{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.028116213683223992, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 6.12, '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 Diversifying Academic Profession?

Experts agree: higher education has to diversify continuously. Most prominently, Martin Trow had argued that ‘universal higher education’ and ‘mass higher education’ sectors had to serve the ‘new’ students while protecting ‘elite higher education’; Burton Clark pointed out that the university is functionally ‘overburdened’ if it does not become entrepreneurial in pursuing specific strategies. But the countervailing forces to diversification grow as well: ‘academic drift’ and initiative competition for being ranked among ‘world-class universities’ prevail, and intra-institutional diversity according to study programmes and departments has not gained popularity either. Do scholars themselves become key carriers of diversification? Substantial variety in research productivity is by no means new. Is inter-individual diversity within higher education a viable future of diversification? Do the data of the comparative studies on the academic profession suggest that strategic options of individual professors are salient?