This is an unusual and awkward situation for a researcher. I am in a position that the existing points of departure cannot, directly, facilitate an empirical research because I am not studying the validity of hypotheses that address some particular aspect of education but education per se, the meta-theory of the entire field of science. How to study a meta-theory?

As proposed in Section 2.4.4., we can try to design a speculative test for the proposed hypotheses: since these hypotheses seek to relate to a systems theoretic core for the science of education, we could speculate on the possible direction that educational theory and research could take if such suppositions were, in fact, the accepted core of the science of education. Such speculation is the aim of this "attempt on research method".

I, certainly, do not claim to be conducting proper research on the basis of the proposed meta-postulate, only a 'test run'. Moreover, I am quite aware of the internal inadequacies that the limitations of time and resources will inevitably impose on any empirical study that my possibilities will allow. Given the tentative nature of the empirical portion, however, and the fact that it is intended to provide a preliminary experience of what is meant, these inadequacies must be allowed and do not constitute a critical defect of the whole study. Indeed, I challenge others and myself to conduct, later on, real empirical research on the basis of the proposed suppositions, with properly constituted designs, methods, and resources.

The hypotheses of this research, put forth in Section 3.4., are justifiably very abstract and very comprehensive. Empirical research on such hypotheses is either impossible or out of the scope of this study. Moreover, I hold no presumptuous claim for my hypotheses to be the conclusive meta-theoretic foundation for the science of education -- merely a first attempt, an opening of discourse on the topic.

We are, thus, left with the dilemma of finding some empirical data to test tentatively the functionality of the proposed hypotheses, i.e. to study their usefulness as theoretical tools. The main problem is that of scope and manageability. Given the breadth of these hypotheses, the various types of research and study that could potentially emerge from the proposed meta-theoretical foundation are certainly beyond the limits of one person's imagination. We need to find a research scheme that, on the one hand, would relate directly to the hypotheses and, on the other, would be manageable in scope so as to fit within the scope of this research.

It is, perhaps, possible to obtain some tentative and indirect empirical evidence about the validity of, at least, the aggregate of our hypotheses: the hypotheses deal with the philosophical basis of the whole science of education -- i.e. the implicit premises upon which the various educational theories can be based; if these hypotheses would, as a test, be considered as the established philosophical premises, the existing tradition, of the science of education, then educational theories would be generally based on these premises; in other words, educational theories would build their hypotheses on this basis (i.e. the hypotheses of this research). These theories, in turn, could come under normal empirical study.

With this hypothetical assumption in mind, we could conduct, as a theoretical test, one such research. The results of that research could help to indicate, although not directly, the usability or non-usability of our original (meta-theoretic) hypotheses. Such results would be indicative of the general applicability or non-applicability of a systems theoretic approach to the science of education. Thus, we need a recursive method: we will create tentative testing hypotheses that use as their postulates the original hypotheses of this research. Such a method would propose, on the basis of these 'new' postulates, some recursive hypotheses for testing the original ones. Then an empirical study is needed to examine the plausibility of the recursive hypotheses. After recapitulating the results of that study on the original hypotheses, those results must be related to our main concern of the meta-theory of the science of education, building "a theoretical framework within which the paradigm of the science of education can be addressed and developed" (see Section 2.4.3.).

The recursive method for studying the validity of the hypotheses of this research is an indirect approach. The method will study recursive hypotheses. An empirical research on the validity of such recursive hypotheses, then, would provide provisional secondary feedback on the original hypotheses of the research. The recursive research approach is as follows:

1. Consider the hypotheses of this research as postulates.

2. On the basis of these 'postulates', create recursively testing hypotheses.

3. Design an empirical study to examine these recursive hypotheses.

4. Draw, from the findings of this empirical study, conclusions on the recursive hypotheses.

5. Recapitulate, from these results, conclusions on the original hypotheses.

6. Relate the outcomes of the study to reconsider a meta-theoretical framework for the science of education.

Now that we are down to conducting an empirical study, the question of manageability is again at hand. As described in Section 2.4.4., the aim is to design a speculative test for the plausibility of our systemic hypotheses as the core of the science of education. We need a research scheme that can "relate directly to the hypotheses" but, simultaneously, "be manageable in scope". This is where some compromises must inevitably be made. Any topic that really relates directly enough to the hypotheses is broad. The choice of the topic itself will be, moreover, somewhat arbitrary.

What would be a good topic for recursive hypotheses using as their postulates the original hypotheses of the research? Considering the current relevance of educational reform, and after consideration of various options and my own interest, I have come up with the following:

Thus, the topic, while relating to the original hypotheses well enough, seems not to meet the manageability criterion. Since, however, our main purpose here is to test the applicability of General Systems Theory to the science of education, we seek only a tentative and direction-giving result on the recursive theme and we will, therefore, be satisfied with a couple of well-defined hypotheses and an equally tentative study of them -- while still maintaining a systematic and thorough method of study. In this, I hope to keep with the manageability criterion, as well.

Before we embark on generating recursive hypotheses, a very brief recursive conceptualization is also needed (as in any research). Three concepts central to the formulation of those hypotheses need to be defined in more detail: educational paradigm, condition of society, and unity in diversity. These are key-concepts both in the recursive hypotheses and in the problematization of the empirical study, and we shall define them on the justification of the adopted recursive postulates:

The concept of unity in diversity is, perhaps, the most elusive of the three concepts. A few additional words on its application to the social reality are, perhaps, appropriate: unity in diversity is an integral aspect of reality and readily observable within the ordinary scope of our daily experience (cf. the unity of the natural laws expressed in the diversity of natural phenomena). The received impression of abstractness or elusiveness is more due to our lack of experience of it in social contexts: the social and political application of unity in diversity is rather alien to our historical experience and knowledge. The concept is easily prone to misinterpretation. Just to avoid misunderstandings: while the principle of unity in diversity implies universality in essentials and variety in application, it does not contain any notion of cultural or socio-political uniformity. Its very emphasis on diversity on the level of application excludes the idea of totalitarian systems and assigns the requirement of uniformity only to such matters that are collective or universal by nature.

