Credit Where It’s Due? Rethinking How We Name Co-Creation
I was structuring a credit list for a filmed version of a production I was producing, and it made me think about how we credit people in co-created work. Who gets named? Who gets paid? Who gets platformed, and who quietly disappears into the background once the work is out in the world?
These aren’t admin tasks to sort at the end. They’re reflective of the values that shaped the process, and often the moment where our commitment to those values is most clearly tested. When credit is handled carelessly or left to default hierarchies, it can cause harm, undermine relationships, and replicate systems we claimed we were challenging.
This blog is a reflection on crediting in co-creation. Why it matters. Why it’s messy. And why it’s often the point where ego, power, autonomy and ethics collide.
Ego: The Unspoken Guest at the Table
Even in the most values-led co-creation process, ego is present. And that’s not a bad thing. Artists, producers, participants - everyone brings their full selves to the room. We all want to feel our contribution mattered. Credit becomes a way to validate that.
But problems creep in when ego takes the wheel. When naming becomes about status rather than substance. When someone feels slighted because they weren’t mentioned first. When job titles are tweaked post-project to sound more impressive. These are often emotional responses -but they point to something real: recognition is a form of care, and absence from the record can feel like erasure.
Ego doesn’t need to be the enemy in co-creation, but it does need to be in the room, named and held to account.
Power: Who Gets to Decide?
Co-creation is often framed as a flattening of hierarchies, but who actually decides how people are credited?
In many projects, power still sits with commissioners, lead artists or funders. Even in collective processes, the person managing the budget or writing the funding report often shapes the credit list. Sometimes it’s unconscious. Sometimes it’s strategic. Sometimes it’s just about who’s loudest when the conversation happens.
The hierarchy of credit -lead artist, co-collaborator, supported by, featuring -is rarely neutral. It encodes status. It can affect someone’s future work, pay and visibility. And when we uphold those structures uncritically, we risk turning co-creation into tokenism. A place where people are involved, but not truly owning the outcome.
If co-creation is about shared power, then crediting is one of the last tests of how seriously we mean it.
What If We Just Said: “Co-Created by”?
So here’s the real question: if we’re serious about shared authorship, why don’t we just say “Co-created by” and list everyone equally?
Why the endless negotiation about job titles, chronological naming, lead billing, associate roles and “in association with…”? Why the embedded hierarchies in language and position?
The truth is: the sector still rewards individual authorship. We’re conditioned to believe visibility equals value. But that creates tension in co-creation, because while the process might be collaborative, the output is still being filtered through systems built on prestige, ownership and marketability.
It doesn’t have to be this way.
If we say the work was co-created, the credits should reflect that, not just in content but in structure.
We could list names alphabetically. We could use collective naming practices. We could give everyone agency in how they’re listed -or not listed. But doing this means letting go of assumptions about status, visibility and professional worth.
It requires cultural change, not just individual preference.
Autonomy: Ask, Don’t Assume
One person might want top billing. Another might not want to be named at all. Some people -especially those from marginalised or community backgrounds -may have complex relationships with public visibility. For some, crediting can even carry risk.
So the answer isn’t one-size-fits-all.
Autonomy in co-creation means letting people decide how they’re connected to the work, not just in how they create, but how they’re seen. That means asking, not assuming. It means documenting consent not just for participation, but for attribution, archiving and comms. It means being prepared for a range of preferences, and building in the flexibility to honour them.
Autonomy in co-creation means allowing people to shape not just the work, but their relationship to it.
Ethics: Credit as Accountability
Crediting is more than naming. It’s about recognising labour. It’s about acknowledging who took risks, who held weight, who shaped the outcome.
Too often, credit is treated as symbolic. But in co-creation, it’s ethical. It’s one way of ensuring people are seen, valued and remembered. It’s also a way of keeping ourselves accountable: did we name the people who challenged us? Who shaped the direction? Who opened the door for others?
It also intersects with money. Credit often links to invoices, royalties, future bookings. So ethical crediting isn’t just about who’s on the poster -it’s also about who’s on the payroll.
Crediting isn't just about names on a page. It's a mirror of how we’ve valued people’s time, voice and presence.
Final Thought: What Story Do Your Credits Tell?
When someone looks at your project credits, what story do they tell?
Do they reinforce hierarchies? Do they centre a single voice, even when the process was collective? Do they name the people who shaped the work from the inside -not just the ones who brought it to market?
If we’re serious about equity, inclusion and collaboration, we need to get serious about how we credit. Not just because it’s nice to do -but because it’s one of the clearest indicators of what we actually believe.
Let’s treat crediting not as a task at the end, but as a creative, ethical and relational act. One that can either reinforce inequality or model a better way of working.
