Skip to main content
v2026.1714 entries · CC-BY 4.0

Discipline guide · Qualitative research

Contributor roles in qualitative research

Contributor roles for ethnographic, interview, focus-group and document-analysis research. The CRediT taxonomy needs careful re-reading in this context; it works, but the role definitions don’t self-translate.

Why this discipline needs its own guide

Background

CRediT’s 14 roles were shaped by biomedical and physical-sciences contribution patterns. Applied directly to qualitative research, several role labels mislead. Investigation is not laboratory work; Data Curation is not database management; Formal Analysis is rarely statistical. The taxonomy still applies, but the discipline needs to translate the role definitions into its own conventions before assignment.

Major journals across health-services research, sociology, anthropology and education — Qualitative Health Research, BMJ Open, Sociology, the journals in the Sage Open-Access portfolio — accept CRediT. The 2026 Scientometrics paper Beyond authorship documents how the role distribution in qualitative work differs sharply from biomedical patterns; this is not a problem with the data, it reflects the discipline.

Key considerations

How to assign the roles

  • Investigation in qualitative work covers fieldwork: conducting interviews, running focus groups, ethnographic observation, document collection. Name each fieldworker.
  • Data Curation covers transcription, anonymisation, coding-frame development and codebook maintenance. This is substantial work and deserves explicit recognition.
  • Formal Analysis covers thematic analysis, framework analysis, grounded-theory coding, narrative analysis or discourse analysis. The analytical approach belongs in the Methods section; the CRediT role records who did the analysis.
  • Methodology often involves the choice of theoretical framework as well as the practical procedure. Both belong under Methodology.
  • Reflexivity statements and positionality declarations supplement the CRediT statement; they are not a substitute for it.
  • Sole-author and two-author qualitative papers are common. A perfunctory CRediT statement (“All roles: author”) is acceptable for genuinely sole-author work but should be the exception, not the default.

Worked example

A representative CRediT statement

Paste-ready Author Contributions paragraph
text
Author Contributions (CRediT)

R. Olson: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation (interviews), Formal analysis, Writing – original draft.
M. Diallo: Investigation (focus groups), Data curation, Formal analysis.
K. Saito: Methodology (framework), Validation, Writing – review & editing.
J. Reyes: Conceptualization, Supervision, Funding acquisition.

The role names above match the canonical wording at casrai.org/credit. Most publishers accept exactly this format.

Further reading

Discipline-specific sources

Adopted by research universities worldwide

University of Cambridge logoColumbia University logoUniversity of Edinburgh logoHarvard University logoMassachusetts Institute of Technology logoUniversity of Oxford logoPrinceton University logoStanford School of Medicine logoUniversity College London logoUniversity of Cambridge logoColumbia University logoUniversity of Edinburgh logoHarvard University logoMassachusetts Institute of Technology logoUniversity of Oxford logoPrinceton University logoStanford School of Medicine logoUniversity College London logo
  • University of Cambridge logo
  • Columbia University logo
  • University of Edinburgh logo
  • Harvard University logo
  • Massachusetts Institute of Technology logo
  • University of Oxford logo
  • Princeton University logo
  • Stanford School of Medicine logo
  • University College London logo

View CASRAI adoption →