The tragedy of studying in a graduate school in this century is that we are forced to write analytical papers about things that are either obvious or known to a lot of people or have already been written about in a way that was a good enough way to write them. I have no problem with research in nascent issues but I infrequently come across such articles or papers.
The scheme of things in which plagiarism has been made a taboo, it is becoming difficult to churn out literature for audiences that are relatively unaware of any of the much contested topics.
Even though I consider myself as having good knowledge of the English language, I find it difficult to write essays that describe an already well described agenda. There is a limit to which active voice can be converted to passive voice and vice versa to fill in those pages and turn in those essays. In fact most of us are running out of perspectives to show and show them uniquely because somebody somewhere has already done this research and written this article in a way that is quite adequate to explain the phenomenon.
For each essay, when I start asking the question, 'what am I adding to the debate?', I find myself completely clueless.
