The complex marriage: interfacing open science and open indigenous knowledge

Studies on open science (OS) movement including open access and open indigenous knowledge make us believe that OS is fundamental for the growth of knowledge, scientific activity and for development. It fulfils international (e.g. UN), regional, national and sectoral aspirations and obligations which espouse social justice, equality and freedom of information. In a recent study (Ocholla, 2021a, b) based on analysis of Nelson Mandela’s book Long Walk to Freedom commemorating what would have been the late statesman’s 103rd birthday on the 18th of July 2021, it was acknowledged that access to information and knowledge is a fundamental human right and an essential component of social justice. Access to information and knowledge and indeed open science and open indigenous knowledge can be viewed from multiple perspectives. The first perspective refers to applied ethics with four ethical theories which include virtue, deontology, rights and pragmatism/utilitarianism. From this vantage point it is acknowledged that access to information and knowledge is a human right. It is recognised (see Ocholla, 2021a, b) that Deontology/duty, is linked to the Greek word “Deon”, meaning duty or obligation to others by protecting and caring for them, such as when we care for our families. This theory is typically associated with the scholarship of British philosopher John Locke and German philosopher Immanuel Kant, who, for instance, asserts that “our most fundamental duty is never to treat people merely as a means to an end but as an end in itself”, which is widely called the “categorical imperative”. Kistein (2019), in the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, discusses this paradigm in greater detail, where treating others to an end is fundamentally/morally wrong but quite prevalent in our society, even when some actions are well-intended.

However, duty goes together with rights. A right can be defined as the claim we have towards others not to harm nor kill us. This implies that the right I have, becomes the duty of others. In other words, right-based theory propounds that we have some rights merely by virtue of being humans. For example, our right to information and knowledge becomes the duty or obligation of others to provide, where open science is poised to play a critical role. We acknowledge that the right concept can also be quite controversial, as reflected in Waldron’s (1981) article “A Right to Do Wrong”. He argues that “it seems unavoidable that if we take the idea of moral rights seriously, then we have to countenance the possibility that an individual may have a moral right to do something that is from a moral point of view, wrong” (Waldron, 1981, p. 1). Waldron gives several examples where such an ethical dilemma occurs in how money is spent, for example on gambling, political manipulations of voters, sports, court proceedings, etc.

Secondly, information and knowledge access can be approached and analysed from international perspectives and interventions. Here we consider for example the Universal Declaration on Human Rights (UNDHR), which is famous for advocating for and promoting information and knowledge access. Alongside UNDHR, access to information/knowledge has featured strongly at the World Summit of Information Society (WSIS) ^[1] whose purpose was “addressing the issues raised by information and communication technologies (ICTs) through a structured and inclusive approach at national, regional and international levels”. Also, within this decade, in 2015, was the launch of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) ^[2] where access to knowledge is referred to among the 17 focus areas particularly SDG 4 and 10; to provide quality education (G4) and to reduce inequality (G 10). Most recently, the UNESCO (2021) recommendation on open science explores and reflects on the importance of access to knowledge for human development where open science is poised to play a pivotal role.

Third is the intervention and contribution to access to information and knowledge by governments/countries by including it in the constitution and other legal and policy frameworks such as Freedom Charter (Alliance, 1955) thereby recognising and acknowledging access to information and knowledge as a human right and an instrument for social justice. For example, we note a surge of open science (e.g. open access) and indigenous knowledge policies and legislations in countries and institutions globally and in Africa. Among them is the Protection, Promotion, Development and Management of Indigenous Knowledge Act, 2019 (No. 6 of 2019) of South Africa. Within its eight objectives, the most relevant to open indigenous knowledge focuses on: access and conditions of access to knowledge of indigenous communities; (b) promoting public awareness and understanding of indigenous knowledge for the wider application and development thereof; (f) providing for registration, cataloguing, documentation and recording of indigenous knowledge held by indigenous communities; (h) and it recognizes indigenous knowledge as prior art, under intellectual property laws. This legislation echoes IK education, documentation, protection and dissemination. Open Indigenous knowledge is not articulated but assumed (e.g. under dissemination and education).

