By the mid-1970s, views among some scholars changed in her favor. Sue Fawn Chung's doctoral dissertation at University of California, Berkeley was the first study in English to use court documents rather than popular histories and hearsay. Her seminal 1979 article titled "The Much Maligned Empress Dowager" opened with the sentence "Clio, the Muse of History, has not been kind" to Cixi. Traditional historians in China, Chung wrote, "always have been prejudiced against feminine influence in court", and historians have long taken the word of Kang Youwei, Liang Qichao, and other Chinese, who opposed the Empress Dowager. Luke Kwong, in his analysis of the Hundred Days' Reform, said that many of the allegations that Empress Dowager Cixi was power-hungry and immoral could not be verified, instead portraying her as a relatively insecure woman, concerned about her legitimacy and haunted by her relatively humble origins in the palace. Chinese historians have traditionally held a negative prejudice of female members of court. The Empress Dowager was also a more conservative leader, which was not common for a female leader of those times. She went on to say that this resulted in Empress Dowager Cixi being portrayed in a one-sided, negative and narrow view, called names such as "she dragon" or the "usurper of a throne" and viewed as either a tyrant or incompetent. Despite this, writers such as Jung Chang have criticized this narrative and have written works such as Chang's "Empress Dowager Cixi: The Concubine Who Launched Modern China" in order to offer an opposing view.