---
name: phg-contribution-framing
description: Use when framing the forward-looking contribution of a Progress in Human Geography (PiHG) review essay — the portable "so what / what next" agenda the field can carry forward. Frames and stakes the contribution; it does not make the critical move (see phg-critical-intervention) or polish prose (see phg-writing-style).
---

# Contribution Framing (phg-contribution-framing)

*Progress* in Human Geography is in the title. A PiHG essay must not only re-order a debate but **point the
field forward** — leave readers with a **portable, generative agenda** they can take to their own work.
This skill turns the critical intervention (`phg-critical-intervention`) into a clearly staked
contribution and an agenda that reads as *progress*, not just critique.

## When to trigger

- The critique is sharp but the essay ends without a "what next"
- Deciding how ambitiously to pitch the contribution (a re-read vs. a new agenda)
- A reviewer said "fine critique, but where does this leave the field?"
- Writing the abstract and the closing agenda section

## Name the contribution type (be honest about ambition)

| Type | The claim | Reviewer expectation |
|------|-----------|----------------------|
| **Re-read** | A better way to understand an existing literature | The re-read must be non-obvious and change what counts |
| **Reframe** | A new organizing concept for a field | The concept must travel and generate questions |
| **Agenda** | A forward program of what the field should now study | The agenda must be specific and doable, not a wish-list |
| **Synthesis-across** | A bridge uniting literatures that ignored each other | The bridge must be load-bearing, not a mere analogy |

Overclaiming ("a new paradigm") when you have a sharp re-read invites a harsh review; underclaiming buries
a real contribution. Match the pitch to what the essay earns.

## Make the agenda portable and generative

The test of a PiHG contribution is whether **another geographer can use it**. A good forward agenda:

- **Generates questions**, not just topics — "research should ask *how X is distributed across the
  circuit*," not "more research is needed on platforms."
- **Travels across sub-fields** — an economic, urban, feminist, and political-ecology reader each find a
  handle. State those handles explicitly.
- **Names what to do differently** — a method, a unit of analysis, a site, or a comparison the re-ordering
  makes newly sensible.
- **Is falsifiable in spirit** — the agenda could turn out to be wrong or unproductive; a program that
  cannot fail is a slogan.

## Avoid the "more research is needed" ending

The weakest PiHG close. Replace generic calls with **specific, concept-driven directions**:

```
Weak: "Future research should further examine platform labor in diverse contexts."
Strong: "Following the circuit rather than the platform, three questions open: how control at one node
  produces precarity at another; where social reproduction sits in the circuit; and which nodes afford
  the strongest political leverage — questions economic, feminist, and urban geographers can each take up."
```

## Stake it early *and* late

PiHG readers should meet the contribution in the **abstract and introduction**, not only the conclusion
(see `phg-writing-style`). The closing agenda then **delivers** on the promise with specifics. A
contribution revealed only on the last page reads as an afterthought.

## Checklist

- [ ] Contribution type named and matched to what the essay earns (no over/under-claim)
- [ ] Forward agenda is specific and doable, not "more research is needed"
- [ ] Agenda generates questions and names what to do differently
- [ ] Handles for multiple sub-fields stated explicitly (portability)
- [ ] Contribution stated in the abstract/intro and delivered in the close
- [ ] The "so what for the discipline" is legible to a generalist, not only specialists

## Anti-patterns

- Ending on "more research is needed" or "future work should explore…"
- Overclaiming a paradigm shift the synthesis does not support
- A contribution buried on the last page, absent from the abstract
- An agenda only the author's own sub-field could use
- Restating the critique as if it were the forward agenda

## Output format

```
【Contribution type】re-read / reframe / agenda / synthesis-across
【One-line contribution】what the field gains
【Forward agenda】the 2–4 specific, concept-driven directions
【Portability handles】what each sub-field can take up
【Stated early?】in abstract + intro, delivered in close? [Y/N]
【Next】phg-tables-figures
```

## Supplementary resources

- [`../../resources/worked-examples/01-introduction.md`](../../resources/worked-examples/01-introduction.md) — a portable "follow the circuit" agenda framed early
- [`../../resources/exemplars/library.md`](../../resources/exemplars/library.md) — works whose agendas the field actually carried forward