Interventions are also prevalent and expressed in the rights to literacy, education, expression, association and other means that promote freedom, democracy, transparency, social justice and responsibility. Lastly, we note (e.g. from mainstream databases Scopus (e.g. Figures 1 and 2), GS, WoS-database analysis) a growing research and publications on open science whose components and enablers include open indigenous knowledge. Overwhelmingly, the studies consider access to information and knowledge to be an essential part of social justice. For example, Lor and Britz (2007, p. 1) question “whether an information society and, more critically, a knowledge society can develop in the absence of freedom of access to information, freedom of expression and freedom to access the digital economy” where open science would be a critical enabler of such freedom.

This is a conceptual paper that emerges from some traditional literature review and bibliometric analysis of Scopus (focusing on open science) and ebsco (focusing on Indigenous knowledge) ranging from 2010 to 2024 conducted to determine the magnitude of research on open science and open Indigenous knowledge. Experiential knowledge based on previous research by the author on IK was used in conjunction with the two approaches for holistic analysis and discourse.

This paper is divided into four parts: The introduction; conceptualization of Open Science; Conceptualization of IK; open Indigenous knowledge; integration of OIK and OS and conclusions. In the next section, we define open science.

The open science movement is popular, growing and expanding in scope by incorporating more and new knowledge domains that includes open Indigenous knowledge. We argue that open science and open Indigenous knowledge go hand in hand and therefore must be explored and developed together as a social justice for the benefit of the society. There are many definitions of open science with the most comprehensive one coming from UNESCO’s recent recommendations where 193 countries “committed to promoting an enabling policy environment, investing in infrastructure for open science and capacity building, as well as aligning incentives and promoting innovation and cooperation to foster open science”. At this meeting, UNESCO defined Open science “as an inclusive construct that combines various movements and practices aiming to make multilingual scientific knowledge openly available, accessible and reusable for everyone, to increase scientific collaborations and sharing of information for the benefits of science and society, and to open the processes of scientific knowledge creation, evaluation and communication to societal actors beyond the traditional scientific community” (UNESCO, 2021, p. 3). Put another way, “Open Science is the transparent and accessible knowledge that is shared and developed through collaborative networks” (Vicente-Suez and Martinez-Fuenter, 2018, p. 434). The two authors identify five clusters of open science definitions thus, open science as transparent knowledge, open science as accessible knowledge, open science as shared knowledge and open science as collaborative developed knowledge. Three of the clusters resonate with studies that acknowledge multiple approaches to OS, (e.g. Fecher and Friesike, 2014) which identify five schools: including the infrastructure school focusing on technological architecture; the public school focusing on accessibility of knowledge creation; the measurement school referring to alternative impact measurement; the democratic school focusing on access to knowledge and the pragmatic school focusing on collaborative research (Fecher and Friesike, 2014, p. 1). Unfortunately, the five clusters and the five schools cannot accommodate the rapid growth of OS therefore, additional clusters are required. UNESCO identify Open science components to consist of open access publication, open data, open-source software, open hardware, open evaluation, open science infrastructure, open education resources, openness to diversity of knowledge that includes openness to all scholarly knowledge and inquiry, as well as open indigenous knowledge systems, open engagement of social actors (see UNESCO, 2021). UNESCO open science toolkit supports the implementation of OS activities by providing a one-stop node for accessing current and new developments on OS ^[3]. Open science enablers are closely linked to OS components. It is enabled by knowledge access, sharing, collaboration and networks, transparency, usage, equality, repository, ethics, social justice, publication, evaluation and development.

The growth and expansion of OS is inviting interest, scrutiny, criticism, appreciation and challenges (Spellman et al., 2017; Allen and Mehler, 2019; Bornmann et al., 2021) in multiple ways. Thus, there are proponents, opponents and those in the middle of this movement both with genuine concerns that are widely discussed in related studies and discourse. Allen and Mehler (2019) for example, identify three challenges that include restrictions on flexibility (e.g. where the orthodox ways prevail), time and cost and incentives. Thus, rewarding OS activities is not growing rapidly and hindered by orthodoxy. For Bakas et al. (2023), the challenges relate to reproducibility of results, data sharing, transparency and replication. Many definitions of open science reflect its benefits (e.g. knowledge access, sharing, reproduction, replication, dissemination, publication, collaboration, evaluation, transparency) which increases faith in research. Admittedly, the growth of research and publications on open science is phenomenal (Blümel and Beng, 2018; Bakas et al., 2023; Ahmed et al., 2023). For example, a search on SCOPUS with “open Science” as the search term and ranging from 2010 to 2024 covering documents (articles, books, chapters in books and conference papers) written in English retrieved 5,376 records and their breakdown is represented in Figures 1 and 2.

