CRediT-ing Technical contributions to research at the University of Sheffield

This presentation describes research conducted at the University of Sheffield to understand the institutional and socio-cultural barriers that remain to fairer attribution practices, particularly with regard to formally recognising the contributions to research and research outputs of Technicians and Research Technical Professionals. Following two co-production workshops held with Technicians in 2025, which explored and tested the utility of the Contributor Role Taxonomy (CRediT) to capture and fornally recognise Technical contributions to research, 7 Technical staff and 14 academic staff were interviewed in April/May 2026 to understand: their experiences of working with different types of contributors on research projects and outputs; their experiences of formal acknowledgement of research contributors/ contributions in research outputs, and how this was approached; their familiarity with CRediT and its perceived utility in their disciplinary context; contributions to research that regularly go unrecognised; disciplinary, cultural, or structural factors that might make broader adoption of fairer attribution practices challenging; what better practice might look like at the University of Sheffield and what would help bring it about. Preliminary analysis of the interview transcripts suggests that while the University of Sheffield has good strategic alignment on CRediT, awareness and practice varies on the ground. Recognition varies across Schools and is dependent on senior leaders, and conversations about authorship, contributorship, and acknowledgement occur late in the process of writing up research activities, at which point Technical contributions, if not recorded in a timely way, have been forgotten. We found that Technical and academic staff broadly agree on the definition of an 'intellectual contribution' to research; however, academics diverge (both from Technicians and from each other) when discussing whether those contributions warrant authorship on a paper. We also found that while the current 14 roles of the Contributor Role Taxonomy are broadly not suitable for Arts and Humanities subjects, there was an appetite among the Arts and Humanities scholars interviewed for conversations about authorship and contributorship, with many concerned about power imbalances entrenched in habitual/normaltive authorship conventions. In turn, models of distributed and collaborative creation where there is no 'author' per se, such as those in Non-Traditional Research Outputs/ Diverse Output Types generated by Arts and Humanities subjects, are useful examples for engagement activities around authorship and contributorship with scholars in STEM subjects. As research becomes more interdisciplinary, international, adnd collaborative, CRediT can offer clarity for research collaborators and provide a jumping-pff point for conversations around authorship, contributorship, recognition, and attribution. This presentation formed one segment of a webinar hosted by Research Consulting Ltd, 'Recognising and rewarding diverse contributions to research: using CRediT to enhance transparency and trust' on 19 June 2026, that explored how greater transparency around contributor roles can advance research integrity, improve quality and recognise the full breadth of work undertaken by research performing organisations. Using the CRediT taxonomy as a case study, the panellists examined the rationale and the ethical and practical issues that may emerge when contributor roles are used in institutional, publishing and funder contexts. The panellists also included: Liz Allen (Co-Chair, CRediT project), who talked about the origins, rationale and potential future of CRediT; Mohammad Hosseini (Assistant Professor, Northwestern University), who explored the ethics of using CRediT and the challenges of responsible attribution in team science; and Sandra Bendiscioli (Senior Policy Officer, EMBO), who discussed how contributor roles might support more transparent and nuanced recognition in funding contexts.