I have become a fan of Google’s AI tools. They are fantastic for summarising and revising text to make it clear, concise and well-formed. There are some limitations, of course. Gemini, for example, can make up sources, and it cannot access everything that one might think of as being ‘open access’. Notebook LM is great for cutting across articles and notes that the user feeds directly into the notebook. This helps bypass the making things up element. While Gemini seems to be better at producing concise text, Notebook LM can be a bit verbose; both have their uses.
I thought I would try an experiment with a paper that I am very familiar with because I wrote it. I wanted to see what sort of results I could get from Gemini on the influence or impact of the paper. The paper that I was exploring was my 2019 paper, “More than Just Food: Food Insecurity and Resilient Place Making through Community Self-Organising,” published in Sustainability (https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/10/2942).
Gemini’s process
Using the deep research function, I asked Gemini, “How has this paper been used by other researchers to shape their research?” and included a link to the paper. The benefits of the deep research function are that it tells you what the thinking process is and then produces a report based on what it finds. The PDF linked shows all the ‘thinking’ Gemini did to arrive at a final report. A few immediate observations about this. Firstly, Gemini does an excellent job cutting to the key contributions of the paper. Secondly, I knew pretty much where to look, but it encountered access problems, which are likely to limit the ability of Gemini to provide clear and meaningful answers to prompts that students or other researchers may have about a particular research topic. Thirdly, Gemini does try to find workarounds that seem plausible; however, again, it encountered access problems.
This is the report that it produces from its somewhat limited ability to access citing literature, despite this literature being mostly open access. The first interaction did not include the (somewhat difficult to read) table at the end, but when I pointed this out, the table was added. You have the option to export the report as a Google Doc, which is really handy. What the report doesn’t do is what I wanted it to do, which was a review of all the papers that cited my paper. It does show where the contributions of the paper to the literature are, but not specifically how my work is being used. However, it is still nice to have a clear summary of not just what the contribution is, but also how it is a contribution. It is also really positive, which is a bit of an ego boost.
This summary of my research also tells me some other things about my own research. Given the number of contributions that it finds to a whole range of areas–something that is inherently a problem linked to my Dyslexic mind, as for me it is all interconnected. I clearly need to work on limiting the ways that I seek to make my research publications relevant by focusing on making one or maybe two contributions if I want others to use the work in their research. Too many contributions make it hard for others to see what is most important and then use that centrally in their own work.
AI for Research: A Realistic Look
My experiment with Gemini AI offered a fascinating look into how these tools gather and present information, revealing both their strengths and their current limitations when it comes to assessing a paper’s impact.
It clearly shows that AI tools, like Gemini, excel at providing quick summaries and pinpointing a paper’s main arguments, giving you a valuable head start in understanding its essence. AI can also help you understand a paper’s broader thematic contributions – how its central ideas resonate and are adopted in wider academic discussions. This encourages a more conceptual way of thinking about how research influences a field, moving beyond simply counting citations.
However, these tools are not perfect. It’s crucial to always cross-reference information, be aware of potential ‘hallucinations’ (where the AI invents facts or sources), and recognise that AI may not have access to all relevant literature, even if it’s publicly available. While AI is a powerful tool, it doesn’t replace the need for researchers to master traditional, comprehensive literature search strategies. Interestingly, observing Gemini’s ‘thought process’ can even offer students a blueprint for developing their own effective search strategies using academic databases like Google Scholar, Web of Science, or Scopus. This combination ensures both thoroughness and accuracy in your research.
Finally, using AI like Gemini can help you refine a paper’s core contribution. By summarising its perceived impact, it can highlight if a paper’s scope is too broad or if it attempts to make too many distinct contributions. For greater impact and easier adoption by other researchers, focusing on one or two central, clearly articulated contributions per publication can make your work more digestible. You can even use AI prompts to help revise your writing for better focus. It might also reveal thematic connections you hadn’t considered, sparking new ideas for future research.
Many of you will know that I do a lot of research focusing on Rung 2 of the Food Ladders. One of these organisations is The Bread and Butter Thing. I’ve known Mark and Jane since they founded the Food Club in about 2016. In 2019 we did our first member survey. I was a bit tired of the narrative around saving money. My view is you can’t save what you haven’t got in the first place. I wanted to explore the extent to which some of the benefits I had heard about qualitatively were being experienced (A classic example of the benefits of mixed methods or combining intensive and extensive research see table on page 14).