Analysis of the records observed first that there is exponential growth of OS publications from 42 in 2010 to 1,041 in 2024 (average increase of 74.3 records per year). Second, OS research is led by the developed countries (e.g. USA, UK and Germany) with minimal contributions from Africa where South Africa (116) leads followed by Nigeria (28), Kenya (21) and Egypt (18). Third, publication occurs in multidisciplinary journals including a few LIS related topics such as Communication in Computer and Information Science (48) Scientometrics (34), Information Services and Use (30), Science and Technology Information Processing (9), Journal of Communication (8), Journal of Information Science (8) Journal of Medical Librarianship (6), Journal of Academic Librarianship (5) and Education for Information (5). Fourth, the subject scope is multidisciplinary, led by Computer Science (16.9%), Social Science (15.2%), Medicine (12.4%), Psychology (7%), while other remaining areas are largely shared between natural and applied sciences.

The keyword analysis conducted, using Vos Viewer software to identify core keywords in open science research, showed a co-occurrence for both author keywords and index keywords using full counting as a counting method. At least 27,031 keywords were identified, where 87 keywords meet the 80 times occurrence. The OS terms or keywords clusters confirm those reported by Bakas et al.’s (2023) study in which they identified five clusters frequented by open access, open data, data sharing, data management and research data followed by Health Sciences related keywords such as humans, female, male, adult, genetics. Followed by a third cluster referring to information dissemination, with keywords like publishing. After which cluster four focused on data science (e.g. machine learning, big data, artificial intelligence, bibliometrics and cloud computing. Lastly is the cluster that relates to the pandemic such as covid-19. It was observed that there is hardly any record referring to open indigenous knowledge in this representation and analysis.

Indigenous knowledge or traditional knowledge is widely misunderstood more particularly by its exclusive definitions. Indigenous Knowledge (IK) has attracted several definitions. For example, UNESCO refers it be the “understandings, skills and philosophies developed by societies with long histories of interaction with their natural surroundings” (UNESCO, 2017) ^[4]. For Stevens, “it provides the basis for local-level decision-making about many fundamental aspects of day-to-day life, for example, hunting, fishing, gathering, agriculture and husbandry, food production, water, health, and adaptation to environmental or social change. – is [transmitted] orally, from generation to generation, and is seldom documented” (Stevens, 2008, p. 26).

There are exclusive definitions of IK that tend to focus on environment, culture and particular communities that are native to physical spaces/geographical locations and keep most of their cultural traditions (e.g. native Americans, Aborigines, Masai, Khoi, etc.). For example, Stevenson (1996) links IK to Aboriginal people by claiming that a more appropriate term for the knowledge, experiences, wisdom and philosophies that aboriginal people can bring to bear on environmental assessment and management is “indigenous knowledge”. Eyssartier et al. (2008, np) point out that IK “is a cumulative body of knowledge, practice and belief evolving by adaptive processes and handed down to succeeding generations by cultural transmission about the relationship of living beings (including humans) with one another and with their environments”. Similarly, Kincheloe and Semali (1999) portray IK as “The dynamic way in which the residents of an area have come to understand themselves in relationship to their environment and how they organise the folk knowledge of flora and fauna, cultural beliefs and history to enhance their lives” (Kincheloe and Semali, 1999, p. 3). The International Labour Organisation (ILO, 2003) earlier defined IK as “knowledge that is held and used by a people who identify themselves as indigenous of a place, based on a combination of cultural distinctiveness and prior territorial occupancy, relative to a more recently arrived population with its own distinct and subsequently dominant culture”. This definition sheds light on who should be called indigenous. Would they be people that have lived longer in a geographical area? Or those who settle in the area after them. Summarily, it seems to this author that indigenous knowledge is traditional and often authentic knowledge handed down from generation to generation and thrives in every community on earth with different degrees and intensities of fusion (e.g. food preservation and preparation by unique or rare recipes, alternative medicine and ways of healing such us yoga, rituals, e.g. religious and traditional practices and performance and visual arts etc.).

