The 21st-century research landscape increasingly recognizes transdisciplinarity as essential for tackling complex, wicked problems characterized by conflicting values, knowledge systems, and power dynamics (Bernstein, 2015; Rittel and Webber, 1973; Head, 2008; Head and Alford, 2015). This approach necessitates a profound synthesis of knowledge that transcends academic disciplines to include non-academic and life-world perspectives (Jahn et al., 2012; Lang et al., 2012; Pohl and Hadorn, 2007).

However, the promise of transdisciplinarity is often undermined by the persistent risk of epistemic injustice—the systematic devaluation of Indigenous, local, and experiential epistemologies existing outside dominant Western academic frameworks (Chilisa, 2020; Smith, 2021). This frequently manifests as an extractive paradigm, where communities are treated as data sources rather than genuine partners, relegating community knowledge to the anecdotal and replicating colonial research legacies (Chilisa, 2020; Smith, 2021). The consequences are severe: it dehumanizes communities by reducing them to data points (Kingori, 2015); denies the coherence of indigenous ways of knowing; and leads to cultural alienation, loss of intergenerational knowledge, and internalized inferiority. This fractures relational ontologies like Ubuntu, where identity is co-constituted through connection to community, ancestors, and land (Mbiti, 1990). It also violates autonomy and self-determination in research governance (Garba et al., 2023), ultimately undermining research quality.

For transdisciplinarity to fulfill its ethical and practical promise, it must therefore evolve into a practice of radical reciprocity and epistemic humility, decolonizing the research relationship. This begins with co-defining the problem itself through dialogue, aligning with participatory action research where the community leads (McGrath et al., 2025).

This paper introduces a paradigm-shifting thesis: the principles sought in modern transdisciplinary research have been practiced for generations within African Indigenous Knowledge Systems (IKS). While recognizing that Indigenous epistemologies worldwide share core principles of holism, relationality, and ethical custodianship (O'Regan, 1987; Mahuika, 1998; Vanhulst et al., 2020), our focus on African IKS addresses the urgent need to rectify epistemic injustice in African research. We position Ubuntu, a Nguni (particularly isiZulu) articulation of relational philosophy, not as a monolithic template for all of Africa, but as a richly documented case study of innate transdisciplinarity. Indigenous knowing seamlessly integrated spirituality, ecology, sociology, medicine, and psychology into a coherent whole (Gqaleni et al., 2025; Mkabela, 2005), never confined to a single discipline.

We therefore reflect on the guiding question: Do we need to study our indigenous knowledge generation systems to learn how to conduct respectful and effective transdisciplinary research? We argue yes. Furthermore, authentic community engagement in Africa requires understanding its philosophical foundations. Consequently, the path to authentic transdisciplinarity in Africa lies in learning from the sophisticated, innate transdisciplinarity of African IKS, both as a model and an ethical guide. This paper offers perspectives on the ethical framework of IKS in Africa and suggests ways to engage effectively with this system when designing and conducting research.

A critical discussion requires contextualizing our use of isiZulu frameworks and Ubuntu philosophy. Africa is home to immense linguistic and cultural diversity, with over 2,000 languages and a vast array of knowledge systems (Heine and Nurse, 2000). The Bantu migrations, spanning millennia, spread languages and cultural concepts across much of sub-Saharan Africa, leading to shared cosmological themes while fostering distinct regional expressions (Vansina, 1990). We draw significantly on isiZulu conceptual frameworks for several reasons. First, isiZulu is one of South Africa's official languages with a well-documented and academically engaged epistemological corpus, providing a robust entry point for analysis (Gqaleni et al., 2025; Dladla, 2017). Second, the philosophy of Ubuntu (I am because we are), while most famously articulated in Nguni languages, expresses a relational worldview that finds resonance across many African societies, such as Botho in Setswana, Ujamaa in Swahili, Omoluabi in Yoruba, and Bunengi in Gikuyu (Gyekye, 1995; Nyerere, 1968; wa Thiong'o, 1986). This makes it a powerful exemplar, not an exclusive model. Third, a focused case study allows for depth in illustrating how a specific IKS embodies transdisciplinary principles, which can then be compared with others.

