This is the second of a series of three articles exploring in historical order several encyclopaedic models presented in the Kuyperian tradition. This article deals with the period from the 1970s to the present. The works of the followers and successors of Dooyeweerd, Vollenhoven, Stoker and Van Til are examined and evaluated to identify their strong and weak points. The role of scientific and pre-scientific frameworks (e.g. philosophy, worldviews), their functions, the relationships between the sciences and so forth are explored in several different models. The purpose is to provide an evaluation, to identify strategies and patterns and possibly to draw lessons for the future. My main argument is that, during the period in question, there were several attempts at improving the Kuyperian model(s) by eliminating some "rigidities" and by better recognising the complex and multiple relationships and influences among frameworks. These attempts were not always successful. Yet in many cases they show the way towards a better encyclopaedic model. A further question is introduced: is it possible that a certain mediation-pattern in the models caused Kuyperian scholarship to focus mainly on the development of specific disciplines (regarded as crucial) while neglecting other fields?