Hey so I'm working on a historiography of the Xinhai Revolution. I've identified a few schools of thought, the main groups are East and West (referring to Chinese scholarship and English, American, Canadian, etc). The Chinese historiography of the revolution can be further broken down into: CCP/Maoist publications and KMT/Nationalist publications. The CCP historiography reads inline with Marxist theories, claiming the revolution was a bourgeoise revolution is ever sense. Examples: modern economic enterprises brought by encroaching imperial powers led to the emergence of nation capitalism in turn a bourgeoise. Looking at individuals in revolutionary groups, casting them into a bourgeoise mold. By and large linking bourgeoise to any revolutionary activity. The KMT/Nationalism publications instead of blanketing the revolution as completely a bourgeoise or not break it up into many pieces. Including anti-imperialist forces, global markets, anti-Manchuism, and treacheries committed by Yuan Shi-Kai. Where I fall short and need help is identifying the general consensus of Western historiography on the Xinhai Revolution. Additionally correct me in anything previously mentioned is wrong.
This is a general comment, as this is not my field.
You look to have put the work in on the secondary literature but have you identified the key review journals of the works you've studied? These are excellent resources for putting your finger on the pulse of consensi and discordance within a field (especially if you can find replies to reviews!). It might simply be that there is no clearly defined consensus (ironically a major schism in medieval history is heresiology). It may simply be that, as you write, your topic is in a state of flux. However, being able to identify what conceptions or consensi are being challenged and whether this is ongoing is a fantastic demonstration of analytical historiographical nuance.