{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01764705882352941, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 4.404761904761905, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The curse of paradigms?

The central arguments proposed by Haji et al. are that the evaluation questions we ask and methods we use are too narrow. Through critical and reflective analysis and comparison with the evolution of evaluation practice outside medical education, Haji et al. illustrate and explain why we should change our ways. More importantly, they provide preliminary advice on how we might do so. Their point is that how we evaluate a programme should not be determined by the methods we know, but by the questions we want to answer, as well as by the nature of the problem. Their paper clearly warns that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.