The recursive research theme being "Conscious choice of educational paradigms as a systematic means for influencing the future of society", our task now is to generate recursive hypotheses about educational paradigms as a systematic means for influencing the future of social conditions. We need, first, to formulate the recursive hypotheses, and second, to infer possible recursive sub-hypotheses -- our postulates being the original hypotheses of this research (*see footnote).

While discussing the plausibility of assuming universals as real objects, it was noted, in Section 2.3., that such universals could be formulated also concerning the effect of systematic education, including: (a) there is both a stochastic process and a systematic process that can yield educational outcomes; (b) systematic education that is in congruence with human and historical reality becomes a future-orienting mechanism; (c) educational objectives that are in contradiction with human and historical reality make education unsustainable; (d) education for national citizenship falls within the conditions of human and historical reality and is, thus, sustainable; (e) education for national citizenship addresses incompletely human reality and limits the potential scope of education. These notions, while not originally formulated to serve as hypotheses, inspire thinking in terms of our recursive hypotheses.

Our main hypothesis (as indicated by the recursive theme) can be derived directly from postulate H7: "It is possible to systematically influence the future of individuals and societies through the choice of educational goals and models -- education can be a manageable change agent ...". The hypothesis, then, is:

Moreover postulates H2, H3 and H8 (see: Section 3.4.2.) claim that "evolutionary systems have a macrodeterministic potential" and that this potential is "most comprehensively and coherently realized within the potential of their parent system, within a context of unity in diversity", and further, that "there are universal principles and ideals that are critically relevant to the realization of the potential" and "bear directly on appropriate educational goals and values to be adopted". On the basis of these postulates, a further hypothesis is justified:

Now an empirical study must be designed to examine the validity of the recursive hypotheses. For this purpose, we need more tangibly problematised and empirically researchable concepts to work on.

Above, it was shown that if h0 is true, then h0a must also be true, and that if h1 is true, then h1a must be true too. This was justified due to a deduction: h0 and h1 are more generic while h0a and h1a are, respectively, more applied historical implications of the former. However, the deduction can also be reversed into an induction: if h0a and h1a are true, then h0 and h1 are also necessarily true. Such a reversal of deduction into induction is, by no means, automatically justified. In our case, however, it is valid because of the generally accepted scientific method assuming that the laws of nature are universal -- they are the same in the past and in the future. In other words: if a regularity is found at present, it can be assumed to hold also in the future, and therefore, historical validity can be extrapolated to future predictability.

In practical terms, this means that we may focus on studying only the validity of h0a and h1a, and since these are somewhat more readily accessible within the existing empirical reality, we can derive from these latter hypotheses the empirical problematization of the study.

The first step in this problematization is arriving at appropriate research questions (problems) for the recursive study. The three concepts (educational paradigm, condition of society, unity in diversity) discussed in the previous section can be used here as thinking aids: being the key-concepts of the recursive study they serve as the focus for our recursive research questions. Thus, hypotheses h0a and h1a can be, tentatively, tested by answering the following four questions in at least two comparative societies:

The rules of interpreting the research results against our recursive hypotheses are quite straightforward. The hypotheses are true, simply if the following interpretation rules hold:

r1a.  Earlier education based on unity in diversity is traceable in today's society (hypothesis h1a), if earlier educational efforts that aimed at specific features in the society and were focussed on the principle of unity in diversity (question q1b) correlate with some present traits in the society that manifest the principle of unity in diversity (question q1a).

r1.  Educational success based on the principle of unity in diversity is stable and sustainable (hypothesis h1), if earlier education based on the principle of unity in diversity is traceable in today's society (hypothesis h1a), i.e. rule r1a holds.

r0a.  Educational paradigms chosen earlier have an historically strategic effect today (hypothesis h0a), if earlier educational paradigms (question q0a) correlate with the present condition of society (question q0b).

r0b.  Educational paradigms chosen earlier have an historically strategic effect today (hypothesis h0a), if earlier education based on the principle of unity in diversity is traceable in today's society (hypothesis h1a), i.e. rule r1a holds -- >even when earlier educational paradigms (question q0a) do not otherwise generally correlate with the present condition of society (question q0b), i.e. rule r0a would not hold.

r0.  Choice of educational paradigms is a strategic futures tool (hypothesis h0), if educational paradigms chosen earlier have an historical strategic effect today (hypothesis h0a), i.e. either rule r0a or rule r0b holds.

These same interpretation rules can also be formulated in a much more concise logical format, as follows:

r1a.  Hypothesis h1a is true, if results on q1a and q1b correlate.

r1.  Hypothesis h1 is true, if hypothesis h1a is true.

r0a.  Hypothesis h0a is true, if results on q0a and q0b correlate.

r0b.  Hypothesis h0a is true, if hypothesis h1a is true (r1a) -- even when results on q0a and q0b do not otherwise generally correlate (r0a).

r0.  Hypothesis h0 is true, if hypothesis h0a is true (r0a or r0b).

