Reflections of a Deaf Scholar 193
people in the system. This aggression, whose manifestations may include jealousy,
lies, and cheating in the workplace, is termed “infantilization of employees” by the
employment sociologist Richard Sennet (cited in Verhaeghe, 2011, p. 13).
As a scholar motivated by my own direct experience, I have felt pressured by
this context, and in the different phases of my career development it has been a
challenge to balance this intrinsic motivation with an output-oriented approach. In
the United States, I met scholars who recognized the value of my work and were both
inspiring colleagues and strong supporters. At Ghent, my dissertation cosupervisor,
the head of the anthropology department, was also very nurturing, and an import-
ant source of motivation was my commitment to my research participants, who also
encouraged my studies.
preparing for my return to Belgium and the final stage of the dissertation process,
I became more concerned about problems in my relationship with my supervisor
at Ghent University. My cosupervisor’s attempts to discuss the lack of guidance with
the supervisor were not successful. I was exhausted by the power struggles I had
gone through and often became sick. Research has revealed stress and sickness
among academics to be consequences of pressure and of a lack of autonomy and
control over one’s work (Berg, Barry, & Chandler, cited in Verhaeghe, 2011).
Fortunately, when I requested that the university intervene, I was taken seriously:
My cosupervisor was asked to take over supervision, and my doctorate was transferred
to the Centre for Intercultural Interaction and Communication. However, for the
transfer to occur, I was required to provide a chronological overview of the relevant
events, which was painful because it meant revisiting the entire process. I felt sup-
ported by my cosupervisor throughout, and I regained a sense of justice when I saw
that my experiences were understood. I also felt relieved because taking action from
a subordinate position in the context of power is risky. I started to feel hopeful again
about completing my doctorate and felt fresh motivation to finish my work.
My new supervisor was very understanding and helpful, through the entire pro-
cess of completing my dissertation. His own long-term research with the Navajo
people in North America and his years of living and working in the United States
enabled him to understand the frustration I felt as, on the one hand, a member of
a small minority in a fairly homogeneous culture and, on the other hand, an aca-
demic who had been exposed to the warm, collegial atmosphere of Gallaudet. It was
important to me that he kept reiterating that acceptance and even collegiality were
possible in Flanders, too.
A new advisory committee was established that included yerker Andersson, and
we started to prepare for my dissertation defense. There was agreement about the
next stages of my doctoral thesis, which would include a combination of two pub-
lished articles and two articles that had been submitted for publication or were in
the peer-review process. I had confidence in the peer- review process and the scien-
tific community and started to see light at the end of the tunnel.
However, a couple of days before the scheduled date of the defense, the examina-
tion committee turned the green light to red. This decision came unexpectedly, since
the advisory committee, which had met previously, had not pinpointed any problems.
The formal objection, which was made at the last minute, was based on a recent change