environmental Problem Solving (SPR, 3 units).  Focus on developing skills needed in identifying good research questions and implementing interdisciplinary research in environment and resources.  Course builds on a co-requisite, directed individual study course (IPER 398) focused on the development of a potential research question and an associated literature review.  Students share their written work for peer critiques. Each student will be expected to make at least two oral presentations of work in progress.  Depending on student needs, the course will include special presentations by selected resource staff from various units on campus, e.g. staff from the Center for Teaching and Learning.

B.  FACILITY IN FOUR BREADTH AREAS
These minimum breadth requirements vary by area and are normally satisfied through a sequence of courses (see Appendices), independent study, and/or demonstration of proficiency through prior course work and/or experience.  A Master’s degree automatically satisfies breadth in the area in which the degree was conferred, and a Bachelor’s degree does in most circumstances.

Students and advisors should discuss a strategy for fulfillment of breadth requirements during their first year advising sessions and the First Year “Big Picture” advising session (Spring Quarter). For some students, following a prescribed course sequence may be the preferred way to attain breadth, while others may elect to undertake a more individualized combination of classes, research, and other experiences.

The requirements outlined below constitute the minimum means by which one can attain operational literacy in each breadth area; most students will exceed the minimum requirements outlined here in several breadth areas. The courses listed in the Appendices are not exclusive and students may suggest alternative pathways to fulfill breadth.

(1) Culture and Institutions
This breadth area encompasses the social sciences and humanities, including anthropology, communications, decision sciences, history, law, political science, psychology, and sociology.   Breadth in Culture and Institutions might involve understanding the central logic and research approaches for investigating dynamic human systems at varying scales from the individual to global society.  Breadth in this area may be achieved by taking at least two of any of a diversity of courses, with suggestions given in Appendix I.

(2)  Economics and Policy Analysis
This breadth requirement emphasizes skills and concepts essential to performing two aspects of environmental economics and policy analysis:  diagnosing economic sources of environmental problems, and designing and evaluating alternative policy remedies.  Toward this end, this breadth area encompasses market functioning and market failures, criteria for policy evaluation, tools for welfare analysis, philosophical and empirical approaches to environmental valuation, alternative policy approaches, and choice of policy instruments. The minimal skills and concepts that would enable students to read and understand the applied professional literature in this area can be gained by taking a sequence of courses culminating either in IPER 243, Econ 243, or Econ 241.  Please refer to Appendix II for details.

(3)  Engineering and Technology
This breadth area exposes students to quantitative engineering approaches to solving environmental and natural resource problems and provides students with the minimum quantitative skills to be able to understand the literature. Students are free to explore a wide range of engineering solutions to environmental issues, from technological innovation to institutional changes, and should understand the role and limitations of technology in causing and solving environmental problems. Students are required to take at least one course in this breadth area; examples of appropriate courses are listed in Appendix III. A student and his/her advisors may select any course deemed relevant to the student’s particular interests provided it exposes the student to quantitative engineering approaches to solving environmental and natural resource problems.

(4)  Natural Sciences
This breadth area familiarizes students with the natural science underpinnings of environment and resource issues.  As environmental problem-solvers, students are expected to have an understanding of the history and current dynamics of natural systems, and of human dependence and impacts on them.  Students are required to take at least two courses, from the list of approved courses given in Appendix IV.  A student may propose a course not on the list, provided it is at the 100-level or above, and that it exposes the student to areas of the natural sciences important for solving environmental and natural resource problems.

C.  MASTERY IN TWO DISTINCT FIELDS OF INQUIRY
Students will take additional coursework to learn appropriate research methods and to acquire deeper knowledge in their chosen Fields of Inquiry.  Fields of Inquiry are the central focus of dissertation research and are defined as areas of scholarship and/or expertise, and are not restricted to particular disciplines, departments, or the breadth areas defined above.  Students have the freedom to define and choose the two Fields of Inquiry in which they would like to develop depth of understanding and which are distinct enough to ensure the student’s research is interdisciplinary.

Students must formally identify their two Fields of Inquiry – and corresponding Lead Advisors who have expertise in these defined Fields of Inquiry – within the first two weeks of Spring Quarter of their second year, using the Lead Advisors and Fields of Inquiry Identification Form.  This formmust be signed by the student’s two Lead Advisors, who should have expertise in the two depth areas (as described below, in Section II). Certification of the coursework taken to demonstrate mastery of these two distinct Fields of Inquiry is done via the Fields of Inquiry Certification Form, typically around the time of a student's Qualifying Exam in the third year, and must be before the student is admitted to TGR status.  These processes are described in more detail in Section II: Year-by-Year Advising and Milestones.

D.  POLICY ON GRADES
IPER Ph.D. students are expected to take the following courses for a letter grade:  all core courses; all courses to satisfy breadth, apart from undergraduate prerequisites; and the majority of courses in the two Fields of Inquiry.  Students must maintain a GPA of at least 3.0 and must earn at least a “B” grade in all core courses. Unusual circumstances may be approved using the IPER Exceptions Form, to be signed by the two Lead Advisors and the Faculty Director of IPER.