A distinction could be made between the professed paradigm and the practised paradigm of education -- i.e. between the values, models and goals that are consciously (either openly or secretly) chosen and professed by a society vs. those that are actually (either knowingly on unknowingly) adhered to and practised by that society and its members. Such a distinction, however, is a very difficult one to ascertain and, certainly, out of the scope of this study. We will, therefore, be satisfied with the study of the professed paradigm of education and assume that there is sufficient correlation between the professed and the practised paradigm to make the distinction unnecessary within the interests of this research. Let it be remembered that the intention is not to make a thorough research on these hypotheses; they are not the main issues of this study. We are only using these recursive hypotheses for a tentative test of the applicability of General Systems Theory to the whole science of education -- i.e. investigating whether systems theoretic premises are meaningful and useful in educational research.

In order to examine research questions q0a-q1b, there is a need to identify certain descriptive features through which "educational paradigm" and "condition of society" and the presence of the principle of "unity in diversity" may be observed and identified through data obtained from the field. Such descriptive features must be based on the definition of the key-concepts as provided in the previous section. Since unity in diversity permeates our entire conceptual framework, it will not have a separate set of descriptive features but will be incorporated within the features designated to educational paradigm and condition of society; i.e. it will be included as a basic criterion within both sets of descriptive features.

Descriptive features for the educational paradigm including the criterion of unity in diversity (questions q0b and q1b):

Of course, the descriptive features presented above are not unambiguous in the sense that all the members of a society would follow a single pattern. However -- consistent with the original postulates P2b and P4a, that all systems are non-reducible to their constituent elements and that systems co-evolve within the context of shared potential expressed in individual and situational variety -- we can assume that there are aspects to the descriptive features that are descriptive of the whole target society and can, despite the variety of individual members and subgroups, be considered as synergic patterns in a society (cf.: Diesing 1971, p. 139).

This recursive research scheme was already prefigured in Section 2.4.4. The scheme may appear complex, but it does, in fact, fit rather simply into the overall scheme of this research. Below, the key-elements of the recursive research scheme are summarized.

Conscious choice of educational paradigms as a systematic means for influencing the future of society.

h0.  Choice of educational paradigms as a strategic futures tool: The future condition of a society will depend on the strategic choice of educational paradigms adopted within the present condition of that society.

h0a.  Historically strategic effect of chosen educational paradigms: The present condition of the society depends on the strategic choice of the educational paradigms adopted within an earlier condition of the society.

h1.  Stability and sustainability of educational success based on unity in diversity: Educational efforts that aim at effecting the future of the society, and are somehow focussed on the principle of unity in diversity, emerge as successful and leave sustainable traits in the society.

h1a.  Traceability of earlier education based on unity in diversity: Educational efforts that aim at creating or preserving certain features in the society, and are somehow focussed on the principle of unity in diversity, leave traits that can be detected within the present condition of the society.

q0a.  What is the present condition of the society?

q0b.  What were the educational paradigms adopted within an earlier condition of the society?

q1a.  Which traits can be detected in the present condition of the society that manifest the principle of unity in diversity?

q1b.  Which educational efforts, within an earlier condition of the society, were aimed at preserving or creating specific features in the society and were focussed on the principle of unity in diversity?

r1a.  Hypothesis h1a is true, if results on q1a and q1b correlate.

r1.  Hypothesis h1 is true, if hypothesis h1a is true.

r0a.  Hypothesis h0a is true, if results on q0a and q0b correlate.

r0b.  Hypothesis h0a is true, if hypothesis h1a is true (r1a) -- even when results on q0a and q0b do not otherwise generally correlate (r0a).

r0.  Hypothesis h0 is true, if hypothesis h0a is true (r0a or r0b).

Now that the basic structure of the recursive research scheme is outlined, it must be translated into an actual process of empirical study -- a tentative study for examining the empirical implications of our speculative test. Thus, we need to embark on the process of data acquisition, which will provide us with the information needed for answering the research questions and assessing our recursive hypotheses.

In order to answer the research questions, we need to scan the educational paradigm of some past period, in a given society, and the condition of that society today. In terms of historical period, two generations in the past must suffice. It is clear that two-generations is a rather short span of time for conclusive proof, but access to earlier information would require too arduous a task within the scale of this study and is not required by the tentative nature of recursive scheme.

At least two such societies need to be studied to provide a point of comparison, as well as redundancy for reliability. The chosen societies need to be such as would have possessed, some forty or fifty years ago (two generations), some established paradigm of education. Such established paradigms are, at present, best perceivable in national cultures, because they are still isolated enough to have distinctly peculiar features; they are like giant laboratories testing different educational paradigms. So, the empirical research must be conducted in at least two distinct national societies and for an historical period of two generations. We will examine the educational paradigms in two nations that must be different enough from each other to form distinct characteristics (and provide redundancy for reliability).

The choice of particular nations is of course limited by my personal possibilities to conduct a study among these nations; they need to be somewhat readily accessible. In this case, the Finnish and the Russian cultural and political contexts seem plausible. These two cultures have very different historical backgrounds and their mentalities and systems of thought have also remarkable differences; yet, forty or fifty years ago, they both had distinct educational paradigms aimed at very conscious outcomes in the society. Moreover, our treatment of historical educational cases in Chapter 2 dealt usefully with the background of both the Finnish educational context (Section 2.3.5.: Education for National Citizenship) and the Russian educational context (Section 2.3.4.: Education for Communist Utopia). Let that discussion suffice as the background knowledge for our study.

The descriptive features developed in the previous main section must be the point of departure for our data acquisition. Those features are, for the most part, rather abstract and still difficult to be studied empirically. It is important to note here that, normally, "empirical" would mean observable real-world facts (some sort of 'hard evidence'). To be truly empirically studied, our recursive research would demand a thorough and systematic investigation of historical and current facts through a vast variety of data sources -- including scientific reviews of the present and history, relevant documents throughout the period under survey, interviews and questionnaires with key-persons and experts, on-spot observations and ethnographic survey of existing social relationships, scrutiny of abrupt events and changes in the target society during the period under study etc. Such a thorough study would probably produce direct empirical data.

