Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41822560›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in research metrics and analytics2026

Ubuntu as a blueprint: learning ethical transdisciplinarity from African indigenous knowledge systems.

Nceba Gqaleni, Moréniké Oluwátóyìn Foláyan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in research metrics and analytics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Nceba GqaleniSub-Discipline of Traditional Medicine, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa.
Moréniké Oluwátóyìn FoláyanAFRONE Network, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This perspective paper posits that the modern global pursuit of transdisciplinarity finds a time-tested blueprint in African Indigenous Knowledge Systems (IKS). It argues that principles such as holism, relationality, and respect, which are intrinsic to philosophies like Ubuntu, are not merely complementary but are essential for conducting ethical, effective, and community-engaged research. The paper offers a critical analysis of the risk of epistemic injustice within contemporary transdisciplinary projects, where ingrained academic power structures can perpetuate extractive and colonial research paradigms. Using the World Health Organization's ethical framework for traditional medicine research as a scaffold, we demonstrate how core tenets of ethical research, including co-creation, fair benefit-sharing, and methodological pluralism, are long-standing, embedded practices within diverse IKS across Africa. We caution against the romanticization or monolithic application of any single IKS, emphasizing the continent's epistemological diversity. By studying and honoring African IKS with nuance and respect, the global research community can move beyond tokenistic participation to achieve genuinely equitable, respectful, and impactful scientific outcomes that are co-created for the common good. This journey requires the decolonization of research methodologies and the critical integration of indigenous paradigms.

Indexed as

African indigenous knowledgeco-creationdecolonizationholismresearch ethicstraditional medicinetransdisciplinarityUbuntu

Identifiers

PMID41822560
PMCPMC12975969

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.