E.  EXCEPTIONS
Students may petition to satisfy certain academic goals or seek exception to select program policies through alternative routes using the IPER Exceptions Form, to be signed by the student’s two Lead Advisors and the IPER Faculty Director. Because exceptions are expected to be granted only rarely, a student must show good cause in seeking one.

back to top

II.  YEAR-BY-YEAR ADVISING AND MILESTONES

Seeking out faculty who can inspire and guide their research is arguably the most challenging and rewarding aspect of being an IPER student. In addition to meeting formally with their First Year Advisors and other faculty, students should start meeting informally with faculty and one or more research groups, comprising other graduate students and postdoctoral scholars, as soon as they arrive.  Recruiting an engaged faculty team who may ultimately comprise his or her qualifying and thesis committees should be a high priority during the student’s first two years in IPER.

A. FIRST YEAR
All first year students participate in a program-organized advising session at the beginning of autumn and winter quarters. Attendees are generally the first year advisor, a second faculty advisor, the Associate Director and 1-2 current students. First year advising culminates with the student-organized “Big Picture Advising Session, “ which takes place during Spring Quarter of their first year or, under special circumstances, during Fall Quarter in their second year.

1) First Year Advising Meetings (Aut, Wtr, 1st year)
All first year students participate in a program-organized advising session at the beginning of autumn and winter quarters. Attendees are generally two First Year Advisors, identified from suggestions the student makes before arriving at Stanford, the Associate Director, and one or two current students.  These meetings are scheduled by the Assistant Director and focus primarily on discussing courses and preliminary research ideas.  Students prepare and distribute beforehand an informal summary of their prior experience, perceived strengths and weaknesses, and preliminary research ideas (there is no template for this document).  Students are encouraged to contact one or both of their First Year Advisors at other times throughout the year as well as to seek advice from additional faculty and students.

2) First Year Big Picture Advising Meeting: (Spr, 1st yr) First year advising culminates with the student-organized First Year Big Picture Advising Meeting, which takes place during Spring Quarter or, in very exceptional cases, during Summer or Fall Quarter of the second year.  This First Year Big Picture Meeting is a special opportunity intended to give students a chance to think broadly about their time in IPER while outlining their research, professional development, coursework, teaching, and service goals, and to get feedback on these from a team of faculty. This is a chance to explore ideas and strategize next research steps on the way to developing an interdisciplinary dissertation proposal; to determine what additional courses should be taken to satisfy breadth requirements; to begin to define the student’s two Fields of Inquiry; and to get early “buy-in” from faculty who may potentially serve as Lead Advisors or committee members, making the process of recruiting faculty easier down the line.

In addition to the Associate Director, the student typically invites four or more faculty members from different disciplines,most likely including the two First Year Advisors and others who might serve as the student’s Lead Advisors or potential committee members. It is recommended that a detailed meeting agenda is distributed to the Big Picture advising team a week in advance of the meeting so everyone arrives understanding the goals and context of the meeting. A copy should also be sent to the Assistant Director to certify the Big Picture Session has occurred. A sample agenda can be accessed on IPER’s internal resources page, and current students have posted their agendas on the student wiki.

3) Annual Review
The First Year Big Picture Meeting also serves as the student’s Annual Review (see Section VI. Student Annual Review).  Students should bring their completed First Year Annual Review form, which seeks information not captured in the Big Picture document, to the meeting and allow time on the meeting's agenda for discussion and signatures.  First Year students who do not submit a Rudolf or McGee Summer Grant proposal will be required to include a more detailed written description of their summer plans on their Annual Review Form in the required section. Students submitting one of these grant proposals can summarize their plans on the Annual Review form in just a few sentences. Signatures on the Annual Review form should be obtained from both of the student’s First Year Advisors. In exceptional cases in which a student’s interests have definitively moved away from one of the two First Year Advisors, the student should ask another faculty member to sign the form and serve as a short-term second advisor until the student selects his or her two Lead Advisors in the second year.

back to top

B. SECOND YEAR

1) Choosing Lead Advisors and Fields of Inquiry (Wtr-Spr, 2nd yr)
Within the first two weeks of Spring Quarter in their second year, at the latest, students must formally designate their two Fields of Inquiry and identify two corresponding faculty Lead Advisors, using the Lead Advisors and Fields of Inquiry Identification Form, as mentioned in Section I. Coursework.   Students who organize their Second Year Meeting of the Minds, described below, before Spring Quarter should submit this form at least two weeks ahead of their scheduled meeting.  The primary Lead Advisor must be a member of Stanford’s Academic Council; the second Lead Advisor will also normally be a member of the Academic Council.  In exceptional cases, the second Lead Advisor may be someone who is not on the Academic Council or who is outside Stanford but who is intellectually well-aligned with the student’s Field of Inquiry.  Such cases should be discussed with the Associate Director in advance of the Lead Advisors and Fields of Inquiry Identification Form being submitted and a brief explanation amended to the form.

The two Lead Advisors will have joint responsibility for ensuring the professional development of the student.  Students should maintain close contact with both Lead Advisors and with other potential advisors as well, with the intent of creating and sustaining an engaged and interdisciplinary Qualifying Exam Committee in their third year.

Any changes in a Lead Advisor should occur before the Qualifying Exam Eligibility Approval and Committee Designation Form is submitted early in the Winter Quarter of the student’s third year. In the case of a Lead Advisor change, the student will submit an amended Lead Advisors and Fields of Inquiry Identification Form.