If the recursive hypotheses were our de facto topic of research, such an arduous task of data acquisition would be justified. But that is obviously completely out of scale in our context and, as stated earlier, it would require a decade-long research project with a fully supported research team. We are again in for some practical compromises! To examine the descriptive features outlined earlier, we will be satisfied with indirect empirical data. This means that we have to rely on the empirical experience and knowledge of others. In fact, we are making a very drastic compromise here: for the purposes of this research (which is a theoretical test), we will content ourselves with group interviews as the only systematic source of data.

The data input on the educational paradigm should be obtained from those who were well involved in the systematic educational work of two generations (some forty or fifty years) ago: teachers, education administrators, education designers, educational scholars etc. In this group, veteran teachers or administrators are, of course, in key-position because their experience represents the de facto educational paradigm, the one that was actualized in real-life situations. On the other hand, educational designers or scholars are also important to draw a picture of what was thought to be the educational paradigm; such designers or scholars may well be younger people with research knowledge of the past.

As to the data on the condition of society, the source persons need to be as representative of the present-day society as possible: ordinary citizens (working people, unemployed people, younger people, older people etc.), on the one hand, and a few specialists with keen socio-political insight (media representatives, political analysts, sociologists etc.), on the other. It is important, however, that specialists vs. 'ordinary citizens' remain both represented in a good balance so that both experience on systematic social thought and experience on mundane social reality is included. Moreover, since 'non-experts' may feel uneasy in speaking out in front of 'experts', the latter should remain in a minority. It is also important that the main age representation is that of the largest demographic groups (not too young, not too old) with relevant experience of modern society.

These group interviews for data acquisition are, however, atypical in that they seek to obtain the consensus opinion of the entire group, instead of the opinion of each participant individually. Thus, the data will be acquired by engaging in open discussion and going on until there is at least some consensus among the members of the group. The discussions are recorded and the actual answers to the indicator questions are filtered from this data. It must be noted, that by "filtering" is not meant an intangible interpretation of everything that has been said; rather, the consensus is consciously sought on a rather articulate level already during the interview itself. Moreover, when a question is posed to the group, the first comment or answer acts as a catalyst for a brief discussion of the question; if the generality of the interviewees seem to agree with the outcome, the next question is posed; otherwise, alternative answers are sought with a new round. In the case of the interviewees clearly disagreeing on a point, the reasons for this disagreement must be discussed (the exposure of such reasons can, in itself, reveal valuable information relevant to the research).

The interviews are to provide sufficient data on the descriptive features. Given the abstract nature of many of these features, a series of further clarifying and more tangible questions are needed that can be posed to the interviewees. These indicator questions are formulated so that they will serve as pointers for identifying the relevant data on descriptive features. The indicator questions are outlined in Appendix 1 (Index of Descriptive Indicator Questions). Each of these questions can be used to indicate a view of the descriptive features, and each question can be relevant for more than one of those features. Moreover, the questions are designed to provide sufficient redundance: each descriptive feature is indicated by several indicator question from different points of view that overlap each other. This, too, is apparent in the list of questions presented under each of the descriptive features.

The actual interview questions, to be posed to the group of interviewees, are derived directly from these indicator questions. Some of the interview questions are, more or less, identical with the indicator questions, while others are put in more practical terms to facilitate smooth discussion. Thus, each interview is made up of several topics. Each interview topic begins with a lead question, which is posed as an introduction to the topic, and of further clarifying questions to help the interviewees to delve further into that topic. Appendix 2 (Index of Group Interview Questions) outlines these questions and describes the systematic method by which they are presented to the group of interviewees.

A thorough, systematic and lengthy study of various sources could produce direct empirical data for the recursive research topic. However, in our context, we will be satisfied with indirect empirical data and rely on the empirical experience and knowledge of others. Data acquisition, in our recursive scheme, suffices with a type of group interviews. The interviews were atypical: they sought to obtain the consensus opinion of the entire group, not views of each participant. The discussions were recorded and the answers to questions posed were filtered from this data.

A series of further clarifying and more tangible questions were formulated to point to the formerly described descriptive features. These indicator questions are outlined in Appendix 1 (Index of Descriptive Indicator Questions). The actual interview questions were derived directly from these indicator questions. Each interview is made up of several topics, and each topic begins with a lead question, which is posed as an introduction to the topic. Further clarifying questions were presented as the discussion on each topic proceeds. Appendix 2 (Index of Group Interview Questions) outlines these questions and describes the systematic method of their presentation.

Four interviews were conducted: two for each of the countries, Finland and Russia -- one interview for scanning the educational paradigm of some two generations ago, and the other for observing the condition of the society today. The interviewees for the educational paradigm are people who were well involved in the systematic educational work of two generations (veteran teachers, education administrators, education designers, educational scholars etc.), and one educational scholar or expert with essential research knowledge of the educational system. The interviewees for the condition of society are representatives of the present-day society (ordinary citizens: working people, unemployed people, younger people, older people etc.), and one specialist with keen socio-political insight. Thus, the four groups each form a representative sample of the demographics sought in the research.

After the fieldwork and obtaining our interview data, we need to process this data into a useful form and analyse it for the purpose of answering our research questions. Appendix 3 (Matrix of Raw Data) provides the overview of the acquired information, and Appendix 4 (Summary of Analysed Data) shows that data in its processed form. The actual interpretation of the data will be done in the aforementioned recursive manner.