To counter the risk of presenting Ubuntu as a monolithic stand-in for all African IKS, it is crucial to acknowledge the continent's rich epistemological tapestry. Table 1 provides a non-exhaustive map of this diversity, illustrating that while relationality and holism are widespread themes, their expressions are uniquely shaped by history, ecology, and culture. In West Africa, systems like Ifá (Yoruba) constitute a vast corpus of poetic verses, divination, medicine, and ethics, emphasizing balance and destiny (ayanmo; Abimbola, 1976). The Akan philosophy of Sunsum (spirit) and its ethical system underscore character development and community responsibility (Gyekye, 1995). In East Africa, the concept of Ujamaa (familyhood) in Swahili-speaking regions emphasizes cooperative economics and social collectivism (Nyerere, 1968). Among the Gikuyu, Bunengi (virtuous character) guides social relations and governance (wa Thiong'o, 1986). In Southern Africa, alongside Ubuntu, the Kgotla system in Botswana/Tswana culture is a participatory assembly for consensus-based governance and justice (Moumakwa, 2011). In Central and Northern Africa, while often underrepresented in IKS discourse, regions possess deep knowledge systems, from forest cosmologies in the Congo Basin to the ancient Egyptian concept of Ma'at (cosmic order, truth, justice), which governed all aspects of life (Obenga, 2004).

We explicitly acknowledge that Ubuntu is not a reflection of IKS. African IKS are plural, dynamic, and context-dependent. This diversity is not a weakness but a strength, offering multiple entry points for ethical engagement. A respectful transdisciplinary approach must begin by identifying and engaging with the specific IKS relevant to the research context, rather than imposing a generic African model. This paper uses Ubuntu as a detailed lens to examine principles that are widely distributed, albeit in culturally specific forms, while actively incorporating examples and concepts from other African regions to counteract generalization.

The analysis and ethical framework proposed in this paper are informed by a participatory and transdisciplinary methodology that itself mirrors the principles of African IKS. The core perspective stems from immersive work within African IKS, particularly drawing on the foundational research presented in Foundations of African Traditional Medicine: A Nguni Perspective (Gqaleni et al., 2025). Our methodological approach is guided by two key frameworks. First, we employed an Afrocentric methodology that mandated that the African experience guides all inquiry, recognizing the centrality of spirituality, wholism, and intuition as valid sources of knowledge (Mazama, 2001). It insists that not everything of importance is measurable and that the goal of generated knowledge must be liberating for African people. This methodology ensures the research process is truthful by including knowledge holders not as subjects, but as co-investigators and validators. Second, we utilized Ordinary Language Analysis (Mazama, 2001; Hallen, 2009), which emphasizes understanding the meanings, nuances, and uses of language within its everyday, communal context. This approach prioritizes description and analysis over external criticism, allowing the concepts and logic of IKS, such as Ubuntu, Isazela, or Ukukhunga, to be understood on their own terms from within the culture.

Operationally, this translated into a community-based participatory research paradigm. Community knowledge holders, including traditional healers (izanusi/amagqirha), elders, tribal authorities, and farmers, were integral partners throughout the research process. Their involvement was central to selecting study foci, data collection, analysis, and, crucially, the validation of findings. This approach consciously counters the elitist model of conventional research, which often reduces communities to objects of study (Weinstock, 1971). Instead, it positions the researcher as a facilitator and resource, while the community members are the primary knowers and interpreters of their own reality. Key informants are chosen purposively (Babbie, 2004) to ensure a spectrum of deep experiential knowledge was represented, and their views formed the authoritative core of data interpretation.

The depth of African Indigenous Knowledge Systems (IKS) originates from a holistic cosmovision that understands life as a continuous tapestry of connectedness, balance, and reciprocal relationships. This worldview is encapsulated by the philosophy of Ubuntu—“I am because we are”—which posits that individual well-being is inextricably woven into the health of the community, the vitality of the environment, and the harmony of the cosmos (Mbiti, 1990; Gqaleni et al., 2025; Ramose, 1999). This relational ontology is often articulated from a Nguni perspective, specifically drawing on isiZulu conceptual frameworks, providing a refined template for understanding holistic existence. The ontology is structured through seven interdependent spheres (izizinda), as illustrated in Figure 1. The term Isazela (meaning sphere, realm, or domain of existential awareness) roots the model linguistically and culturally within isiZulu epistemology (Gqaleni et al., 2025). The seven spheres are (1) Umvelinqangi (The Creator/Source): The ultimate, singular source and sustaining force of all existence. (2) Ithongo/Amadlozi (The Ancestral Realm): The realm of ancestors, who act as custodians of tradition, moral guides, and intermediaries. (3) Umoya (The Spiritual Force/Animating Spirit): The pervasive vital force or energy that animates all life and connects the cosmos. (4) Unembeza (The Conscience/Inner Moral Compass): The inner faculty of moral discernment and ethical reasoning, linking the psychological to the social and cosmic order. (5) Umphakathi (The Community): The realm of human social relations, where personhood (Ubuntu) is realized, and collective well-being is pursued. (6) Indalo (The Natural Environment): The living, sacred physical and ecological world, with which humans share a relationship of custodianship. (7) Umzimba (The Physical Body): The corporeal vessel, whose health is a manifestation of balance or imbalance across all other spheres.