2) Second Year Meeting of the Minds (Spr, 2nd yr)
It is crucial for students to engage in and facilitate communication among prospective Qualifying Exam Committee members. At the end of the second year, students organize a Second Year Meeting of the Minds with prospective qualifying committee members, as an opportunity to discuss and present their Candidacy Plan, described below, so expectations about preparing for the Qualifying Exam are uniformly understood by the student and faculty. The Second Year Meeting of the Minds provides an opportunity for faculty to get to know the student and one another better, and can help elucidate important ideas as well as hurdles prior to the Oral Qualifying Exam. Additional courses or training opportunities the student may need to complete their dissertation research can also be identified. In addition to the Associate Director, the student typically invites 4-5 faculty, his/her Lead Advisors and other prospective Qualifying Exam Committee members.

For the Second Year Meeting of the Minds, the student should prepare a 10-15 minute oral presentation of his/her Candidacy Plan, with a focus on research ideas and objectives.  The Candidacy Plan, which may be in draft form at the meeting, serves as the meeting’s advising document and should be circulated to attendees a week in advance.  The final version, incorporating input from the Second Year Meeting of the Minds, must be submitted to the Associate and Assistant Directors, and the Lead Advisors by the last day of Spring Quarter, which will certify that the Meeting of the Minds occurred.

3) Candidacy Plan: (Spr, 2nd yr)
The Candidacy Plan is discussed with faculty in the Second Year Meeting of the Minds and signed by the student's Lead Advisors (revisions may be added after the meeting).  The Candidacy Plan should include the following items: (a) a list of courses or experiences used or expected to fulfill the IPER Breadth and Fields of Inquiry requirements; (b) the course(s) TA’d or intended to be TA’d to fulfill the teaching requirement; (c) a paragraph summarizing the student's research ideas; (d) a list of faculty who could guide those ideas, thus potentially becoming Qualifying Exam Committee members (e) the scheduled date of the Second Year Meeting of the Minds (see above), including a list of attendees. The plan will be reviewed and is subject to approval by the Faculty Director of IPER.  An example Candidacy Plan can be accessed on IPER’s internal resources page.

4) Annual Review
The Second Year Meeting of the Minds and the approved Candidacy Plan serve as the student's Annual Review (see Section VI. Student Annual Review).  Students should bring their completed Second Year Annual Review form, which seeks information not captured in the Candidacy Plan, to the meeting and allow time on the Second Year Meeting of the Minds' agenda for discussion and signatures. Second Year students who do not submit a Rudolf or McGee Summer Grant proposal will be required to include a more detailed written description of their summer plans on their Annual Review Form in the required section. Students submitting one of these grant proposals can summarize their plans on the Annual Review form in just a few sentences. Signatures on the Annual Review form should be obtained from both of the student’s two Lead Advisors.

Note: while Lead Advisor selection, the Second Year Meeting of the Minds and the Candidacy Plan are all to be completed in Spring Quarter, it is expected and recommended that “groundwork” and preparations for these milestones take place throughout the second year and that the accompanying documents simply confirm and finalize these required steps.

back to top

C. THIRD YEAR

1) Qualifying Process and Admittance to Candidacy
IPER students are expected to qualify for the doctoral degree by the end of Winter Quarter of their third year.  To be admitted to candidacy for the Ph.D. degree, a student must have successfully completed at least 25 graded units (not including research credits) of graduate courses (200 level and above), maintaining at least a ‘B’ average, and have passed the Oral Qualifying Examination. The student may not have any incompletes on his/her transcript. The Qualifying Process, including quarter by which each milestone must be completed, is outlined in detail below.

The purpose of the Oral Qualifying Examination is to assist students in the transition from coursework and skill development to the design and implementation of original research.  The process provides an opportunity for students, and the faculty engaged in their research, to account for student progress and to focus collectively on the creation and execution of a research plan.  The process is designed to assist students in their career development, and certify that those who pass are prepared to proceed with the completion of their research and degree.

Academic disciplines have distinct cultures and traditions that strongly shape the nature of dissertation proposals and qualifying procedures.  Because IPER students are working across these distinct cultures, every IPER proposal will likely be “outside the norm” of what is currently expected within each contributing discipline.  Given this, IPER is flexible in the details of the Oral Qualifying Exam procedure, though the emphasis is expected to be on discussion of the student's proposed research rather than examination of a student's knowledge of a specific discipline.  These general guidelines set a common standard, ensure equity, and inform students, advisors and the broader IPER community of our expectations.

a) Oral Qualifying Exam Committee and Eligibility Form (Aut-Wtr, 3rd yr) 
During  Autumn Quarter of their third year, students should actively engage faculty who might serve on their Oral Qualifying Exam Committee.  The Oral Qualifying Exam Committee should include a student’s two Lead Advisors and 2-3 other faculty with expertise in the student’s Fields of Inquiry and/or research methods.  The majority of the Oral Qualifying Exam Committee should be members of the Academic Council; the Chair must be a member of the Academic Council and may not be one of the student’s Lead Advisors.  The role of the Chair is to facilitate the meeting, especially the discussion following the student's presentation; students may opt to inform their Chair ahead of time about their preferred format and structure.  In exceptional cases, the Oral Qualifying Exam Committee may include a “member-at-large” who is not a Stanford faculty member as a fourth or fifth member.  (Note that the Oral Qualifying Exam Committee is distinct from the University Oral Exam Committee (dissertation defense) which is discussed is Section D. Fourth Year and Beyond.)