As mentioned in Section 4.3.2. the group interviews sought to obtain the consensus opinion of the entire group, not just the individual opinion of each interviewee. This consensus among the interviewees was reached and noted over general topics, not separately per question.

In the transcription process of the audiotapes, not every single view presented during the interviews has been registered but only those views that can be considered as an expression of consensus among the interviewees. This means that some interpretation, on the part of the interviewer (me), was needed for identifying which views were the collective understanding of the whole group (and thus relatively more objective) and which ones just personal views (and thus relatively more subjective). This interpretation on my part was first articulated and crosschecked, on the spot, with the interviewees to see if they too agree with it.

Moreover, since a number of answers and views were presented through examples and life experiences or through 'thinking aloud' (and not stating explicitly a direct point of view), they had to be either deductively filtered down or inductively interpreted from the material. However, special care was taken, during the transcription process, not to make any interpretations that have not actually been stated by the interviewees in some tangible and ascertainable manner.

Appendix 3 (Output of Raw Data) is a comprehensive summary, a digest, of the relevant information on the interview tapes -- without further interpretation (other than what is described above). The only processing that has been done is that the data is organized under the indicator questions. Thus, the same point, comment or answer may appear under several questions, if it is considered relevant. This transcription constitutes the output of our raw data.

The research approach used here involves a chain of deductions that moves on progressively from the acquisition of raw data gradually to more sophisticated analysis and interpretation of that data, ending up finally to the assessment of the recursive hypotheses. The pattern of deductions thus formed will start from answering the indicator questions (Appendix 3: Output of Raw Data), moving on to the identification of the descriptive features (Appendix 4: Summary of Analysed Data), enabling the answering of the recursiveresearch questions and finally, through the interpretation rules, examining the validity of the recursive hypotheses. While this pattern may seem redundant, given the broadness and universality of many concepts involved, it is felt to be necessary for a logical sequence of deductions to take place.

The aim of the research design (as outlined in Sections 4.2.3. and 4.3.1.) was to a answer the four research questions in at least two comparative societies. We were to study the cases of Finland and Russia for the educational paradigm of some forty or fifty years ago and the condition of society today.

Let us recall the actual research questions regarding the educational paradigm: (q0b) What were the educational paradigms adopted within an earlier condition of the society? (q1b) Which educational efforts, within an earlier condition of the society, were aimed at preserving or creating specific features in the society and were focussed on the principle of unity in diversity? The descriptive features for these questions were:

f1a.  The adhered to world-view and norms.

f1b.  The adopted educational objectives and goals.

f1c.  The task of education regarding socio-cultural preservation.

f1d.  The task of education regarding socio-cultural progression.

f1e.  The task of education regarding socio-cultural integration.

f1f.  The assigned educational contents and subjects.

f1g.  The applied educational methods and tools.

The original questions on the condition of society were: (q0a) What is the present condition of the society? (q1a) Which traits can be detected in the present condition of the society that manifest the principle of unity in diversity? The descriptive features for these questions were:

f2a.  The prevailing beliefs and values.

f2b.  The adopted forms of leadership and administration.

f2c.  The assigned social functions and roles.

f2d.  The prevalent modes of social activity and interaction.

f2e.  Evidences of social purpose and commitment.

f2f.  Evidences of diversity as a collective social resource.

f2g.  Evidences of diversity of practice in collective values/goals.

Here, the relation of the descriptive features to the principle of unity in diversity (questions q1a and q1b) must be noted: in both sets of descriptive features, while unity in diversity is not separately mentioned, it can be easily traced within the obtained data, by observing either the presence of features conforming to this principle or the presence of features opposite to it.

Let us now answer the research questions by stating the summary of the data acquired through the descriptive features (see Appendix 4: Summary of Analysed Data).

The next section will embark on referring these answered questions to our recursive hypotheses through the application of the interpretation rules as outlined in Section 4.2.3.

Now that the four recursive research questions have been generally answered, let us see how the interpretation rules effect our assessment of the recursive hypotheses. The display of the results in the presentation below goes through each interpretation rule, restating the rule, applying it to the case of Finland and Russia respectively, and drawing the conclusions. The summary boxes under country cases indicate the following: the box on the left summarizes the earlier education paradigm and the box on the right summarizes the present condition of society; the conditions of society that are consistent with the educational paradigm are marked with [+], the ones that are discrepant are marked with [~]. After the boxes, general observations and remarks on the results are presented.

Rule r1a states: "Hypothesis h1a is true, if results on q1a and q1b correlate". In other words: "Earlier education based on unity in diversity is traceable in today's society (hypothesis h1a), if earlier educational efforts that aimed at specific features in the society and were focussed on the principle of unity in diversity (question q1a) correlate with some present traits in the society that manifest the principle of unity in diversity (question q1b)".

The results seem inconclusive. The results for Finland are unclear, and the results for Russia are highly discrepant. While the Finnish society was very homogenous and the Russian society heterogeneous, both societies educated their citizens towards homogeneity. In Finland, it was a practical necessity (simply, to survive the post-war needs) while in Russia it was a doctrinal demand (diversity was recognized only in external matters, such as products of culture). This indicates, in both countries, a state of affairs contradictory to the principle of unity in diversity. In Finland, little was done consciously to accommodate the small amount of diversity that the society already held, and even less was done through the educational paradigm; in Russia, a lot was done to exhibit external manifestations of diversity with a simultaneous and deliberate dilution and neglect of fundamental diversities (e.g. cultural mentality, world-view etc.).

