{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.024366937410415672, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 4.554376657824934, '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}}
Authors' Reply—Paradigm Clashes in Public Administration: A Further Discussion

If the original essays were indeed a rather "incoherent set" (Mark R. Rutgers) of approaches, then the replies by the more established schol ars certainly were very similar. After reading the replies, two general arguments seem to emerge from their discussion. First, a critical glance is cast at the extent to which the essays presented new perspectives. The essays do not seem to differ all that much from those of the "older" generation, in that many of our argu ments have already been put forth in the past. There are much more deviations from the mainstream literature than the new authors have acknowledged. Put strongly, we "do not know our history" (Ralph Hummel) and therefore present a "simplified" picture of the old gener ation (Mark R. Rutgers). The senior authors had seemingly expected a more revolutionary approach in which the new generation would give short shrift to the enormous amount of work that has been undertaken by past generations. However, if the new generation would rise and claim that the old have done it all wrong, and that they are the ones who have seen the light, then the generations would be talking past each other and there would not be a true dialogue. We do not believe that any of the new authors really intended to wipe out the past. The issues that were raised were indeed not so new. However, even though our voices may sound familiar, they do not sound loud. The fact that we bring up issues that had already been raised indicates that they have not yet been sufficiently addressed by the mainstream of the current litera ture and it was probably the desire of the authors that the themes achieve a mainstream status. The second argument is directly related to the first point. The senior authors suggest that we consider more our own ideas, thoughts and feelings. We do not differ much from the mainstream because we seem preoccupied with wanting "to fit in" (O. C. McSwite). We might be able to distance ourselves more from the old generation through close intro