Literature Positioning (phg-literature-positioning)
A PiHG review is judged partly on command of a literature — reviewers are usually leading figures in
the field, and they will notice what you missed, misread, or misattributed. This skill defines the
corpus (what you are reviewing and why), maps its camps and debates, and locates your entry
point so the essay reads as an authoritative, fair, and current intervention rather than a partial or
dated survey.
When to trigger
- Assembling and bounding the literature the essay will review
- Mapping who argues what, and where the real disagreements lie
- A reviewer said coverage is "partial," "dated," "US/UK-centric," or "misreads camp X"
- Deciding whose work anchors the debate and whose is peripheral
Define the corpus (make coverage defensible)
State what is in, what is out, and how you decided — even for a narrative review. Reviewers trust an
essay that is explicit about its net.
- Boundaries: sub-field(s), time window, languages, and any inclusion logic (key journals, citation
thresholds, or a structured search — see
external_tools.md).
- Currency: include the most recent work; a review that stops three years back reads as stale.
- Reach: watch Anglophone/Global-North parochialism — PiHG is an international journal; engage work
from beyond the usual centers where it exists, and name the limit honestly where it does not.
Map the debate, don't list the papers
Positioning is relational: show how the works stand to each other, not one-by-one.
| Do |
Instead of |
| Name the camps and what divides them |
Listing authors chronologically |
| Identify the crux the field is stuck on |
Summarizing each paper's findings |
| Show who talks past whom (and why) |
Treating the field as one smooth consensus |
| Locate the silences — what no camp addresses |
Only covering what is well-trodden |
The silences and the talking-past are where your intervention (phg-critical-intervention) will land.
Position your entry (fair before critical)
- Steelman before you critique. Represent each camp at its strongest; a review that knocks down weak
versions loses the referees who built the strong ones.
- Attribute precisely. Credit ideas to whoever originated them; misattribution is the fastest way to
lose a reviewer who is in the literature (see the guardrail in
exemplars/library.md).
- Locate yourself. Say where your organizing concept (
phg-theory-building) sits relative to the
camps — extending one, cutting across several, or naming what all miss.
The referee-in-the-field test
Assume your reviewer wrote three of the works you cite. Would they say "yes, that is my field, fairly
drawn, and I hadn't seen it that way"? If instead they would say "you missed X, misread Y, and ignored the
Global South," the positioning is not yet PiHG-ready.
Checklist
Anti-patterns
- An author-by-author or year-by-year list with no map of the debate
- Parochial coverage (only the US/UK canon) presented as the whole field
- Dated corpus that misses the recent turn the review claims to address
- Knocking down straw-man versions of a camp
- Misattributing a concept to the wrong scholar or the wrong journal
Output format
【Corpus】what is in/out + how bounded
【Camps】the 2–4 positions and what divides them
【Crux】the disagreement the field is stuck on
【Silences】what no camp addresses (the opening)
【Your entry】where your concept sits relative to the camps
【Reach】Global-South / non-Anglophone work engaged? limit named? [Y/N]
【Next】phg-argument-synthesis
Supplementary resources
1---2name: phg-literature-positioning3description: Use when mapping and entering a large, contested literature for a Progress in Human Geography (PiHG) review essay — defining the corpus, its camps and debates, and where your intervention sits. Positions the essay in the field; it does not build the synthetic argument (see phg-argument-synthesis).4---56# Literature Positioning (phg-literature-positioning)78A PiHG review is judged partly on **command of a literature** — reviewers are usually leading figures in9the field, and they will notice what you missed, misread, or misattributed. This skill defines the10**corpus** (what you are reviewing and why), maps its **camps and debates**, and locates your **entry11point** so the essay reads as an authoritative, fair, and current intervention rather than a partial or12dated survey.1314## When to trigger1516- Assembling and bounding the literature the essay will review17- Mapping who argues what, and where the real disagreements lie18- A reviewer said coverage is "partial," "dated," "US/UK-centric," or "misreads camp X"19- Deciding whose work anchors the debate and whose is peripheral2021## Define the corpus (make coverage defensible)2223State **what is in, what is out, and how you decided** — even for a narrative review. Reviewers trust an24essay that is explicit about its net.2526- **Boundaries**: sub-field(s), time window, languages, and any inclusion logic (key journals, citation27 thresholds, or a structured search — see `external_tools.md`).28- **Currency**: include the **most recent** work; a review that stops three years back reads as stale.29- **Reach**: watch **Anglophone/Global-North parochialism** — PiHG is an international journal; engage work30 from beyond the usual centers where it exists, and name the limit honestly where it does not.3132## Map the debate, don't list the papers3334Positioning is **relational**: show how the works *stand to each other*, not one-by-one.3536| Do | Instead of |37|----|-----------|38| Name the **camps** and what divides them | Listing authors chronologically |39| Identify the **crux** the field is stuck on | Summarizing each paper's findings |40| Show **who talks past whom** (and why) | Treating the field as one smooth consensus |41| Locate the **silences** — what no camp addresses | Only covering what is well-trodden |4243The silences and the talking-past are where your intervention (`phg-critical-intervention`) will land.4445## Position your entry (fair before critical)4647- **Steelman before you critique.** Represent each camp at its strongest; a review that knocks down weak48 versions loses the referees who built the strong ones.49- **Attribute precisely.** Credit ideas to whoever originated them; misattribution is the fastest way to50 lose a reviewer who is *in* the literature (see the guardrail in `exemplars/library.md`).51- **Locate yourself.** Say where your organizing concept (`phg-theory-building`) sits relative to the52 camps — extending one, cutting across several, or naming what all miss.5354## The referee-in-the-field test5556Assume your reviewer wrote three of the works you cite. Would they say "yes, that is my field, fairly57drawn, and I hadn't seen it that way"? If instead they would say "you missed X, misread Y, and ignored the58Global South," the positioning is not yet PiHG-ready.5960## Checklist6162- [ ] Corpus boundaries and inclusion logic stated and defensible63- [ ] Most recent work included; not dated64- [ ] Reach beyond Anglophone/Global-North centers considered and limits named65- [ ] Camps and the crux mapped relationally, not as a paper list66- [ ] Each camp steelmanned before any critique; attributions precise67- [ ] Silences/talking-past identified as the opening for the intervention6869## Anti-patterns7071- An author-by-author or year-by-year list with no map of the debate72- Parochial coverage (only the US/UK canon) presented as the whole field73- Dated corpus that misses the recent turn the review claims to address74- Knocking down straw-man versions of a camp75- Misattributing a concept to the wrong scholar or the wrong journal7677## Output format7879```80【Corpus】what is in/out + how bounded81【Camps】the 2–4 positions and what divides them82【Crux】the disagreement the field is stuck on83【Silences】what no camp addresses (the opening)84【Your entry】where your concept sits relative to the camps85【Reach】Global-South / non-Anglophone work engaged? limit named? [Y/N]86【Next】phg-argument-synthesis87```8889## Supplementary resources9091- [`../../resources/external_tools.md`](../../resources/external_tools.md) — Scopus/WoS, VOSviewer, PRISMA for a defensible corpus92- [`../../resources/exemplars/library.md`](../../resources/exemplars/library.md) — attribution guardrail; do not misplace a concept or a journal
brycewang-stanford