That first survey was the first one to highlight the social benefits attributed to food clubs and the extent to which members experience them (a report is available here). At the time there were just under 8000 TBBT members located in sites primarily across Greater Manchester. And although you won’t see references to this report in the reports from other food club umbrella organisations, the report was shared with them and makes up key impact measures for the sector.
Since that initial survey, TBBT has done an expanded annual members survey. From fairly humble beginnings of a survey that included about 300 responses to just a few questions, the 2024 survey has about 9.5K responses (from a population of about 80K) to a wide range of questions about people’s circumstances, how they are getting by, and how they percieve the impact of joining TBBT has been for them (Some highlights are here). This remains the only large-scale data source that is collected directly from to food club members. I have been proud to have been able to help with this and provide some analysis of the data. I have never managed to find the time to pull out all the rich insights that are buried within. One day, hopefully.
Mark and Vic recently asked me to join them for a podcast (which turned into two!) to talk about the results of the survey for this year. Vic joined TBBT toward the end of the lockdown period. Prior to that she worked for Manchester Council and when the pandemic hit she coordinated their food response brilliantly. Mark introduced me to Vic and we had many discussions about how best to meet the needs of people in Manchester depending upon their circumstances. I have written about that work in a book chapter about food security resilience under Covid 19 that appears in a book called Living with Pandemics.
The podcast, called a Slice of Bread and Butter, usually involves a conversation with a member and then a bit of discussion. These are fascinating insights into the determination and buoyancy of members in the face of struggle. They demonstrate how precarious life can be and how vulnerable most of us are to finding ourselves in similar situations. I encourage you to follow the podcast. They are available on all the major podcast sites and also on the website linked above.
Here are both episodes where we talk about just a tiny proportion of survey findings and how they reveal just how much food clubs, like TBBT, that are carefully curated, organised and managed can make a difference.
I recently had an interview with a reporter from The Grocer about the role of food clubs in the UK. A food club is not a food bank. Instead it is a low-cost, community-based food project that makes available food that is often donated by retailers and food producers. The food is within date, but frequenlty short-dated, so not suitable for sale at the usual outlets. These community food clubs are place-based and utilise volunteers who are also frequently members of the service. The impacts from food clubs is more than just low-cost food. I would place food club activity at Rung 2 of the Food Ladders. You can read the article here:
The Grocer is a well-established British trade publication focusing on the grocery retail market. Its purpose is to provide news, analysis, and data related to the UK grocery industry. It caters to professionals working in food and drink retail, from supermarkets to independent stores. It covers market trends, product launches, pricing and industry news. It has been publishing since 1862.
I read the newspaper this morning, and like yesterday morning, most of what I saw was crisis talk. With good reason. Wars and conflicts are multiple. The increase in frequency and magnitude of weather events (which are scientifically linked to climate change) results in large numbers of deaths and longer-term effects such as loss of property and livelihoods. Once vibrant communities struggle to recover.
These events have long-lasting effects. Hurricane Helene, which struck North Carolina (USA) at the end of September, illustrates this. My mother, who lives in a retirement community, is safe, but one month still does not have drinking water. She tells me it is difficult, but it is okay, given they have electricity and broadband service now. She says her inconvenience is minor as hundreds of people remain missing in Asheville. One resident described it as a post-apocalyptic landscape.
We also have what seems like three patterns of crisis —The sudden and many catastrophic crises that seem to happen without warning, the crises that emerge out of political and ideological differences, greed, and a desire for control, and then the quiet and persistent crises that become a way of life for so many who have just had the misfortune not to be able to reside among the wealthy and powerful. Or maybe they are all just manifestations of the same thing.
“Anti-imigrant sentiments, nationalist populist authoritarianism, militarised security discourses, racist policies, regressive gender politics, and climate change denial (or hostility) are linked, whether in the United States, Italy, Inda, Hungary, the Philipeans, Brazil, Israel, or Poland. …The global economic system is ever more integrated under neoliberalism, hostility to immigrants and refugees is high. Economic inequality has reached levels never seen before in any period of human history. …Interwoven are crises of modernity (including declining faith in technical authority and scientific knoweldge, attacks on media institutions, and the winding down of the American centry (albeit with bellicose American exceptionalism denying its demise).