In preparation for their exam, students submit to the Assistant or Associate Director the signed Qualifying Exam Eligibility Approval and Committee Designation Form within the first two weeks of the quarter during which the Qualifying Exam will be taken. On this form, the student formally designates his/her Committee and each member is expected to sign, acknowledging their role and accepting their responsibilities in serving as a Qualifying Exam Committee member.  The Lead Advisors sign to certify that the student has made sufficient progress in coursework and proposal development so that s/he is eligible to qualify by the end of that quarter. In addition, the Assistant Director signs to certify that the student has: a) completed the IPER requirements for Candidacy (other than the Oral Qualifying Exam); b) maintained a GPA of at least 3.0; and c) cleared all incompletes appearing on his/her transcript.

Normally, membership of the Oral Qualifying Exam Committee should not change after submission of the Qualifying Exam Eligibility Approval and Committee Designation Form. Any proposed changes to this process need to be approved by the IPER Executive Committee, using the IPER Exceptions Form.

b)Dissertation Proposal:(Wtr, 3rd yr)
A written dissertation proposal should be distributed to a student’s Oral Qualifying Exam Committee, with a copy to the Associate and Assistant Directors, at least ten days before the actual examination.  This proposal should be 15 to 30 pages in length, double-spaced, excluding appendices and references.  It should include a title page, an abstract, an introduction outlining and motivating the research questions, a background literature review establishing the intellectual context of the proposed work, a description of the methodology and approaches to be taken in the work, a discussion of results and other progress made to date, a time line for future research, and a reference section.  The proposal should discuss explicitly the interdisciplinary nature of the research and why it is appropriate for a degree in Environment and Resources.  The proposal should form the basis of the discussion at the Oral Qualifying Exam.

c) Oral Qualifying Exam and Results Form: (Wtr, 3rd yr)
The Oral Qualifying Exam must be successfully completed by the end of Winter Quarter in the third year.  In the Oral Qualifying Exam, students are expected to demonstrate depth in two distinct Fields of Inquiry, as well as interdisciplinary breadth. The Oral Qualifying Exam consists of two parts: a 20-40 minute presentation of the student's dissertation proposal and a “question and answer” period where the student should be prepared to answer questions about the proposal, issues related to the proposal, and broader questions arising from IPER coursework. The total procedure is a closed session and should be two to two and a half hours. 

Committee attendance and exam results are recorded using the Qualifying Exam Results Form, which the student should bring to the Exam.  The student may also want to bring other forms for his/her Committee to review and sign, such as the Application for Candidacy for the Doctoral Degree, described below (though this form may also be submitted later) and any outstanding forms such as the Breadth Certification Form and Fields of Inquiry Certification Form, both of which are required before a student may apply for TGR status (see below).

2) After the Qualifying Exam

a) Applying for Candidacy
Students who have completed 25 graded units at the 200-level or above, maintaining a 3.0 GPA, and who have passed the Oral Qualifying Exam are eligible for admission to Candidacy. Eligible students should apply for and be advanced to Candidacy immediately after they pass the Oral Qualifying Exam. The Application for Candidacy for Doctoral Degree form is available from the University Registrar’s website and must be signed byone of the student’s Lead Advisors before submission to the Assistant Director.  As stated above, this form may be reviewed and signed at the Oral Qualifying Exam.

b) Reaching Terminal Graduate Registrant (TGR) Status
Students are expected to go TGR as soon as they are eligible, but no later than Autumn Quarter of the fourth year; many students will be eligible and should apply in the quarter following the Oral Qualifying Exam. IPER staff may require justification for additional coursework following the Oral Qualifying Exam. To be eligible for TGR status, a student must have completed all requirements for the PhD with the exception of the dissertation and University Oral Exam (dissertation defense). The student will have completed all required coursework, passed the Oral Qualifying Exam, and been advanced to Candidacy. Once TGR, students are permitted to take up to 3 units per quarter provided the class/units are not used to fulfill any degree requirement. The Request for Terminal Graduate Registration Status form is available from the University Registrar’s website. The Doctoral Dissertation Reading Committee form (also a University Registrar form) must be submitted at the same time, though can be easily amended if there are subsequent changes to the dissertation readers. TGR paperwork must be submitted by the first day of the quarter in which TGR status is requested.

c) Annual Review
If passed, the Oral Qualifying Exam serves as the student's Annual Review (see section VI. Student Annual Review).  Students are required to submit the modified Annual Review form specifically for third year students, but advisors are not required to sign.

back to top

D. FOURTH YEAR AND BEYOND

1)  University Oral Exam
(NOTE:  Most of this section was taken from the 2008-2009 Stanford Bulletin and is standard University policy that may be updated annually.  The latest version of the Bulletin should be referred to for current policies.)

