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)

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 — a portable "follow the circuit" agenda framed early
• ../../resources/exemplars/library.md — works whose agendas the field actually carried forward