The moment of crisis is the moment of rupture. Domiant belief systems and ideologies that dispute them come into view, or sharper relief.
Starting from the premise that environmental damages are interwoven with political and social conflicts, … how organisers, communities, and movements fight, survive, love, and create in the face of environmental and social violence that challenges the very conditions of life itself.” (Sze J. Environmental justice in a moment of danger. University of California Press; 2020, p. 2-4)
I teach a module at the University of Sheffield called Social Justice in the Time of Crisis. We introduce notions of crisis and consider how these are made within the contexts Sze discusses. We also talk about justice. Do we want to live in a perpetual crisis, or are there ways to move beyond and redesign a system that has produced the crises we are now experiencing? This is a discussion of world views and what social relations should look like. It requires an understanding of ethical perspectives on what is right or just. We don’t all hold the same views, and understanding and thinking critically about where we stand on the fundamentals is imperative for how we decide to proceed. Knowing this helps us to answer some fundamental questions such as who gets what? To what extent can people live the lives they can reasonably consider to be valuable? What is the role of recognition? Who should be involved in making decisions and who are we asking to make decisions for us?
I was speaking to someone recently who claims to not “do politics” while at the same time progressing the understanding that to be a socialist is a bad thing. It turns out he did not actually know what socialism entails. This is a man who is caring and kind to others. Works in a care home for people with dimentia.
In the remainder of this post, I first unpack different approaches to justice. and then I reflect on the US election and the 2024 UK budget. The use of the terms conservative and progressive does not refer to specific political parties per se, but instead, ideologies that have been termed conservative and progressive. These terms existed long before the specific parties, although the parties do align (sometimes loosely, sometimes more tightly) with these ideologies.
What kind of justice?
Conservative justice starts from a position that people deserve what they get. It is a merit-based form of justice, whereby what you deserve or don’t is based on what you have done. There is no recognition of how past social inequalities linger and shape intergenerational outcomes in this view, nor of how social norms ask certain groups to disproportionately do the unpaid work of care that limits their ability to engage with paid work. There is also no recognition of a public good. The foundational belief is people should be able to keep what they have earned and then pay at the point of use for those things they want. A belief that we should not have to pay for school meals, childcare, or education if we do not have children is an example of such thinking. This thinking fails to recognise that we all benefit from having well fed and educated children. There is a focus on equality, whereby everyone is treated the same way, regardless of the myriad differences that make us human. This is in stark contrast to equity, where people are provided with what they need to succeed. Everyone should not get the same because our needs are not the same.
While equity is an essential first step in achieving progressive justice, it is insufficient because it does not acknowledge that past injustices have effects that linger into the future and create barriers that require dismantling. Progressive justice is about improving social conditions or making a better world. Drawing on Rousseau, progressive justice also recognises that the social order (e.g., class structure, conventions on behaviours linked to gender) does not come from natural selection but instead is founded on social conventions that have given advantages to some and, therefore, work for those who benefit and disadvantages to others and as such do not work.
Progressive justice also depends on recognising that we only achieve the position and value we have because others recognise that value. If I refuse to acknowledge your position, I am also denying your position. A president only has authority if people grant them that authority. Where conservative justice fails is that it does not acknowledge this fact. Hegal argues that acknowledging this fact of recognition is (part of) what creates society. He contends that we only achieve our own autonomy through mutual recognition–I recognise you as someone who has the authority to say that I have status. The irony of freedom is that we cannot be free except in terms of our relations with others and through being in society.
Humans desire and need to receive and give recognition because it helps us to have a sense of ourselves. We commit acts of moral violence through misrecognition and denial, such as when we deny rights or refuse social inclusion. People who experience this moral injury experience indignity and are denied self-hood, which is the core experience of injustice. Recognition creates community.
So what does this mean for crisis?
To mitigate crisis, we must prevent it before it happens and eliminate vulnerabilities. This cannot occur through conservative justice that reifies individualism, sees difference as rooted in a pre-given (god given?) natural order, and starts from a position that people deserve what they get. Real human progress can only happen if we acknowledge the community’s central role. Among the stories of difficulty and hardship that resulted from Hurricane Helene, there also emerged quiet stories of care and community. People hauled water for those who could not do it themselves. Food was shared with those who were without. People opened their homes for those lacking shelter. These are not stories of conservative justice, but of progressive justice and illustrate that we all benefit from a society that breaks down barriers that limit the capabilities of people to thrive and succeed.
