Reflections of a Deaf Scholar 197
I also lost confidence in myself. Out of energy, I got sick. However, I did recover, and
although I still had a lot of doubt about the entire process and whether I should
go on with it, I got back to work. Since publishing my work provided opportunities
for maintaining its content and for evaluation through the international scientific
peer-review process, I had resisted the suggestion of the first meeting of the com-
mittee to write a thesis instead of a compilation of published articles. In agreement
with the recently changed faculty protocol and after a second meeting of the com-
mittee, I resumed my efforts to publish all my work. I am grateful that at that mo-
ment I could work on the topic of deaf epistemologies, which helped me to better
understand what had happened and to reflect on the stage of development of deaf
studies research in Flanders (see also De Clerck, 2010a, which has become Chapter
2 of this volume).
At that time, other conflicts were occurring between hearing scholars and young
deaf people who had studied abroad. Epistemologically, the latter had adopted the
concept of deaf culture and an alternative view on life. We took the field of deaf
studies for granted and had learned to feel at home in this discipline. The conflicts
during my doctoral studies illustrated that I had made the mistake of assuming that
this discipline could be automatically transferred to the Flemish context. My strug-
gle was also “a struggle for voice”; that is, a struggle for a discipline that provided
space for deaf people to have a voice and be heard (Humphries, 2009; padden &
Humphries, 2005). Giving up was simply not an option.
perhaps because I had nothing to lose, I started my reflection on deaf episte-
mologies from this concrete conflict. Somewhat ironically, the “I,” which had dis-
appeared from my work, rose like a phoenix from the ashes after the worst attack.
I was fortunate to find wise advisers in my supervisor and my U.S. colleagues. They
understood the dynamics that were going on in the academic world, and they con-
tinued to believe in me and support me in overcoming the obstacles. Their sup-
port strengthened the roots of my academic flourishing and helped form a basis
for development of an innovative and creative academic path that is unique to my
research process. These colleagues’ support provided a secure academic space of
apprenticeship where I could grow professionally and build further on the foun-
dations of my work—and from which I could use good scholarship to respond to a
situation of bias.
In an e-mail reaction to a draft of the present chapter, my supervisor, Rik pinxten,
emphasized that it is indeed possible to “change times together” and that that is
what we have done. He called this use of “the significant and beautiful instrument
of science for a good purpose” a leitmotif in his academic career (personal commu-
nication, April 9, 2012). A shorter version of this chapter (De Clerck, 2012c) was
published in Dutch in an edited volume, Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner? Liber amico-
rum voor Rik Pinxten [Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner? Liber amicorum [Book of Friends]
for Rik Pinxten].
Because of professor pinxten and these other allies, I learned how to navigate
the academic jungle and, most importantly, to regain confidence in my work and
the academic process. These people led by example in mentoring me as a young
scholar, and their supportive cooperation, which has enabled me to advance my