{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.010752688172043012, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.564102564102564, '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}}
Common Discourse? The Language of Industrial Democracy

Greater educational equality can help to redress the unequal distribution of power at the workplace. But the provision of expanded educational opportunity for new participants in the industrial decision-making process poses a challenge to the interests which currently determine the content and distribution of knowledge and skills. It entails the evolution of new concepts and therefore changes in the language of industrial government. Yet the determination of a qualitatively different form of education as an alternative to the dominant ideology contains its own tensions and even contradictions. Particular problems arise in connection with the role of education as a stimulator of aspirations, with the notion of collective learning, and with the relation between learners and those who determine what is learnt. All these combine to accentuate the difficulty of defining the content, character and institutional framework of education for industrial democracy.