This integrated practice enables Indigenous Knowledge Systems (IKS) to effectively engage with contemporary transdisciplinary challenges, often termed wicked problems (Gqaleni et al., 2025). Such problems are characterized by interconnected complexities that resist linear solutions, a dynamic reflected in the healer's holistic diagnostic approach. This approach traces root causes across spiritual, social, environmental, and physical dimensions, refusing to isolate issues within a single domain. In African IKS, the traditional healer exemplifies transdisciplinarity by seamlessly integrating cosmology, ancestral communication, botanical expertise, psychological support, and community stewardship into a unified practice (Mbiti, 1990; Gqaleni et al., 2025). The traditional healer (isangoma or inyanga) operates seamlessly across these spheres: acknowledging the cosmic order (Umvelinqangi), consulting ancestral guidance (Ithongo), diagnosing spiritual disruptions (Umoya), assessing moral-psychological state (Isazela/Unembeza), understanding social context (Umphakathi), utilizing ecological knowledge (Indalo), and treating physical symptoms (Umzimba). This is not a mere combination of disciplines, but a coherent, synthesized practice born from a cosmology where such boundaries do not exist (Gqaleni et al., 2025). Figure 1 visually represents the seven interdependent spheres of existence that underpin this worldview, illustrating how health, knowledge, and well-being emerge from balance across all realms.

For transdisciplinary research, this model underscores that challenges cannot be reduced to singular dimensions, such as purely biomedical, but must be engaged across spiritual, social, ecological, and physical domains. Moreover, knowledge is co-constructed through relational exchanges among people, ancestors, and the environment, mirroring the relational ethic essential for equitable research collaborations. Methodological pluralism thus becomes indispensable to honor the integrated reality depicted in this cosmology.

The absence of a definitive stopping rule in wicked problems parallels the healer's enduring responsibility to sustain communal equilibrium. Conflicting values inherent in such problems are mediated through Ubuntu's relational ontology, which fosters consensus and communal harmony (Mbiti, 1990; Mkhize, 2008). Within this framework, research embodies the community itself—a participatory, dynamic process in which community members act as co-investigators, interpreters, and beneficiaries, rather than mere subjects. This reflects the Ubuntu principle that personhood is realized through community (Mbiti, 1990). Consequently, the research process must be collectively designed, governed, and owned to ensure outcomes serve the common good, transcending narrow academic or commercial interests (Hountondji, 1983; Odora Hoppers, 2002). Thus, transdisciplinarity is revealed not as a recent academic innovation but as an enduring, lived practice within IKS, offering a culturally grounded and powerful model for addressing modern complexities (Gqaleni et al., 2025; Kovach, 2009).

Four foundational principles that have historically guided knowledge creation on the continent serve as a robust ethical framework for contemporary transdisciplinary research. These principles are deeply embedded in African IKS and find strong parallels in global Indigenous methodologies (Wilson, 2008; Martin and Mirraboopa, 2003), offering actionable guidance for ethical, equitable, and contextually grounded inquiry.

The first principle, Respect as Relational Accountability, entails the active recognition of the intrinsic worth and interconnectedness of all entities—people, ancestors, land, and ecosystems (Mbiti, 1990; Gqaleni et al., 2025; Whyte, 2011). Within IKS, this is practiced through rituals, oral agreements, and custodianship traditions such as Ukukhunga (respectful harvesting) in Southern Africa or seeking permission from forest spirits in Central African traditions (van Wyk et al., 1997). In research, this principle challenges extractive paradigms and calls for formalized partnerships where communities are co-investigators, not subjects (Foláyan and Haire, 2023). It aligns with the Māori concept of whanaungatanga (relationship-building) and the Native American emphasis on relational accountability (Mkhize, 2008; Smith, 2021).