In fact, the only earlier educational paradigm that seems consistent with present-day condition of society was one from Finland (r1a/fin/paradigm 3): "Education sought to produce citizens for a society where social justice, egalitarianism and socio-cultural integration were the norm." Incidentally, this is also the only paradigm that unequivocally supports the principle of unity in diversity; all the others emphasize, either unity through uniformity, or diversity through incoherence. This paradigm is found consistent with the following conditions of the present-day Finnish society: (a) "values reflect pluralism while equality, tolerance and collective welfare are emphasized"; (b) "human diversity is recognized and valued but it remains untapped as a social resource"; (c) "there is a tangible desire for a sense of purpose".

It can, therefore, be concluded that we have found one case of "earlier educational efforts that aimed at specific features in the society and were focussed on the principle of unity in diversity" (question q1a) and that this case does correlate with "some present traits in the society that manifest the principle of unity in diversity" (question q1b). Ergo, rule r1a holds and hypothesis h1a is true: "Earlier education based on unity in diversity is traceable in today's society". In fact, the rule holds also in another way: the efforts that were aimed at homogeneity did not survive and resulted only in a pluralistic social paradigm with little coherence.

Rule r1 states: "Hypothesis h1 is true, if hypothesis h1a is true (r1a)". In other words: "Educational success based on the principle of unity in diversity is stable and sustainable (hypothesis h1), if earlier education based on the principle of unity in diversity is traceable in today's society (hypothesis h1a), i.e. rule r1a holds".

We just concluded that hypothesis h1a is true. Ergo, rule r1 holds and hypothesis h1 is true: "Educational success based on the principle of unity in diversity is stable and sustainable".

Rule r0a states: "Hypothesis h0a is true, if results on q0a and q0b correlate". In other words: "Educational paradigms chosen earlier have an historically strategic effect today (hypothesis h0a), if earlier educational paradigms (question q0a) correlate with the present condition of society (question q0b)".

Again, the results appear inconclusive -- mildly consistent in Finland and highly discrepant in Russia. In the case of Finland, several of the earlier educational paradigms seem fully consistent with the present-day condition of society. In the case of Russia, almost all paradigms were fully discrepant in relation to the present-day reality.

Earlier education in Finland (r0a/fin/paradigm 2) "... sought to promote realism, survival and security", and "preservation, not reform, was the focus". This is consistent with the situation today, where "uncertainty and suspicion, distance and separation are characteristic to life", and where "living is focussed on one's immediate future, ... survival". Moreover, education in Finland aimed at (r0a/fin/paradigm 4) "... social justice, egalitarianism and socio-cultural integration", and in practice, it "promoted homogeneity, some degree of cultural insensitivity and also cultural stereotypes". Today, several conditions of today's society are consistent with this, in that (a) "society and life are complex and atomistic, causing ambiguity and vagueness", and "values reflect pluralism while equality, tolerance and collective welfare are emphasized", and moreover, "human diversity is recognized and valued but it remains untapped as a social resource".

Examples of Soviet education include the paradigm that (r0a/rus/paradigm 1) "all formal education was squarely based on communism with a general sense of optimism and goal-orientation". Yet, in today's Russia "values reflect increasing pluralism, diversity, heterogeneity and tolerance as well as a high degree of non-integration and lack of coherence", and also "there is virtually no collective commitment", while "a desire for belonging and a yearning for closeness are evident in people's daily lives"; moreover, "the futures prospect is marked with ... lack of perspective and a feeling of helplessness". Also, earlier, education in Russia was (r0a/rus/paradigm 4): "... marked with a sense of achievement, pursuit of excellence and as scientific and artistic accomplishment". Today, however, people in Russia "focus their lives on survival and independence", "commitment to self is widespread".

It can, therefore, be concluded that "earlier educational paradigms" (question q0b) correlate with "the present condition of society" (question q0b) in a very peculiar manner: the present conditions of society are either directly aligned with earlier educational paradigms or they are diametrically opposed to them. In other words, the educational paradigms of the past are never inconsequential to the future condition of society. Ergo, rule r0a holds (with some reservations) and hypothesis h0a is true: "Educational paradigms chosen earlier have an historically strategic effect today".

That phrase in the parentheses, "with some reservations", signifies the observation that the educational paradigm and the condition of society do not, necessarily "correlate" in the sense that the paradigms would be linearly manifested in the condition of society. Rather, they correlate in the sense that the adopted educational paradigms are never inconsequential, but the consequences can be adverse in relation to the nature of the paradigm. A good example of this is the Soviet collectivism (which took place without due respect for and tapping of diversity) appeared unsustainable and resulted in the contrary condition of confusion and incoherent heterogeneity. This is consistent with the reasoning presented in Section 2.3.6. This also relates back to principle of unity in diversity.

Of course, it must be noted that neither Finland nor Russia has evolved in socio-political and national isolation (consistently with postulates H3 and H4). External, supranational factors (global trends, international economy, world politics etc.) have dictated certain changes. For instance, pluralism, individualism, non-patriotism, impersonal democracy and egalitarianism are features that are similar to all Western democracies and are becoming a global norm, putting pressure to all countries and cultures.

Rule r0b states: "Hypothesis h0a is true, if hypothesis h1a is true (r1a) -- even when results on q0a and q0b do not otherwise generally correlate (r0a)". In other words: "Educational paradigms chosen earlier have an historically strategic effect today (hypothesis h0a), if earlier education based on the principle of unity in diversity is traceable in today's society (hypothesis h1a), i.e. rule r1a holds -- even when earlier educational paradigms (question q0a) do not otherwise generally correlate with the present condition of society (question q0b), i.e. rule r0a would not hold".

