The problems of Ukrainian ‘pedagogical sciences’ were raised by the leading author in the earlier publication (Fimyar and Shchudlo 2015). Among these are the absence of an empirical tradition in education research, a poor record of publication in international peer-reviewed journals and the dominance of a positivist approach, which seeks to discover ‘laws’ rather than reach ‘understanding’ (For comparison with the state of sciences, see Zozulenko, 2015 [In Russian]). The classical definition of pedagogy maintains that ‘Pedagogy is a science, which studies the essence, laws and trajectories of pedagogical development as a factor and a means of life-long learning’ and, importantly, ‘Pedagogy [studies] the objective [sic] laws of the particular historical process of upbringing, organically [sic] connected with the laws of the development of social relations as well as the real [sic] social upbringing practice of formation of young generations, [and] particulars and conditions of organisation of pedagogical process.’ (Educational materials online, n.d.). Apart from the evident tautology and the belief in ‘objective’ laws for the ‘real’ world, the above definitions share several important characteristics with Grebennikova’s (2012: 6–7) critical analysis of pseudo-sciences in the Ukrainian education system (including ‘acmeology’, ‘educology’, ‘human nanotechnology’ etc.). According to Grebennikova the key characteristics of pseudo-sciences are: • explicit or implicit anti-intellectualism manifested in the determination of their whole theory by a single holistic concept such as ‘objective law’, ‘system’, ‘information’, ‘chaos’ or ‘game’; • optimism in the applicability of their core concepts to major spheres of human life; • manipulative and mechanistic approach to social reality; • opportunistic definitions of ‘science’ and ‘method’; • substitution of methods by principles; • theological nature manifested in the belief that an ideal that is implicit in their holistic doctrine can and should be achieved; • hybridity of genres as a result of drawing on facts, methods and rhetoric used by different systems of cultural production, including religious and spiritual practice, sciences, media, art etc. (Grebennikova (2012: 6–7 cf Dmitriev, 1997: 260). This paper offers a discourse analysis of another unhelpful typology of ‘fundamental’, ‘applied’ and ‘implementation’ education research in Ukrainian pedagogical discourse. The study is based on the analysis of the key textbooks on pedagogy as well as key policy documents about the development of pedagogical sciences in Ukraine.

Educational materials online (n.d.) Ob’yek, Predmet, Funktsii i Zavdannia Pedagogiky [in Ukr. Object, Subject, Functions and Tasks of Pedagogy]. Retrieved from http://pidruchniki.com/13121009/pedagogika/obyekt_predmet_funktsiyi_zavdannya_pedagogiki Dmitriev, D. (1997). Pedagogical psychology and the development of education in Russia. In E. L. Grigorenko, P. Ruzgis, & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Psychology in Russia: Past, present, future (pp. 251–292). New York: Nova Science Publishers. Fimyar, O. and Shchudlo, S. (2015). Pedagogy after Maidan: Can Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed offer a viable alternative for Ukraine? . Presented at the Danyliw Research Seminar on Contemporary Ukraine. Retrieved from http://www.danyliwseminar.com/#!paper-fimyar/c6q1n Grebennikova, G. (2012). The politics of knowledge innovation: The case of acmeology as a ‘new science’ movement in the Ukrainian educational system. (MPhil dissertation, University of Cambridge). Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/2633034/The_Politics_of_Knowledge_Innovation_the_Case_of_Acmeology_as_a_New_Science_Movement_in_the_Ukrainian_Educational_System Zozulenko, I. (2015). Nauka i akademicheskoye obrazovaniye v Ukraine: Vzgliad so storony [In Rus. Science and academic education in Ukraine: A view from aside]. In Hvylia.net, 28t July 2015. Retrieved from http://hvylya.net/analytics/culture/nauka-i-akademicheskoe-obrazovanie-v-ukraine-vzglyad-vo-storonyi.html