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.

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

• Corpus boundaries and inclusion logic stated and defensible
• Most recent work included; not dated
• Reach beyond Anglophone/Global-North centers considered and limits named
• Camps and the crux mapped relationally, not as a paper list
• Each camp steelmanned before any critique; attributions precise
• Silences/talking-past identified as the opening for the intervention

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

• ../../resources/external_tools.md — Scopus/WoS, VOSviewer, PRISMA for a defensible corpus
• ../../resources/exemplars/library.md — attribution guardrail; do not misplace a concept or a journal