Indigenous knowledge should be viewed as an emancipatory, transformative knowledge that is anchored by critical theory (Held, 1980), dependency theory (Ghosh, 2019), Afrikology epistemology (Nabudere, 2011) and Afrocentrism (Asante, 2007). The four theoretical perspectives comprise and echo emancipation, transformation, liberation, empowerment and social justice and are largely rooted in neo-Marxist radical paradigms, which constitute theoretical lenses for analysing indigenous knowledge education and decolonization. Critical Theory focus is a social inquiry aimed at “decreasing domination [such as imperialism and neo-colonialism] and increasing freedom in all their forms” – Transformation. Dependency theory’s major concern is “with the impact of imperialism and neo-colonialism on the economies and society of LDCs” (Ghosh, 2019: np) such as on education and culture. Nabudere considers that “Afrikology seeks to retrace the evolution of knowledge and wisdom from its source to the current epistemologies and tries to situate them in their historical and cultural contexts, especially with a view to establishing a new science for generating and accessing knowledge for sustainable use” (2011, p. 4). Afrocentricity is “a paradigmatic intellectual perspective that privileges African agency within the context of African history and cultural trans-continentally and trans-generationally” (Asante, 2007, p. 2).

Indigenous knowledge has been marginalized (Ocholla, 2007). Yet, as acknowledged in the definitions, it is important as a body of knowledge used to solve a myriad of challenges faced by humanity particularly those marginalized by geographical location or space (e.g. rural), economic deprivation and poverty, access to knowledge and education (illiteracy), social status and gender (women, children, poor, ordinary) orthodox culture and religion/spirituality. Marginalization has often been perpetuated or lead by stereotyping, stigmatizing, enigmatizing, un-recording/un documenting IK. This among other factors has delayed and deprived its development and integration with modern knowledge that thrives from documentation and wide dissemination, yet all communities rely on Indigenous knowledge or traditional knowledge to some extent, to solve problems that modern products and services cannot provide at all or in satisfactory ways. For example, Mawere (2015) emphasises the concept of “intangible heritage” within IK, which is expressed by authenticity, spirituality and symbolism. Citing Deacon, Chabata and Chiwaura he adds other social values, such as “language, oral traditions”, taboo, “rituals, music, dance, art, folklore, riddles, idioms, and cultural spaces” such as architecture (e.g. Egyptian pyramids) that significantly distinguishes IK or traditional knowledge from others. Most communities in the world connect to aspects in the cited definitions in different ways, whether from developed or developing countries or poor or wealthy families, rural or urban areas, illiterate or literate.

There is growing research on indigenous knowledge. For example, a search on Ebsco Host with a search term “indigenous knowledge” refined to 2010–2024, peer reviewed publications written in English recalled 9,420 (including 4,536 in full text OA) as is reflected in Table 1. The data shows the magnitude and diversity of research and publications in the domain. There was limited research linked to ICT applications, limited open science linked research and no direct open indigenous knowledge linked research. We note studies linked to higher education, awareness/IK dissemination, digitisation, communication, information sharing and decolonisation (Ocholla, 2021a, b) that speaks to OIKS.

Indigenous knowledge is attracting a growing interest for several reasons. First, it is widely popular as about 80% of the African population still refer to IK as the knowledge for solving a myriad of problems that modern knowledge cannot solve, particularly concerning traditional/herbal medicine for healing (Mosimege, 2005). Second, according to a World Bank report IK supports the livelihood of many people in the community. Thus, it “is embedded in community practices, institutions, relationships, and rituals. It is essentially tacit knowledge that is not easily codifiable” (World Bank, 1998, p. iv) “and is the basis for problem-solving strategies for local communities, especially the poor” (World Bank, 1998, p. iv) or marginalized. Third, IK education (Ocholla, 2021a) would demystify IK marginalisation (Ocholla, 2007) by developing it into a formidable part of knowledge, particularly knowledge management, for the development, application, and improvement of indigenous wisdom in our society. Fourth, the decolonization agenda cannot be complete – as addressed by eminent African scholars and statesmen, such as Paulin J. Hountondji, Ali Mazrui, Ngugi wa Thiong’o, Julius Nyerere, Leopold Senghor, Odera Oruka, Chinua Achebe and Kwesi Kwaa Prah among many others-without IK education. Fifth, open science without open indigenous knowledge is incomplete. Thus, IK must benefit from the fruits of open science for the wider public good.

There does not seem to have been much work done to establish the status and link between open science and open indigenous knowledge. We discuss open indigenous knowledge in the next section.

