{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.018140589569160998, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.138888888888889, '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}}
How should we study social suffering?

This commentary argues that intellectual fragmentation is not only bad for the study of poverty, prejudice and penalty; it is bad for the problems themselves. Considering new objects of analysis for research on inequality – that is, critically reconsidering what it is that we should be studying in the first place – is proposed as a viable preventative to academic parochialism and overspecialization.