We just concluded, with some reservations, that results on q0a and q0b do correlate (r0) and that hypothesis h0a is true. Moreover, we have earlier already concluded that rule r1a holds and that, therefore, hypothesis h1a, is true. Ergo, rule r1 holds and, without reservations, hypothesis h0a is true: "Educational paradigms chosen earlier have an historically strategic effect today".

Rule r0 states: "Hypothesis h0 is true, if hypothesis h0a is true (r0a or r0b)". In other words: "Choice of educational paradigms is a strategic futures tool (hypothesis h0), if educational paradigms chosen earlier have an historical strategic effect today (hypothesis h0a), i.e. either rule r0a or rule r0b holds".

We have concluded, without reservations, that hypothesis h0a is true. Ergo, rule r0 holds and hypothesis h0 is true: "Choice of educational paradigms is a strategic futures tool".

Rule r1a: "Earlier education based on unity in diversity is traceable in today's society (hypothesis h1a), if earlier educational efforts that aimed at specific features in the society and were focussed on the principle of unity in diversity (question q1a) correlate with some present traits in the society that manifest the principle of unity in diversity (question q1b)". There is only one case of earlier educational paradigms that is focussed on the principle of unity in diversity, and this case does correlate with present traits in the society somehow manifesting unity in diversity. Ergo, rule r1a holds and hypothesis h1a is true.

Rule r1: "Educational success based on the principle of unity in diversity is stable and sustainable (hypothesis h1), if earlier education based on the principle of unity in diversity is traceable in today's society (hypothesis h1a), i.e. rule r1a holds". Hypothesis h1a is true. Ergo, rule r1 holds and hypothesis h1 is true.

Rule r0a: "Educational paradigms chosen earlier have an historically strategic effect today (hypothesis h0a), if earlier educational paradigms (question q0a) correlate with the present condition of society (question q0b)". Present conditions of society are either directly aligned with earlier educational paradigms or they are diametrically opposed to them -- i.e. the educational paradigms of the past are never inconsequential to the future condition of society. Ergo, rule r0a holds and hypothesis h0a is true (with the reservation that, while adopted educational paradigms are never inconsequential, the consequences can be adverse in relation to the nature of the paradigm).

Rule r0b: "Educational paradigms chosen earlier have an historically strategic effect today (hypothesis h0a), if earlier education based on the principle of unity in diversity is traceable in today's society (hypothesis h1a), i.e. rule r1a holds -- even when earlier educational paradigms (question q0a) do not otherwise generally correlate with the present condition of society (question q0b), i.e. rule r0a would not hold". On the basis of rule r0a, hypothesis h0a is true with reservations; however, hypothesis h1a is true. Ergo, rule r1 holds and hypothesis h0a is true (without reservations).

Rule r0: "Choice of educational paradigms work is a strategic futures tool (hypothesis h0), if educational paradigms chosen earlier have an historical strategic effect today (hypothesis h0a), i.e. either rule r0a or rule r0b holds". Hypothesis h0a is true. Ergo, rule r0 holds and hypothesis h0 is true.

Let it be borne in mind that this whole research scheme was meant to be a theoretical test, not the aim of our overall research, and it is sufficient to receive tentative empirical results to test the functionality of the research model. In general, the recursive research was an interesting theoretical exercise. The recursive hypotheses all dealt with the effect of the practised educational paradigm on the realized condition of society, with particular attention to the principle of unity in diversity in mind. The tentative empirical research indicates a valid basis for all the hypotheses (including an additional note in the case of hypotheses h0a):

h0.  Choice of educational paradigms as a strategic futures tool: The future condition of a society will depend on the strategic choice of educational paradigms adopted within the present condition of that society.

h0a.  Historically strategic effect of chosen educational paradigms: The present condition of the society depends on the strategic choice of the educational paradigms adopted within an earlier condition of the society. (N OTE: Adopted educational paradigms of the past are never inconsequential to the future condition of society, but the consequences can be adverse in relation to the nature of the paradigm.).

h1.  Stability and sustainability of educational success based on unity in diversity: Educational efforts that aim at effecting the future of the society, and are somehow focussed on the principle of unity in diversity, emerge as successful and leave sustainable traits in the society.

h1a.  Traceability of earlier education based on unity in diversity: Educational efforts that aim at creating or preserving certain features in the society, and are somehow focussed on the principle of unity in diversity, leave traits that can be detected within the present condition of the society.

The recursive research was also an interesting process of familiarization with two particular national systems of education. However, it must be remembered that the tentative results do not take into account the fact that neither of the two societies has evolved in socio-political and national isolation; the effects of globalization, for instance, have been consciously omitted from the scope of the recursive research.

Both the Finnish and the Russian educational systems were, earlier, marked with a remarkable aspiration towards homogeneity -- the former for reasons of survival, the latter for ideological reasons. Diversity was recognized (in the case of Russia, even encouraged) in external matters, such as cultural products and costumes; but in fundamental human issues, such as cultural mentality and lifestyle as well as personal character, both systems (whether knowingly or unknowingly) aimed generally at unity without due respect for diversity. Yet, both systems have ended up in a highly pluralistic society where there is little social coherence and where vast segments of society suffer from an acute need for a sense of purpose and communal support.

Therefore, it does appear that collectivism, egalitarianism etc. (unity) without respect for the challenge of diversity, and without tapping the human resources provided by diversity, is not sustainable. On the other hand, it seems that individualism, uniqueness etc. (diversity) without some synergy and a collective sense of purpose and direction, a genuine sense of community, is not sustainable either. Indeed, it could be concluded that (a) not working consciously towards the principle of unity in diversity is against the natural potential of human reality (both social and individual), and that (b) only those educational choices that are in accordance with the human potential will, in the long run, be sustainable and come to fruition.

