{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.028622540250447227, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0008944543828264759, 'mean_word_length': 5.286516853932584, '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}}
Book review symposium: Response to our critics

(5) Finally, the use of a diversity of research strategies and methods holds considerable promise. Some has been neglected. In addition to the potentials of ethnographic work, I am thinking, for example, of survey-based work by Barry Schwartz and Howard Schuman. Their study on Abraham Lincoln shows how collective memory that settles in the many Americans’ minds differs markedly from what we find reflected in monuments or in accounts by famous historians. Nevertheless, these memories are collective. They are established, shared, and reconfirmed in social processes that include the civil rights movement, the textbook publishing industry, and its political-administrative environment. In short, thus, we owe much collective debt to Jeffrey Olick, Vered Vinitzky-Seroussi, and Daniel Levy, who coedited The Collective Memory Reader. They invested heavily to alert us to sources of intellectual inspiration we would otherwise have missed. And, by taking stock, they direct us toward new frontiers where past and current collective memory scholarship has fallen short.