(Note: The current edit of this post fixes some of these issues.)
Clarity of objectives
It's unclear, exactly, what you want people to critique; the way the post is written implies that there will be text other than the question and the question's title, and that this text is what you want people to critique. The body of your question is laying the groundwork for why you're seeking a critique and the sorts of problems you're looking at - all this is good information - but there's an implication that the question is just background.
I'm harping on this point because it illustrates point of writing that far too many people ignore: Know your audience. On this site, people generally post a critique question with a specific question (in this case, is your text comprehensible), and format the post so there's either specific text they want a critique on, or a link to that text. A few minutes' research could have saved us this confusion. (But perhaps this is a lesson you needed to learn?)
White space
Your original post was all one paragraph; the edit that <PERSON> performed helped split the text up into three paragraphs, which helps readability. 873
(Edit: Using a double return will give one paragraphs with white space in between them.)
Spending a little more time on organization (outlining what you meant to write, and in what order you will present the issues) will only help you do this upfront.
Organization is particularly important in academic writing.
Clarity
Even if it does ramble a little, your writing is clear. However, there's a certain style in academic writing that you may want to learn to emulate; stylistic departures are not well tolerated in academic writing.
I suggest reading documents similar to the ones you'll be generating - journal articles, dissertations - to learn about this. Your advisor may be able to suggest a few for you to read. (Remember, the best kind of writing for you to produce is what your advisor thinks is good.)
References
Strunk and White is a good guide to simple, clear style. It's a short book, and well worth reading.
The Chicago Manual of Style is a large tome that very few people read cover to cover. Perhaps your advisor means for you to use it as a reference; it's a good one. 487