Passing a University oral examination in defense of the dissertation is a requirement of the Ph.D. degree. The purpose of the exam is to test the candidate’s command of the field and confirm fitness for scholarly pursuits. Students must be registered in the term in which the University oral exam is taken and candidacy must be valid.

The University Oral Examination Committee consists of at least five Stanford faculty members: four examiners and the committee chair. The Chair’s expertise must be outside of the student’s two Fields of Inquiry and may not be appointed in the same department as either Lead Advisor. All members are normally on the Stanford Academic Council and the Chair must be. Using the Petition for Doctoral Committee Members Form, IPER’s Faculty Director may approve the appointment of an examining member who is not on the Academic Council if that person contributes an area of expertise that is not readily available from the faculty. The member must hold a Ph.D. or equivalent foreign degree. The University Oral Examination Committee may or may not be the same as the student’s Oral Qualifying Exam Committee, but must include the student’s two Lead Advisors.

The University Oral Examination Form must be reviewed by IPER’s Associate Director and submitted to IPER’s Assistant Director at least two weeks prior to the proposed examination date. The examination format is determined by the University Oral Examination Committee, but should not exceed three hours in length and it must include a period of private questioning by the examining committee. The candidate passes the examination if the examining committee casts four favorable votes out of five or six, five favorable votes out of seven, or six favorable votes out of eight. Five members present and voting constitute a quorum.

In the interest of timing and with approval from his/her Lead Advisors and the Associate Director, the student may sit for his/her Oral Examination before the final draft of the dissertation has been approved.  The student must be registered TGR during the quarter he/she sits for the Oral Examination but may apply for and register at a greatly reduced tuition rate for a "graduation quarter" during the quarter he/she submits the final dissertation.  In other words, the examination and submission of the dissertation may in some circumstances occur in different quarters.

2) Dissertation
An approved doctoral dissertation is required for the PhD.  The dissertation must be an original contribution to scholarship or scientific knowledge, should integrate problem-oriented research from two distinct Fields of Inquiry, and must exemplify the highest standards of interdisciplinary research. There are several possible models for an IPER dissertation, including three to four loosely tied chapters that are publishable as stand-alone papers, a book model, or a format in between. The Dissertation Reading Committee, especially the student's Lead Advisors, will aid the student in framing the dissertation research within an agreed upon model.  The two Lead Advisors will ensure that the student’s research sufficiently explores and integrates the two chosen Fields of Inquiry.

The dissertation is read and evaluated by a Dissertation Reading Committee, normally a subset of the University Oral Exam Committee including the Lead Advisors and at least one additional reader. Normally, all members are on the Academic Council. Using the Petition for Doctoral Committee Members Form, IPER’s Faculty Director may approve the appointment of a reader who is not on the Academic Council if that person is well qualified to consult on the dissertation topic and holds a Ph.D. or equivalent foreign degree. Former Stanford Academic Council members and emeritus professors may serve on the Reading Committee. The Reading Committee is proposed by the student and endorsed by IPER’s Faculty Director using the Doctoral Dissertation Reading Committee Form. This form is submitted before the approval of Terminal Graduate Registration (TGR) status or before scheduling the University Oral Examination in defense of the dissertation. Any subsequent changes to the reading committee must be approved by IPER’s faculty director using the Change of Advisor or Reading Committee Member Form.

Each Dissertation Reading Committee member signs the signature page of the dissertation to certify that the work is of acceptable scope and quality. One Reading Committee member reads the dissertation in its final form and certifies on the Certificate of Final Reading (found in the Office of the University Registrar publication, Directions for Preparing Doctoral Dissertations) that Program and University specifications have been met. The signed dissertation copies and accompanying documents must be submitted to the Office of the University Registrar on or before the quarterly deadline indicated in the University’s academic calendar. In addition, it is mandatory that all doctoral dissertation submissions be accompanied by the Doctoral Dissertation Agreement Form, which is part of the ProQuest handbook, How to Submit a Dissertation, available from the Office of the University Registrar.

Students must either be registered or on graduation quarter in the term they submit the dissertation. At the time the dissertation is submitted, an Application to Graduate must be on file (filed on Axess), all of the program requirements must be complete, and Candidacy must be valid through the term of degree conferral.

back to top

III.  TEACHING

For educational purposes, each student is required to complete one quarter of teaching.  This can be fulfilled by serving as a teaching assistant (TA) for IPER 320 or IPER 330, or by serving as a TA for any other course, in any department / program, with a discussion section or with an opportunity (that IPER TA’s are expected to seize!) to lecture in at least two class sessions. It is recommended that the teaching requirement is fulfilled by the end of the third year unless the student has a firm commitment from a faculty member to TA a future course. Upon completion, students obtain the instructor’s signature on the Teaching Requirement Certification Form, and submit it to the Assistant Director. 