The second, Co-Creation as Communal Knowledge Production, frames knowledge as a collective resource, generated, validated, and sustained across generations (Battiste, 2005; Oguamanam, 2020). This is embodied in practices such as storytelling (Afrofuturist narratives, griot traditions), consensus-based forums like the Kgotla (Moumakwa, 2011) or Gacaca (Kaufman and Clark, 2009), and intergenerational apprenticeships (Chinweuba and Ezeugwu, 2017). For transdisciplinary research, this ensures that research agendas, methods, and outcomes are culturally rooted and collectively owned, transcending tokenistic engagement. This mirrors the Pacific Talanoa method (dialogue for consensus) and Aboriginal yarning circles (Vaioleti, 2006; Barlo et al., 2021).

Third, Benefit-Sharing as Custodianship positions knowledge and natural resources as sacred trusts held for future generations, obligating fair and equitable sharing of benefits (Garba et al., 2023; Convention on Biological Diversity, 2011). Practices like Ukukhunga exemplify this ethos by framing plant use as a partnership rather than ownership. This principle directly informs contemporary ethical standards for intellectual property and benefit-sharing, countering legacies of biopiracy and exploitation, and is enshrined in global agreements like the Nagoya Protocol (Convention on Biological Diversity, 2011).

Finally, Methodological Pluralism and Holism affirm that knowledge is validated through complementary ways of knowing—spiritual, ecological, social, and physical (van Wyk, 2015; Hobson et al., 2018). Traditional healers embody this principle by diagnosing illness across multiple realms using diverse methods. In research, it supports integrating qualitative, participatory, and indigenous approaches (e.g., dream interpretation, participatory mapping, seasonal calendars) with conventional scientific methods, enabling more nuanced and context-sensitive inquiry. This aligns with frameworks like Two-Eyed Seeing (Etuaptmumk) from Mi'kmaq territory, which braids Indigenous and Western knowledges (Bartlett et al., 2012).

These principles are lived practices within African communities. Governance structures like the Kgotla institutionalize inclusive decision-making (Mbiti, 1990), while rituals embed rigorous, context-aware inquiry into community life (Omodan, 2025). We contend that these indigenous principles constitute a pre-existing, time-tested ethical framework for transdisciplinary research in Africa. They directly counter epistemic injustice by centering community knowledge and authority (Chilisa, 2020; Smith, 2021) and inform concrete research practices such as co-designed agendas, community-led governance with veto power, fair benefit-sharing agreements, and the integration of indigenous and Western methods (Omodan, 2025; Folayan et al., 2019). Moreover, they facilitate the decolonization of research by reshaping physical, procedural, and intellectual spaces to be Afrocentric and inclusive.

The enduring tension between reductionist and holistic paradigms (Fang and Casadevall, 2011) defines much of modern scientific inquiry. While the reductionist approach has yielded profound discoveries, it often fails to capture the emergent properties that arise from dynamic interactions within a whole system. The holistic perspective of IKS and the specificity of reductionist science are not mutually exclusive; rather, they offer complementary insights. Thus, the ethical framework underpinning indigenous knowledge can, and must, be translated into principles to govern robust, modern, transdisciplinary research conducted in Africa. To achieve this, an understanding of the continent's philosophical foundations is necessary (Chilisa, 2020; Ndlovu-Gatsheni, 2018).

Adopting this framework is an act of decolonization that requires a transformation toward an inclusive, Afrocentric research environment. This shift can be summarized as a move from a colonial reality to an Afrocentric re-imagining, as highlighted in Table 2, developed from the theoretical critiques of Western research structures (Chilisa, 2020; Smith, 2021; Ndlovu-Gatsheni, 2018), insights on re-centering African knowledge (Bartlett et al., 2012), Ubuntu philosophy (Mbiti, 1990; Gqaleni et al., 2025), and integrated with examples from community-based research in Africa that use traditional gathering spaces as sites of knowledge co-creation, and community peer review processes from participatory action research literature (Omodan, 2025; Folayan et al., 2019). The authors' direct involvement in transdisciplinary, community-led research projects further informed the practical dimensions of the table.

The table serves as a vital bridge between Indigenous wisdom and contemporary research practice, illustrating that studying IKS is essential for redesigning research ecosystems to be equitable, effective, and culturally grounded. It shows how indigenous values translate into concrete research environments. By contrasting colonial reality with Afrocentric re-imagining, the table underscores how IKS challenges and enriches dominant research paradigms. In addition, the table answers the “how” of respectful engagement by proposing actionable reforms in governance, validation, and reward systems. Without this foundational shift, transdisciplinarity risks perpetuating the epistemic injustices it aims to overcome.

