Sorry of the wording isn't right, english isn't my first language.
Basically, I am writing a paper and obviously I need to write a bit about the historiography. What is already known, what theories are there, etc. But, like, there are no theories? All of the articles and papers I found about the subject are just describing what happened without much question or theorizing. And also they all basically agree on pretty much all the points of what happened. The whole point of my paper is actually to fill this gap by focusing on the Why of the situation and what may have influenced the situation.
But it leaves me with issues writing the historiographic part because non of the how tos seem to account for this issue.
(I should note this isn't just me sucking at researching, there is not a lot of literature on my topic and the whole subgenre(?) has issues with this.)
Sorry if this isn't the right place to ask this. I looked through the wiki and I think it's fine, but if not I apologise.
If there really are no previous hypothesis and theories or interpretations (which I highly doubt), you describe this in your historiography. You simply cite previous research and what it has done. What doesn't exist isn't your problem. Rather, it is used by you as a motivator for why you're doing what you're doing.