I am because we are

Ubuntu and what it means for metascience

By Similo Ngwenya (UCL/RoRI) and Nelius Boshoff (CREST, Stellenbosch University)

What happens when metascience meets Ubuntu, the African philosophy of relational personhood? At its core, Ubuntu is encapsulated by the phrase ‘I am because we are.’ It expresses a belief that human beings don’t exist in isolation, but are formed through our relationships and our community and that existence, far from being a fixed state, is a dynamic process of giving, receiving, and passing on the goods of life.

If individual flourishing is inseparable from collective well-being, what does that mean for how we evaluate, fund, and structure global science? We would like to argue that metascience needs a dose of this relational philosophy if it is ever going to truly reform research culture.

In an era where researchers, funders, universities and policymakers are striving to improve research funding, evaluation and communication, Ubuntu offers a compelling viewpoint from which to view current metascience developments. It has been discussed in the research literature as an African philosophy and worldview with moral implications and conceptualised as a research paradigm. In other words, Ubuntu is a ‘comprehensive belief system, worldview or framework that guides research and practice in a field’.

As a research paradigm, Ubuntu comprises philosophical assumptions about the nature of social reality (ontology), ways of knowing (epistemology), and ethics and value systems (axiology). It raises questions about scientific practice, such as: How should contributions be recognised? What balance should there be between individual achievement and collective progress? What kinds of relationships make knowledge production possible? These social, ethical, and philosophical questions provide a lens through which to understand science as a relational enterprise in which knowledge emerges through communities, mutual responsibilities, and shared forms of flourishing rather than the efforts of isolated individuals. Ultimately, Ubuntu brings the vital focus back to the ‘P’ in SHAPE¹, reminding us that the social sciences, humanities and arts are fundamentally for people.

Ubuntu’s emphasis on relationships, reciprocity and collective flourishing is not far removed from contemporary discussions of science policy and research evaluation. The idea that science is fundamentally a social enterprise was developed by the influential sociologist Robert K. Merton who sought to identify the normative foundations of science. In his writings on the ethos of science, Merton argued that science is governed by four shared norms: communalism, universalism, disinterestedness, and organised scepticism. These norms collectively sustain the scientific enterprise. They emphasise that knowledge should be shared, claims should be judged on their merits rather than the status of their authors, scientific work should serve purposes beyond personal gain, and ideas should remain open to critical scrutiny.

Upon closer inspection, striking parallels emerge between Merton’s vision of science and the concept of Ubuntu. Both reject the idea that knowledge is solely an individual possession; instead, they recognise that scientific and social life depend on relationships, trust and obligations to others.

However, important differences remain. Merton’s community orientation is largely confined to the scientific community and the norms that govern science as an institution and a social enterprise. He was concerned with the values and practices that enable the production of scientific knowledge. In contrast, Ubuntu extends Merton’s vision of science beyond the scientific community, embracing a more capacious ethical understanding of human interdependence based on a broader conception of personhood and human relationships. Ubuntu considers how individuals become persons and gain a sense of their responsibilities through their relationships with others. It emphasises that communities are sustained by shared norms and rules, as well as by mutual recognition, reciprocity, care and commitment to collective well-being.

How Ubuntu and metascience merge

While Ubuntu provides a philosophical perspective on the mutual constitutions of individuals and communities, metascience provides a systematic account of the production, evaluation, organisation, and reward of scientific knowledge. Bringing these perspectives into dialogue enables us to view science as both a system of knowledge production and a relational enterprise embedded within communities of shared interest.

This makes us reflect: if science is a deeply social and collaborative endeavour, why are its contributions and achievements so often assessed based on individual accomplishments? Ubuntu provides a valuable perspective through which to examine this question. The Ubuntu adage ‘I am because we are ’ reminds us that the individual and the community are not opposing forces, but co-creating one another. It is a richer and more generous perspective than Newton’s (in)famous claim “If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.” Individuals develop and succeed through participation in communities, while communities are sustained, enriched, and transformed by the contributions of their members.