Access to knowledge of all types and forms without any discrimination should become a norm in our society. My searches in this domain from SCOPUS and Ebsco Host databases during last 2 decades does not find any valuable study except for a pioneering report (UNESCO, 2021) and studies (Ngulube, 2023; Olivier, 2021) which mention it in passing. There does not seem to be an agreed definition of open Indigenous knowledge. UNESCO (2021) cluster it as marginalised peoples within open dialogue with other knowledge systems which includes marginalised scholars and local communities along with open science knowledge, open engagement with societal actors and open infrastructure. In that cluster (open dialogue with other knowledge systems), UNESCO (2021) refers to “the dialogue between different knowledge holders, that recognizes the richness of diverse knowledge systems and epistemologies and diversity of knowledge producers in line with the 2001 UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity”. While promoting diverse epistemologies, and axiologies among the marginalized communities, “in particular, building the links with indigenous knowledge systems needs to be done in line with the 2007 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and principles for Indigenous Data Governance, such as, for example, the CARE (Collective Benefit, Authority to Control, Responsibility and Ethics) data principles. Such efforts acknowledge the rights of Indigenous peoples and local communities to govern and make decisions on the custodianship, ownership, and administration of data on traditional knowledge and on their lands and resources” (UNESCO, 2021, p. 15).

We view open Indigenous knowledge to be accessible, sharable, transparent, collaborative and ethically developed knowledge for the benefit of the society. Open indigenous knowledge systems should be viewed as part of open science to develop and rip OA benefits fully as proposed by this author in Figure 3.

Thus, OIKS components would include open access, open indigenous knowledge data, open indigenous knowledge education resources, open IK source software, open indigenous infrastructure etc. The transition of indigenous knowledge to open indigenous knowledge requires its documentation and dissemination (Buthelezi et al., 2024; Ngulube, 2023); digitisation and ICT application (Dlamini and Ocholla, 2018); preservation (Zimu-Biyela, 2016) including those in the museums (e.g. visual arts) where they would also be digitised; policy/legislation (SA, IKS Act, 2019) whose development requires initiative and planning (Mosimege, 2007) and ethical handling within the framework of Open Science Values and Principles (see UNESCO, 2021, p. 19). The most recent study (Buthelezi et al., 2024) noted growing engagement and interest of academic staff and particular departments with IK; confirmed IK as multidisciplinary; highlighted IK challenges that included IK sharing, infrastructure, development of IK policy within institutions in addition to the implementation of national IK legislation where it exists (e.g. South Africa, Kenya etc) and collaboration, networking and partnership all of which resonate with the OIK movement.

There is more convergence than divergence between open science and open indigenous knowledge even though the links and their intensity are not readily known. We can analyse such possible links in at least two ways. The first link refers to the manifestation of open science and open indigenous knowledge. I use open science keywords from Scopus and definitions to determine the links as represented in Table 2.

In the second instance, we can use the OS components to ascertain the convergence and divergence of open science and open indigenous knowledge as reflected in Table 3.

The table shows that open science enablers can also apply to open indigenous knowledge system enablers, but the interfacing is likely to be challenging. While I have high hopes on linkages others would doubt(?) or totally disagree(X). Nonetheless more voices for yes are likely to occur in the future than now.

The interfacing of open science and open indigenous knowledge has both challenges and opportunities. Although the open science movement is growing rapidly, it has not been widely embraced and used by its potential beneficiaries because of several inhibiting factors such as: lack of understanding, infrastructure, willingness to share, legal and ethical issues, awareness, capacity building, business concerns, flexibility and manageability (e.g. moving too fast). The major challenge to indigenous knowledge lies in its marginalisation (Ocholla, 2007) due to its characteristics (e.g. intangible/unrecorded) and negative stereotypes (e.g. backwardness, stigma and enigma). Open indigenous knowledge is just emerging from its mother IK and therefore it is fragile and likely to be confronted with the challenges of its origination more intensively. It is also likely to reap the benefits of both the indigenous knowledge and open science (e.g. Mhlongo, 2021; Mhlongo and Ngulube, 2020; Asomoah and Ngulube, 2023), which are widely discussed in related studies some of which have been cited in this paper. For example, the characteristics and enablers represented in Tables 2 and 3 are not uniformly understood, embraced, accepted and applied by their target audience due to inequality in the society. The situation is likely to be even worse for the underdeveloped indigenous knowledge where open indigenous knowledge would be even more problematic largely because of ethical and legal concerns. For example, Flor (2013, p. 1), referring to the interfacing of open educational resources (OER) and OIK in the Philippines, identifies inhibiting factors related to OIK such as “honouring indigenous belief systems; respecting the privacy of indigenous peoples; dealing with indigenous knowledge system (IKS) protocols; the significance of context in IKS; mainstream prejudice and value judgments among non-indigenous people users; and the misrepresentation of indigenous knowledge” which are products of marginalization and stereotyping earlier referred to. A growing attention seem to be given to ethical issues in the domain (see Table 1 with 131 records referring to ethics). This author has not found a study referring to OIK ethics but believe that Open Science Values and Principles (UNESCO, 2021, p. 19) can accommodate some of the concerns. More studies specifically referring to ethics in this field are expected to occur soon.

