Truthfulness and falsification, justice, and Indigenous research ethics: Lessons from Ubuntu and the San Code

*This article was AI generated using multiple prompts to produce a decolonised understanding and output of the topic.

Introduction

Did you really use SPSS, Nvivo, or did you analyse the data manually? Did you interview four people but report fifteen? Did you claim to have held a focus group when you only conducted individual interviews? Did you state that ethics approval had been granted when it had not? Did you write that participants validated your findings when no member checking took place? Did you claim to have followed Ubuntu or San ethics when you had not? Did you list yourself as an author or co-author without making a genuine intellectual contribution? Did you report that you searched AJOL, Scopus or WOS or other databases when you did not?

These may appear to be small matters. Some may even be rationalised as harmless adjustments made to satisfy institutional or journal expectations. Yet these everyday distortions form the foundation of falsification in research. They undermine trust, distort knowledge, and reproduce extractive traditions of scholarship.

In African and Indigenous contexts, such practices do not only violate academic rules. They damage relationships, weaken community confidence, and continue colonial patterns of misrepresentation. Drawing on Ubuntu and the San Code of Research Ethics, this essay reflects on falsification as a form of epistemic and moral injustice.

What is falsification in research

Falsification in research refers to the deliberate misrepresentation of methods, data, ethical processes, authorship, or community engagement. It includes exaggerating sample sizes, mislabelling research designs, falsely reporting ethical clearance, inventing validation processes, misrepresenting collaboration, and overstating literature searches.

These practices create an illusion of rigour and professionalism. In reality, they weaken the integrity of knowledge production. From a decolonial perspective, falsification reflects a continued willingness to prioritise academic success over accountability to communities.

It is not merely a technical error. It is a political and moral act that shapes whose knowledge is valued and whose voices are marginalised.

Ubuntu as an ethical foundation for African research

Ubuntu is the collective philosophy of Africa that has grown over several centuries to represent central tenets of Bantu, San, Nilotic, and other African groups. It is grounded in relationality, reciprocity, moral responsibility, and social justice. Ubuntu affirms that personhood is realised through relationships and that individual flourishing is inseparable from collective wellbeing.

In research, Ubuntu requires truthfulness, humility, and accountability. It rejects individualistic and competitive models of scholarship that privilege personal recognition over communal benefit. Knowledge is understood as socially produced and morally situated.

From the perspective of Ubuntu, falsification is a breach of relational ethics. It fractures trust, undermines solidarity, and weakens the moral fabric that sustains collective life.

The San Code and the ethics of truthfulness

The San Code of Research Ethics provides a detailed articulation of Indigenous ethical principles in research. It requires open and clear exchange between researchers and community leaders. It insists that language must be accessible rather than obscured by unnecessary academic jargon. Complex issues must be explained carefully and accurately. Above all, it demands totally honest sharing of information.

These principles challenge colonial research traditions that positioned scholars as unquestionable authorities and communities as passive sources of data. The San Code affirms instead that ethical research must be dialogical, transparent, and grounded in mutual respect.

The Code also records past experiences of dishonesty, including deviations from stated research purposes, failure to return findings, biased publications, and exploitation of young trainees. These practices damaged trust and weakened long-term relationships, leaving enduring social and emotional harm.

Justice, fairness, and benefit sharing

Ubuntu and the San Code both emphasise that ethical research must be just and fair. Communities have legitimate expectations of benefit from research. These benefits may include co-research opportunities, skills sharing, capacity building, and employment as translators or research assistants.

Such provisions challenge dominant academic systems in which researchers accumulate prestige and resources while communities receive little in return. Justice-oriented research recognises that knowledge production is collective labour and that its rewards must be shared equitably.

The San Code further establishes that ethical violations have consequences. Unethical researchers may be publicly identified, and institutions may be excluded from future collaboration. These forms of accountability reflect Indigenous systems of governance that prioritise collective dignity over individual status.

Falsification as ethical and social harm

In African and Indigenous research contexts, falsification cannot be reduced to procedural misconduct. It constitutes moral harm, epistemic injustice, and relational violence. When researchers falsely claim participation, benefit sharing, or ethical compliance, they deceive not only journals and universities but also the people whose lives and knowledge sustain research.

Such practices silence community voices and present distorted narratives as authoritative truth. They violate Ubuntu by privileging individual advancement over collective responsibility and by weakening social bonds built on honesty and reciprocity.

Integrated framework: honesty, justice, and accountability

The convergence between Ubuntu, the San Code, and research integrity can be summarised as follows:

Dimension	Ubuntu Ethics	San Code	Research Integrity
Honesty	Moral truthfulness and relational accountability	Total transparency	Accurate reporting
Respect	Recognition of human dignity and communal worth	Clear communication	Informed consent
Justice	Reciprocity and collective benefit	Fair benefits	Equitable participation
Accountability	Communal responsibility and moral obligation	Community sanctions	Institutional oversight
Sustainability	Collective continuity and social harmony	Ongoing trust	Ethical scholarship

This framework demonstrates that African, Indigenous, and global ethical traditions share deep commitments to truth, dignity, and responsibility.

Knowledge extraction and historical injustice

The San Code highlights long-standing injustices, including the theft of traditional knowledge and corporate exploitation of Indigenous plant varieties without benefit-sharing agreements. These practices reflect broader histories of biopiracy, cultural appropriation, and intellectual dispossession.

Falsification often operates within these structures by masking exploitation under the appearance of ethical research. False claims about consent, collaboration, or benefit sharing enable continued access to communities while concealing unequal power relations.

Towards justice-oriented research practice

Ethical and decolonised research requires more than compliance with institutional regulations. It demands relational accountability, reflexivity, and sustained commitment to community wellbeing. Researchers must report limitations honestly, share findings transparently, recognise local expertise, and negotiate knowledge ownership.

Justice-oriented research prioritises capacity building, fair recognition, economic transparency, and community control over data. It treats participants not as objects of study but as co-producers of knowledge.

Conclusion

Ubuntu and the San Code of Research Ethics remind us that research is a moral practice embedded in historical, cultural, and political contexts. Falsification undermines truth, damages trust, and perpetuates colonial patterns of extraction and inequality.

In African and Indigenous research contexts, rigour without reciprocity is unethical, and credibility without honesty is hollow. Responsible scholarship requires accountability not only to journals and universities but also to the communities whose knowledge makes research possible.

Only through truthfulness, justice, and reciprocity can research contribute to epistemic justice, social repair, and collective flourishing.