The launch of independent Ed.D. programs in 2007 at campuses of the California State University (CSU) is significant for its large program size and timing amidst national debate on Ed.D. programs. These applied programs for practitioners require a traditional dissertation based on rigorous research that address problems of practice. This qualitative case study explores how CSU doctoral faculty and program directors conceptualize the purpose and nature of the applied dissertation and the professional and institutional factors that shape their views. It is important to document program norms at this critical early stage to guide improvements at these and other new Ed.D. programs and to contribute to the ongoing debate. Interviews and document review revealed mixed evidence, with some programs stressing scholarly rigor similar to a Ph.D. and others advocating a more relevant, practitioner-oriented approach, such as esummaries of dissertations geared toward educators at the research site. Participants agreed, "We are still feeling our way" regarding dissertation expectations, and greater collegial deliberation is needed. State legislation, accreditation requirements, faculty's own doctoral experience, and other factors tend to reinforce the status quo and inhibit the development of applied approaches. Implications for practice include facilitation of faculty dialogue and consensus-building around visions of the applied dissertation within and across Ed.D. programs.