IV. OTHER PROGRAM REQUIRMENTS

All students are required to submit a grant proposal for external funding, defined as fellowship and/or research funds provided by a government agency (e.g., the National Science Foundation of the U.S.), a private foundation (e.g., the Switzer Foundation), or a University entity (e.g. SIGF). Students who are supported by an IPER fellowship, or receive supplemental funding in the form of Rudolf summer grants, have an important stewardship role to play. Recipients are required to write thank-you letters, provide progress and/or accounting reports, and/or attend specific donor-recognition activities at the behest of IPER, the SES Dean’s Office and the University’s Development Office.

back to top

VI. "OPTING OUT" WITH A MASTER OF SCIENCE DEGREE

In exceptional circumstances, IPER offers a Master of Science degree for students who have been admitted to the IPER Ph.D. program but who opt to complete their training with a M.S. degree. Admission directly to the stand-alone MS program is not allowed. A student who has attended Stanford for at least one term and who is currently enrolled or on an approved leave of absence may, with his/her two Lead Advisors’ consent, submit a Graduate Program Authorization Petition (available from the Office of the Registrar’s forms page) to make the degree change. International students changing degree programs must also obtain the approval of the Foreign Student Advisor at the Bechtel International Center.

M.S. course work should total at least 45 units at or above the 100-level, of which the majority of  units should be at or above the 200-level. Masters students will normally take the IPER core curriculum for Ph.D. students, comprising: IPER 310, Environmental Forum Seminar; IPER 320, Designing Environmental Research; and IPER 330, Research Approaches for Environmental Problem Solving.

In addition, students plan a sequence of courses with a focus in a particular area of study, corresponding to IPER’s four Breadth Areas: Culture and Institutions; Economics and Policy Analysis; Engineering and Technology; and Natural Sciences.

A program proposal, signed by the student’s Lead Advisors and approved by IPER’s Faculty Director, must be filed within the first four weeks of the first quarter of the quarter in which the student switched from the Ph.D. to the M.S. Students may take no more than 6 units credit/no credit and must maintain at least a “B” average in all courses taken for the M.S. degree. The M.S. program does not have an M.S. with thesis option. Students may write a Master’s thesis, but it will not be formally recognized by the University. A student who opts to complete the M.S. instead of the Ph.D. is typically eligible for one additional quarter of tuition and stipend support.

back to top

VII.  STUDENT ANNUAL REVIEW

IPER’s Annual Review process is intended to make it easier for students to communicate their needs, progress, accomplishments, and concerns to their advisors and to the Program. The process also clarifies requirements, milestones, forms, and deadlines; enables the Program to understand student progress and needs more deeply; facilitates communication between advisors and IPER staff and leadership; and provides a mechanism through which students and faculty can give feedback on the Program's overall effectiveness.

As described in Section II. Year-by-Year Advising and Milestones, students complete the Annual Review Student Section Form, specific to their year, and the student’s two Lead Advisors complete the Annual Review Lead Advisors Section Form. Forms will be made available at the beginning of Spring Quarter and are due by the last day of Finals Week. First year students should bring the completed form for discussion and signatures to their Big Picture Advising Session; second year students should bring the completed form for discussion and signatures to the Meeting of the Minds; third year students, having just gone through the qualifying procedure, complete a modified form which does not require signatures. The Annual Review of fourth and fifth year students is not coupled with any particular milestone or meeting; however, advanced students are encouraged to meet with at least their Lead Advisors together to ensure progress and agreement about the scope of the student's dissertation research.

Disbursement of the summer stipend (regardless of funding source) will be enabled upon receipt of the student-completed Annual Review Form and all degree progress forms due in the current academic year. If an extension of any kind (i.e. First Year Big Picture or Second Year Meeting of the Minds sessions, forms, milestones, the Annual Review) is needed, the IPER Associate or Assistant Director must be contacted to make arrangements in advance of the Annual Review due date. 

It is the goal that the face-to-face student-faculty discussions the Annual Review process intends to foster will provide an opportunity to reflect on the past year, to think about the next, and to ensure that students and their advisors are in agreement about progress. These reviews are shared with IPER’s Faculty Director and Executive Committee because, having ultimate responsibility for the academic well-being of the Program, they have an interest in seeing the overall degree progress of the IPER student body and must be privy to individual cases of concern so they can work with staff, the student, and the student's advisors to devise solutions to the issue(s) in a collaborative manner.  Advisors may opt to share their review form with their student, though they are also given the option to submit it confidentially.  (full description of Annual Review Process can be accessed here: http://pangea.stanford.edu/IPER/internal/about_annual_reviews.html)

VII. MONITORING DEGREE PROGESS

Both IPER and University milestones and requirements are instituted to ensure every student makes excellent progress toward earning the Ph.D. These milestones and requirements were carefully designed, with due dates strategically spaced, to assist students in staying on track with their coursework, faculty and committee interactions, research, dissertation writing, and finally, graduation. It is therefore crucial that students comply with all established deadlines as defined in the IPER Requirements Document and the Stanford Bulletin. 

While the requirements and milestones provide a universal structure, we recognize that students’ progress will vary based on selected disciplines, research scope, and alignment with faculty, and therefore exceptions may be granted with justification. If a student is unable to meet particular deadlines or complete his/her Annual Review by the end of Spring Quarter, it is his/her responsibility to discuss the situation and alternative deadlines with his/her advisors and the IPER staff.  In some cases IPER’s Faculty Director and/or Executive Committee may need to approve alternative timelines or extensions.  Should a student miss one or more deadlines and fail to communicate with IPER staff, the Faculty Director and/or Executive Committee may initiate further disciplinary action, such as withholding the student’s stipend, contacting his/her advisors directly, or placing a disciplinary letter in the student’s file.  However, given the Program’s small size and availability of the staff and faculty leaders, such extreme actions are expected to be rare and applied when a student is blatantly disregarding Program expectations.

