인터페이스는 현지화되어 있으며, Skill 소개와 설명 문서는 선택한 언어로 AI가 자동 번역합니다. 코드·명령어·경로·전문 용어는 원문을 유지하며 원작자 문서가 우선합니다.
Skills 둘러보기
개발 및 엔지니어링 · SKILL.md

phg-critical-intervention

phg-critical-intervention

Use when making the critical move at the heart of a Progress in Human Geography (PiHG) review essay — naming what the field misses, mistakes, or takes for granted, and re-ordering the debate. Sharpens the critical turn; it does not build the synthetic spine (see phg-argument-synthesis) or frame the forward agenda (see phg-contribution-framing).

Independent GitHub snapshot · Automated classification · Original documentation governs

Skill 문서

GitHub

name: phg-critical-intervention description: Use when making the critical move at the heart of a Progress in Human Geography (PiHG) review essay — naming what the field misses, mistakes, or takes for granted, and re-ordering the debate. Sharpens the critical turn; it does not build the synthetic spine (see phg-argument-synthesis) or frame the forward agenda (see phg-contribution-framing).

Critical Intervention (phg-critical-intervention)

PiHG is a critical review journal. A survey that is comprehensive and fair but says nothing the field does not already know is a desk-reject. The essay must make a critical intervention: identify what the literature has been getting wrong — an unexamined assumption, a false binary, a blind spot, a concept doing covert work — and re-order the debate around a better account. This is the move that turns a review into a Progress essay.

When to trigger

  • You have a synthesis but reviewers would ask "so what does this change?"
  • Deciding what, specifically, the field has been getting wrong
  • Distinguishing genuine critique from mere summary-with-attitude
  • A reviewer said the piece is "even-handed but toothless" or "adds nothing"

What counts as a critical move

MoveThe interventionExample shape
Expose an assumptionName a premise the field shares without arguing for it"All three camps assume the platform is a bounded object"
Dissolve a binaryShow a supposed opposition is a false or unhelpful one"Structure-vs-agency here is a category mistake"
Reveal a silenceIdentify what no camp addresses, and why it matters"None theorize social reproduction, which does the work"
Re-scale / re-locateShow the field misplaced the level or site of the process"The action is in the circuit, not the firm"
ProvincializeShow a "general" claim is actually parochial"The theory generalizes one region's experience"

Pick the move your synthesis actually supports. One sharp move beats five gestures.

From critique to re-ordering (the two-step)

A critical review does not stop at "the field is wrong." It re-orders:

  1. Diagnose — name the flaw precisely and show, from the synthesis, that it is real and consequential.
  2. Re-order — supply the better account (your concept) and show how it dissolves the problem and re-arranges what counted as evidence, contradiction, or progress.

Critique without re-ordering is complaint; re-ordering without diagnosis is assertion. PiHG wants both.

Keep it fair and generous (rigor, not polemic)

  • Critique positions, not people. The target is an idea's limits, not a scholar's competence.
  • Steelman first. Defeat the strongest version; the reviewers built it (phg-literature-positioning).
  • Own the cost. Say what your re-ordering gives up or leaves unresolved — honesty reads as strength.
  • Avoid the strawman-and-hero arc where the whole field is confused until you arrive; it alienates the referees who are the field.

The "does this change practice?" test

State the intervention as: "Because the field assumed ___, it has been unable to ___; once we see ___, research should now ___." If the "should now" is empty — if nothing an empirical geographer does would change — the intervention is rhetorical, not real.

Checklist

  • One precise critical move chosen and supported by the synthesis
  • Diagnosis shows the flaw is real and consequential (not invented)
  • Re-ordering supplies a better account, not just a complaint
  • Strongest version of each target engaged; critique aimed at ideas
  • The cost/limits of your own re-ordering acknowledged
  • "Changes practice" test passed — something downstream would differ

Anti-patterns

  • A fair, comprehensive survey with no critical edge (toothless)
  • Summary-with-attitude — adjectives instead of an argument
  • Strawman-and-hero framing that patronizes the whole field
  • Critique with no re-ordering (complaint) or re-ordering with no diagnosis (assertion)
  • A "problem" no working geographer would recognize as consequential

Output format

【Critical move】expose-assumption / dissolve-binary / reveal-silence / re-scale / provincialize
【Diagnosis】the flaw, precisely, and why it matters
【Re-ordering】the better account and what it rearranges
【Cost】what your re-ordering gives up
【Changes practice?】the concrete "research should now…" [filled?]
【Next】phg-contribution-framing

Supplementary resources

저장한 Skills