On the basis of foregoing observations, and with reference to the postulates of the recursive research, we can advance certain recursive theorems. These will be the conclusions of the recursive research.

The observation that earlier educational paradigms are never inconsequential for the later condition of society -- and the implications of postulate H1 (that education is an ideal capacity of evolutionary systems to evolve through input that stimulates their development), postulate H2 (that evolutionary systems have a macrodeterministic potential manifested progressively) and postulate H8 (there are universal educational principles relevant to the realization of the potential of a given human system and its educational paradigm) -- would lend themselves to the following theorem:

Moreover, the current global paradigm -- together with postulate H3 (that the potential of evolutionary systems is best realized "within the potential of their parent system, within a context of unity in diversity") -- indicates a further theorem:

In terms of educational feedback -- with regard to postulate H4 (that evolutionary systems receive positive or negative feedback, from their parent and sister systems in a process of success and failure), postulate H5 (that in memorizing systems positive-negative feedback experiences influence also future situations) and postulate H6 (that in self-conscious beings the positive-negative feedback process can be deliberate and intentional) -- we have grounds to advance another theorem:

Moreover, education as a manageable agent of change -- and on the grounds of postulate H7 (that through the choice of educational goals and models, through individual and collective decision-making, education can be a manageable change agent and a strategic tool for purposeful evolution and for building the future) -- indicates the following theorem:

From the point of view of futures studies, these recursive theorems indicate interesting futuristic implications within the phenomenon of education. The theorems can be compressed into two summarizing theorems (see also Section 2.3.7.):

These theorems outline the outcome of the recursive research. The main recursive conclusion, however, is that these results give a tentative support to the recursive hypotheses, and therefore, there are also grounds to assume that the recursive postulates on which they were based may also have a valid foundation -- those recursive postulates being the original hypotheses (H1-H8) of this research.

The recursive research, which is a theoretical test, showed that the recursive hypotheses have some valid empirical basis and that the practised educational paradigms of a society always have consequences for the future condition of that society. Moreover, the research indicated that the principle of unity in diversity can be a sustainable and orienting trait in the evolution of a society. Particularly two summarizing theorems can be advanced:

t0a.  Change Agent Condition: Education is a manageable and effective agent of future change for a society only if both the practised and professed educational paradigms, as well as the decision-making paradigm, are conducive to the realization of the potential of that society -- the potential to evince the principle of unity in diversity and engage in synergic interaction with other societies

t0b.  Trend Analysis Condition: Educational paradigm analysis is, in fact, future trends analysis in that, if the practised educational paradigms promote the potential of the society, the future trends are aligned with the educational goals and the decision-making process -- if not, the trend will be a progressively chaotic process towards either a revolutionary reform in accordance with the potential or a chronic state of growing disorder and, ultimately, disintegration.

These theorems portray the futuristic character of the phenomenon of education. The main recursive conclusion is that, since the empirical study contributed to a meaningful examination of the recursive hypotheses, there are grounds to propose that the recursive postulates provide a relevant conceptual frame of reference for educational research -- those recursive postulates being the original hypotheses (H1-H8) of this research.

1. The recursive method for studying the validity of the hypotheses of the research is a speculative test as follows: (a) consider the hypotheses of this research as postulates; (b) on the basis of these 'postulates', create recursively testing hypotheses; (c) design an empirical study to examine these recursive hypotheses; (d) draw, from the findings of this empirical study, conclusions on the recursive hypotheses; (e) recapitulate, from these results, conclusions on the original hypotheses; (f) relate the outcomes of the study to reconsider a meta-theoretical framework for the science of education.

2. The theme of the recursive research is: Conscious choice of educational paradigms as a systematic means for influencing the future of the society; relevant recursive key-concepts are: (a) educational paradigm, (b) condition of society, (c) unity in diversity.

3. The recursive hypotheses are: (h0) choice of educational paradigms is a strategic futures tool; (h0a) educational paradigms chosen earlier have an historically strategic effect today; (h1) educational success based on the principle of unity in diversity is stable and sustainable; (h1a) earlier education based on unity in diversity is traceable in today's society.

4. Recursive research questions are: (q0a) What is the present condition of the society? (q0b) What were the educational paradigms adopted within an earlier condition of the society? (q1a) Which traits can be detected in the present condition of the society that manifest the principle of unity in diversity? (q1b) Which educational efforts, within an earlier condition of the society, were aimed at preserving or creating specific features in the society and were focussed on the principle of unity in diversity?

5. The interpretation rules are: (r1a) hypothesis h1a is true, if results on q1a and q1b correlate; (r1) hypothesis h1 is true, if hypothesis h1a is true; (r0a) hypothesis h0a is true, if results on q0a and q0b correlate; (r0b) hypothesis h0a is true, if hypothesis h1a is true, even when results on q0a and q0b do not otherwise generally correlate; (r0) hypothesis h0 is true, if hypothesis h0a is true.

6. Data acquisition and field activity: It has been necessary to be satisfied with indirect empirical data and rely on the empirical experience and knowledge of others; the data was obtained through atypical group interviews where the consensus opinion of the entire group is sought; four interviews were conducted: two for each of the countries, Finland and Russia -- one interview for scanning the educational paradigm of some two generations ago, and the other for observing the condition of the society today; the discussions were recorded and transcribed.

7. Recursive conclusions: The recursive hypotheses have some valid empirical basis -- the practised educational paradigms of a society always have consequences for the future condition of that society; moreover, the principle of unity in diversity can be a sustainable and orienting trait in the evolution of a society; the issuing theorems concerning education as an agent of change and trend analysis based on education, portray the futuristic character of the phenomenon of education.