IPER has a clear process in place, by which faculty, staff, or the Executive Committee itself can take action in those rare cases in which a student is far off track and uncommunicative about his/her plans.  To tie milestones with potential outcomes simply and in a format easily understood by faculty involved in the Annual Review process, the year-by-year milestones and requirements are outlined below along with potential consequences of not meeting specific milestones.  This may also serve as a simple checklist for students after they thoroughly read through the detailed descriptions of each milestone in the sections above.  It should be noted that, as stated above and throughout this document, IPER is flexible within reason - students should discuss alternative plans or schedules with their advisors and the IPER staff well in advance of the Annual Review so accommodations can be made.

Given the programmatic value of the Annual Review process, and the importance of its role in individual degree progress monitoring, it is imperative that the Annual Review Student Form and all accompanying degree progress forms are submitted by the Annual Review deadline. Accordingly, the summer quarter stipend will be disbursed upon receipt of these items.

1st Year

• Coursework
  - completion of core courses (IPER 310 twice, 320, 330)
  - no incompletes on transcript without explanation from relevant faculty (work must be completed within the timeline allowed by the University or student will be placed on academic warning, consisting of a letter from the Faculty Director placed in the student’s file)

• Advising
  - completion of at least two First Year Advising meetings (beginning of Fall and Winter)
  - completion of First Year Big Picture advising meeting in Spring Quarter and submission of accompanying meeting agenda to staff

• Annual Review
  - submission of student Annual Review form, completed and signed at First Year Big Picture Meeting. (student section of Annual Review due even if approval for postponing the Big Picture meeting is granted.)

• Summer Quarter
  - First Year students who do not submit a Rudolf or McGee Summer Grant proposal will be required to include a more detailed written description of their summer plans on their Annual Review Form in the required section.Those submitting a Summer Grant proposal can summarize their plans on the Annual Review form in just a few sentences
  
  NOTE: Students whose summer research was funded IPER or SES will be required to submit a written report to IPER and their First Year Advisors in the following Autumn Quarter.

2nd Year

• Advising
  - Selection of Fields of Inquiry and Lead Advisors and submission of relevant forms by the first two weeks of Spring Quarter
  
  - Second Year Meeting of the Minds by end of Spring Quarter, to include:
  1. A 10-15 minute oral student presentation of his/her Candidacy Plan
  2. A review of the student’s draft Candidacy Plan
  3. Determination, from the student’s presentation and these documents, that the student is making sufficient progress to take the Oral Qualifying Exam by end of Winter Quarter of the third year. This is recorded on the advisor’s Annual Review form, and by the first two weeks of Winter Quarter, on the student’s Qualifying Eligibility and Committee Designation Form.
  
  There are three possible outcomes from the Second Year Meeting of the Minds:
  1)  Student passes to next year if sufficient progress has been made and the student is on track to qualify by the next Winter Quarter.
  2)  If faculty raise concerns about a student’s progress and preparation for the Oral Qualifying Exam, the student may be placed on academic warning and a plan developed to address faculty concerns prior to the Oral Qualifying Exam deadline or to create an alternative qualifying schedule (not to go beyond Year 3).
  3) If the student has made insufficient progress, dismissal from the program is a possible outcome.  The student may be advised not to proceed to the Oral Qualifying Exam and to leave the program with an M.S.  If this is the outcome, the student may be allowed one additional quarter of tuition and stipend support.
  
  - Final Candidacy Plan to be submitted before end of Spring Quarter.
  
• Annual Review
  - submission of Annual Review forms, addressed and signed at Second Year Meeting of the Minds (student section of Annual Review due even if approval for postponing the Meeting of the Minds is granted.)

• Summer Quarter
  -Second Year students who do not submit a Rudolf or McGee Summer Grant proposal will be required to include a more detailed written description of their summer plans on their Annual Review Form in the required section.Those submitting a Summer Grant proposal can summarize their plans on the Annual Review form in just a few sentences
  
  NOTE: Students whose summer research was funded IPER or SES will be required to submit a written report to IPER and their Lead Advisors in the following Autumn Quarter.

3rd Year

• Oral Qualifying Exam (by end of Winter Quarter)
  
  There are three possible outcomes to the Qualifying Exam
  1)  Exam passed and dissertation proposal approved.
  2)  Conditional pass with revisions required.  Committee should specify timeline (not to exceed one quarter) and whether an additional meeting/exam is required to review student’s revised proposal.
  3)  Exam not passed.  This would normally result in dismissal from the PhD program.

• Coursework
  - breadth course requirements completed and certification form submitted
  - application to go TGR submitted or justification for more coursework accepted by staff and advisors

• TA Requirement
  - completion recommended by end of Year 3 (if not complete, recommend student has firm commitment from faculty to TA future course)

• Summer Quarter
  - written plans for supervised summer research required only if seeking research funds from IPER/SES (McGee or Rudolf proposal, via regular process).  Expectation is that members of student’s Oral Qualifying Committee will oversee dissertation research once exam is passed.
  
