After handing in my review to my supervisor, I suddenly feel very tired. So tired that I virtually did nothing on this Friday, nor today. I think it is time now to look back and see what I have done in the past weeks.
The first review is good in that it covers many essential aspects, though not necessarily deep. Based on that, the second review on environment tries to find more about ecosystem components and their interactions. However, I find literature I read all focusing on certain topics: Holocene climate, alpine steppe, etc. Apparently a comprehensive review of Tibetan nature is still absent.
The Second review thus cannot be considered as good enough, though I myself cannot easily tell what is wrong. Perhaps I should return to it from time to time and write down what is relevant to my research area. The next review would be on Tibetan history, especially pastoral history. It would not be as easy as writing a chronology because there will be contrast of ideas, even ideologies.
During my searching I find that many people in academic world criticise transforming nomadism to sedentary pastoralism. Then what is the originality of my research? Perhaps a different geographical setting? Or perhaps I can reach a conclusion rather different? Maybe it will be original in a way that I do not expect.
没有评论:
发表评论