There are opportunities as well. First, IK development is becoming a priority in countries that recognise and acknowledge its value for national development and are currently addressing it within the IK marginalization with emphasis on decolonisation, development and legislative frameworks (e.g. South Africa and Kenya IK legislation) where they exist. Admittedly, some of the protocols for developing and regulating modern/exotic/recorded knowledge, such as intellectual property rights, licencing, could apply to indigenous knowledge for it to grow and thrive legally and ethically. Thus, there are protocols defining what knowledge should be available in the public domain fully and partially (with restrictions) in accordance with law and ethics. The Open Science movement operates within such frameworks. Second, open indigenous knowledge is poised to reap the benefits of IK and OS (see Tables 2 and 3) despite slow acceptability and understanding by its audience and beneficiaries due to inequality in the society. Third, there is growing international (e.g. UNESCO, 2021) and regional/Africa (See Masenya, 2022) interest, initiatives and support for Indigenous Knowledge that would benefit the field. Fourth, the multidisciplinary nature in the domain (see Table 1) provides opportunities for collaboration and further development of the domain. Fifth, there is a growing recognition of the benefits of Indigenous knowledge from multiple perspectives (e.g. cultural, economic, health, agricultural, educational) with proven tangible benefits (e.g. healing, business (e.g. IK artifacts) and tourism). Sixth, Indigenous knowledge is increasingly playing a critical role in the decolonisation agenda largely for countries and communities whose indigenous or traditional knowledge is marginalised due to over-dependency on western knowledge systems. Seven, documentation (including its digitization) of indigenous knowledge is increasing (see Table 1). Lastly, while most of the OIK components or enablers represented and proposed in Figure 3 may be non-existent or underdeveloped at this stage, it is already thriving in some of them, for example, open access IK which are reflected in mainstream databases (IK OA publications) and search engines (e.g. Google). Arguably, most of the protocols for developing and regulating modern/exotic/western/recorded knowledge could apply to indigenous knowledge for it to grow and thrive (e.g. what to reveal or conceal.). Libraries are poised (as they are already doing with OS and IK collection and services) to play a key role in the development of the domain as part of their readiness to the fourth industrial revolution (Ocholla and Ocholla, 2020) and decolonization agenda (Ocholla, 2020).

This article recognises the fundamental pillars of access to knowledge within applied ethics and international (e.g. UNDHR, SDG) and national frameworks (e.g. IK policies and legislations). It underscores the value of understanding indigenous knowledge and open science so that they can be applied appropriately and correctly when dealing with open indigenous knowledge that depends on their understanding and development to thrive. The growth of research on OS and IK is recognised through the limited bibliometric analysis in the paper. It is acknowledged, by analysis of both SCOPUS and EBSCSCO databases, that there are hardly any studies on open indigenous knowledge, and this refers to studies/case studies in the domain which is cumbersome for now. We note the possibility of interfacing OS and OIK despite the limitations and suggest areas of attention in Tables 2 and 3 worth further exploration. The domain is likely to benefit more from the IK and OS challenges and opportunities to find its rightful place in OS movement in the future. Library and Information science education and research should be part of this growth. Future work for the development of open indigenous knowledge will be informed by open indigenous components or enablers represented in figure three. The role of libraries, LIS schools (e.g. Ocholla, 2021a) and higher education institutions in the area should be a focus of future studies. Despite its limitations, a broader, deeper and better understanding of open indigenous knowledge for research and development is expected to originate from this paper which sets agenda for the future.

The author acknowledges both the NRF (through the NRF rated researchers programme) and the University of Zululand for funding the travel to the 23rd Information Studies Annual Conference in Richards Bay, South Africa in September 2024 where he was a Guest Speaker to share his thoughts on open indigenous knowledge based on his research and publications on Indigenous Knowledge.