• Annual Review
  - only student summary section required; Oral Qualifying Exam serves as advisor review
  
  

4th Year and Beyond

• Advising
  - It is expected that the student will convene his/her full committee at least annually to discuss research and dissertation progress

• Annual Review
  - submission of Annual Review forms from student and Lead Advisors, to include an agreement about thesis content (student may want to include the thesis outline with the Annual Review form that will be discussed with their Lead Advisors) and approximate quarter for the thesis defense.

APPENDICES: APPROVED BREADTH AREA COURSES

Note: the courses listed in the following appendices will be reevaluated and updated prior to the start of Academic Year 08-09

APPENDIX 1: Courses for the Culture and Institutions Breadth Area
At least two courses are required, alternative courses may be proposed on the Breadth Certification Form

ANSI 153.  The Population Question

ANSI 162.  Indigenous Peoples and Environmental Problems

ANSI 164.  Ecological Anthropology

ANSI 252.  Political Ecology

ECON 228.  Institutions and Organizations in Historical Perspective

HIST 281A.  Environmental History of the Americas

IPER 235.  Global Environmental Ethics

IPER 265.  Central America:  Environment, Development and Security       

LAW 280.  Toxic Harms

LAW 281.  Natural Resources Law and Policy

LAW 437.  Water Law and Policy

LAW 592.  International Conflict

LAW 594.  International Institutions

LAW 603.  Environmental Law and Policy

LAW 604.  Environmental Workshop

LAW 605.  International Environmental Law and Policy

LAW 667.  Marine Resources

POLISCI 351A.  Foundations of Political Economy

POLISCI 362.  New Economics of Organizations

POLISCI 424.  Introduction to Political Psychology

POLISCI 435.  Topics in the Philosophy of Social Science

POLISCI 436.  Rational Choice

PUBLPOL 102.  Organizations and Public Policy

PUBLPOL 166.  Organizational Theory and Design

PUBLPOL 194.  Technology Policy

SOC 116.  Globalization and Organizations

SOC 260.  Formal Organizations

SOC 264.  Firms, Markets, and States

SOC 360.  Foundations of Organizational Sociology

SOC 362.  Organization and Environment

SOC 364.  Organizations as Governance Structures

SOC 367.  Institutional Analysis of Organizations

SOC 377.  Comparing Institutional Forms:  Public, Private, and Non-profit

STS 110.  Ethics and Public Policy

back to top

APPENDIX II:  Achieving Breadth in Economics and Policy Analysis

Students taking IPER 243 will be expected to have mastery of the topics covered in any of the following course combinations or by equivalent courses previously taken elsewhere.  Prior enrollment in one of these course combinations is strongly encouraged.

*  MS&E 241
*  Econ 50 and Econ 51
*  Econ 206
*  Econ 50 and Econ 155
*  Econ 150
*  Econ 202N and 203N

Alternatively, students may satisfy the minimum breadth requirement by taking courses culminating in Econ 243, or Econ 241.  The Stanford Bulletin cites the prerequisites required by Econ 243 and Econ 241.

Appendix III:  Courses for the Engineering and Technology Breadth Area
At least one course is required; this list represents examples of appropriate course only. Students may select any course provided it meets the criteria for this breadth area’s subject knowledge. Selected courses are recorded on the Breadth Certification Form 

CEE 101B.  Mechanics of Fluids

CEE 166B.  Floods and Droughts, Dams and Aqueducts

CEE 172.  Air Quality Management

CEE 176 A. Energy Efficient Buildings

CEE 176B.  Electric Power: Renewables and Efficiency

CEE 177.  Aquatic Chemistry and Biology

CEE 201D. Computations in Civil and Environmental Engineering

CEE 270.  Movement and Fate of Organic Contaminants in Surface Waters and Groundwater

CEE 274E.  Pathogens in the Environment

GES 230.  Physical Hydrogeology

MS&E 250A.  Engineering Risk Analysis

back to top

APPENDIX IV:  Courses for the Natural Sciences Breadth Area
At least two courses are required, alternative courses may be proposed on the Breadth Certification Form

BIOSCI 101.  Ecology

BIOSCI 121.  Biogeography

BIOSCI 136.  Evolutionary Paleobiology

BIOSCI 139.  Biology of Birds

BIOSCI 143.  Evolution

BIOSCI 144.  Conservation Biology

BIOSCI 280.  Fundamentals of Sustainable Agriculture

BIOHOPK 263H.  Oceanic Biology

BIOHOPK 265H.  Air and Water

BIOHOPK 266H.  Molecular Ecology

BIOHOPK 272H.  Marine Ecology

CEE 164.  Introduction to Physical Oceanography

CEE 166A. Watersheds and Wetlands

CEE 274A,B.  Environmental Microbiology I, II

GEOPHYS 104.  The Water Course

GEOPHYS 130.  Biological Oceanography

GES 140.  Remote Sensing of Land Use and Land Cover

GES 170.  Environmental Geochemistry

GES 175.  Science of Soils

GES 205.  Advanced Oceanography

GES 230.  Physical Hydrogeology

GES 240.  Geostatistics for Spatial Phenomena

GES 259.  Marine Chemistry

GES 268.  Geomicrobiology

PETENG 260.  Groundwater Pollution and Oil Slicks

IPER 250.  Ecological Principles for Environmental Problem Solving

back to top