On Tuesday, 5 November, there is an election. The only way to achieve a better world is to evaluate those running for political parties on a justice basis. Even when choices are not perfect, a balance in favour of progressive justice is progress. Indeed, candidates that call for individualism, maintenance of hierarchies established in the past and their corresponding misrecognition can only lead us into more profound crises, which, without community, we will not survive.
Today’s news also included the key takeaways from the UK Budget. People have been talking about this for some time now and there will be more talk, no doubt. The doubters will be angry, regardless. But I contend that much of this doubt stems from a lack of understanding about the ethical underpinnings. The budget increases taxes by £40 billion. A big number even in national budget terms. Beyond understanding in household budget terms. But the importance is in the how not the what.
The minimum wage will increase for those over 21. This will increase tax takings because incomes will be higher for so many (and yes, businesses will say it cuts into their ability to survive and for some, it will, but for many, it will just mean the bonus to the big boss may not be so high. I’ve written about this elsewhere). It will also impact charitable organisations and social enterprises that deliver so many of our community services, which is worrying. One of the groups most vulnerable to food insecurity is young people. A decent wage is necessary for a healthy diet and wellbeing. A healthy workforce is also more productive.
Employer national insurance is increasing. This, again, is a benefit to society because National Insurance pays for health care. A healthy workforce is also more productive. Universal Health Care benefits us all and is a public good. You may not need it now, but in all likelihood, you will one day.
Capital gains tax will be more in line with income tax from employment. Many who pay themselves through dividends do not pay income tax, and they have been doing this to avoid paying taxes. Most people with lower incomes do not have the option to take dividend payments. This progressive tax increase asks those who are more advantaged to pay a bit more of their share.
The conservative party froze tax band thresholds for those who receive wages. These will rise at the rate of inflation from 2028. This is progressive as it acknowledges that it is more expensive to be poor compared to being rich.
Those who are sick and disabled will get an increase in benefits. Current rates create a bare life for many. This will go a little way toward increasing the opportunities for people who are sick and disabled to be able to thrive.
Carers’ allowance income thresholds will increase, and the unpaid work people do to care for others will save the public purse a lot of money. Pushing them into or keeping them in poverty only undermines their health. This is progressive.
The household support fund is to increase. This is generally good, as so many local authorities are using some of this money to build community interventions that increase resilience (for example, by funding interventions at rungs 2 and 3 of the food ladders. However, I am not convinced by the cash-first approach that has also been used because I do not see it as a human development approach, as I’ve elaborated here and here.
Fuel duty will be frozen at 5p.
The duty on draft beer will go down by 1.7%. It remains to be seen if this will extend to the customer or even the pub landlord. Let’s wait and see.
Tax on cigarettes, tobacco, and vaping will increase. From a public health perspective, this may be a good thing as it is thought to encourage people to cut back or not start. However, a large number of smokers get their tobacco from abroad, where they are much cheaper. People who go away bring them back for their smoking friends.
VAT will be charged on private school fees. One effect will be that these schools will become even more elite as those who can only just afford to send their children to these schools will no longer be able to do so. However, these children will still need to go to school, and this will push these children into state schools, which may not be a bad thing. The budget also has money to rebuild or replace schools that are not fit for purpose. This feels like a progressive policy in the round.
The budget for school breakfast clubs will be increased. I’m torn on this one. Breakfast clubs can be good and help a lot of children. I would rather see the funding go toward an uplift in the threshold for free or universal free school meals. However, if this latter were to happen, we would need a new mechanism for calculating the pupil premium.
Increased spending for those children with special education needs. This is progressive in that it can reduce the barriers that SEN impose on people’s life chances and their ability to thrive in later life.
HS2 between West London and Birmingham will go ahead. It is not my first choice for public spending, but I can see some benefits.
Tax on private jet travel will increase by about £450 per passenger. The hope is that this will reduce such air travel. This has positive environmental implications, and it is unlikely to impact those who struggle the most.
The soft drink levy will go up. Again, there are health implications. However, it pushes such beverages into luxury product territory.
Overall, this is a much more progressive budget than expected and that we have seen in a very long time. It is likely to impact those who can afford it much more than those who can least afford it.
GeoFoodie 
You must be logged in to post a comment.