A critical step is ensuring community-led selection of representatives, which confronts the colonial legacy of outsiders speaking for communities (Smith, 2021) and counters epistemic tokenism. This upholds self-determination and the Ubuntu principle that personhood is constituted through community relations (Mbiti, 1990). Implementation requires researchers to request humbly that existing community structures appoint representatives through their own protocols, providing support without interference. Representatives must be formally empowered with co-ownership rights and veto power.

Decolonizing transdisciplinary research also requires expanding what is recognized as academically legitimate. Epistemic hegemony excludes Indigenous and local knowledge holders and devalues context-rich, practical wisdom essential for addressing place-based challenges. IKS are lived, performed, and collectively stewarded across generations, deriving power from their applicability, sustainability, and embeddedness within socio-ecological and spiritual contexts (Gqaleni et al., 2025; Mkabela, 2005). Moving toward an Afrocentric research environment, therefore, demands reconstituting knowledge governance by recognizing IKS custodians as legitimate academics and co-validators with equal standing on ethics boards, review panels, and funding committees (Ndlovu-Gatsheni, 2018). It also necessitates valuing multiple forms of evidence and dissemination, such as storytelling, ritual, participatory mapping, and community peer review, as rigorous means of knowledge production and validation (Mkabela, 2005; Battiste, 2002). Academic reward systems must be rewritten to honor co-creation, community impact, and intercultural translation alongside traditional metrics like journal publications (Foláyan and Haire, 2023; Visvanathan, 2009).

This redesign of spaces, structures, and values challenges the university's monopoly on defining knowledge. It calls for research ecosystems where community elders are not visitors but valued co-investigators in a shared project of understanding. Such institutional transformation allows transdisciplinarity to fulfill its promise of epistemic justice, embodying the principle that the well-being of research is inextricably linked to the well-being of the community. This approach does not discard Western science but pluralizes the academy, creating an inclusive epistemological space where different knowledge systems can enter into dialogue, mutual critique, and synergy—aligning with broader calls for epistemic humility and cognitive justice (Folayan et al., 2019; de Sousa Santos, 2016) in addressing complex global challenges.

We acknowledge the limitations and risks in applying IKS frameworks. First, there is a danger of our romanticizing or essentializing IKS, presenting them as static, perfect, and uniformly harmonious. IKS, like all knowledge systems, can be sites of power dynamics, gender exclusion, or conservatism (Oyěwùmí, 1997). Thus, engagement with our work must be critical and reflexive. Second, there is a risk of over-generalization. Africa is not a country, and Ubuntu is not a universal African philosophy. Researchers must, therefore, invest time in understanding the specific IKS of the community they work with. Third, the instrumentalization of IKS can be a concern when using indigenous concepts to legitimize externally driven research goals rather than genuinely centering them. This may be perceived as a form of epistemic tokenism. Fourth, practical challenges abound, including navigating conflicts between IKS protocols and institutional review board requirements, the time-intensive nature of relational work, and securing funding for non-traditional research structures. Finally, researchers must be wary of speaking for others. Our goal is to promote the creation of platforms for communities to represent their own knowledge systems, guided by the principle of self-determination.

The ethical framework for engaging with indigenous knowledge custodians for the design and implementation of transdisciplinary research is a gateway to more robust, equitable, and impactful research. First, by reflecting on our indigenous knowledge systems, we find that the answers to many modern research dilemmas have been available to us all along. We must, therefore, study our indigenous knowledge generation systems to learn how to conduct respectful transdisciplinary research in Africa, and build truly respectful, effective, and transformative transdisciplinary frameworks that are by, for, and of Africa. Our proposed ethical framework seeks to replace extraction with reciprocity, tokenism with genuine power-sharing, and epistemic injustice with epistemic humility and cognitive justice. This is a practical ethical imperative that leads to more relevant, sustainable, and innovative solutions. We call for the development and adoption of IKS-informed research ethics guidelines at institutional, national, and continental levels. The widespread application of these principles, adapted to specific contexts, may seem daunting, but the enduring legacy and resilience of indigenous systems prove that it is not only possible but necessary for research that affirms humanity, strengthens identity, and produces knowledge that is both robust and righteous.