From the Ubuntu perspective, scientific achievement cannot be understood as solely the product of individual effort. Researchers operate within wider support ecosystems that include mentors, collaborators, students, technicians, institutions, funding bodies, ethics committees, professional networks, and intellectual communities, including peer reviewers. These relationships shape the production of knowledge and enable scientific contributions that would otherwise be impossible.

At the same time, scientific communities depend on individuals who generate new knowledge, train future generations of researchers, communicate findings and contribute to the advancement of their fields. Increasingly, science and society are also interacting through transdisciplinary approaches and co-creation. The relationship between the individual scientist and the collective is therefore increasingly one of mutual dependence and reinforcement.

This understanding has important implications for the evaluation of research. Traditionally, scientific careers have been assessed using indicators that focus primarily on individual performance, such as publication counts, citations, h-indices, grant income, prestigious fellowships and awards. While these measures capture certain aspects of scholarly contribution, critics have argued that they only provide a partial account of how knowledge is produced and valued. Drawing on African relational philosophy, some contend that prevalent bibliometric and ranking-based systems may actually constitute epistemic misrecognition by undervaluing community-engaged, collaborative, and locally grounded scholarship. For example, citation-based indicators may privilege certain publication practices while obscuring knowledge production embedded in community engagement, public problem solving, capacity building, and social transformation.

When viewed through an Ubuntu lens, the issue is not only that evaluation systems recognise individual achievement, but also that they often fail to recognise the collective relationships and contributions that make such achievement possible. Knowledge production involves multiple actors and forms of support, many of which remain invisible within conventional assessment systems.

Similarly, the value of a scientific contribution cannot be measured solely by publications or citations; it also lies in mentorship, collaboration, knowledge sharing, community engagement and the broader impact of research. Ubuntu therefore encourages a more holistic understanding of scientific contributions by recognising both the individual and collective dimensions of knowledge production, and their respective roles in advancing scientific and societal progress. For example, although there is plenty of research on who should be recognised as an author of a publication and journals also have clear guidelines on this matter, questions arise when monetary rewards are paid to individual co-authors and the practice becomes institutionalised. One might ask: what about the collective ‘we’ that enabled the individual co-author to exist? What constitutes ‘their’ reward?

Questions about evaluation, collaboration, excellence, inclusion, and contribution prompt consideration of the kind of scientific community society wants to build; who should be recognised for their contributions; and what constitutes scientific success. In this sense, contemporary metascience is doing more than just refining methods and metrics. It is also engaging with questions that have long been the focus of philosophers, ethicists and social theorists, albeit often implicitly. This observation highlights the important distinction between the technical and human dimensions of metascience. Much of metascience is presented as a technical endeavour, focusing on improving performance, strengthening peer review, enhancing reproducibility, refining funding systems, and developing more effective research assessment methods. While these are important objectives, many of the challenges facing science today are not merely technical or methodological, but also social, ethical and philosophical.

• How should credit be allocated?

• What constitutes a contribution?

• What responsibilities do researchers have towards each other?

• How can research cultures be built in which people flourish?

These questions fall within the remit of the SHAPE disciplines because they concern values, relationships, ethics and the organisation of scientific life and this is where the ‘P’ in SHAPE becomes indispensable. The humanities, social sciences, and arts help explain science as both a system of knowledge production and a community of people, for the people. Ubuntu is an important intellectual resource for thinking through these questions.

Concerns about the conduct of scholarship have become even more pertinent in the age of artificial intelligence. As AI increasingly impacts how research is conducted, written, reviewed and communicated, debates about scientific practice are moving beyond questions of efficiency and productivity. Questions of authorship, credit, accountability, trust and responsibility are now at the forefront and cannot be answered by algorithms alone. They require ethical reflection and a deeper understanding of the social relationships that underpin scientific work. As science becomes more technologically sophisticated, the human dimensions of knowledge production become more urgent than ever.

1. SHAPE: Social Sciences, Humanities and the Arts for People and the Economy