To the limited extent that sociologists have considered non-academics’ trust in sociologists, legitimacy has become entwined with the idea of a value-free, ‘objective’ sociology. However, broader philosophical/sociological work suggests that credibility signals are more complex, with, for example, non-partisanship being separate to epistemic responsibility. In this article, I explore the nature of ‘credibility work’ in practice via interviews with 15 prominent English sociologists, making three contributions. First, I find that some sociologists deliberately pursue credibility, a phenomenon largely ignored in previous research. They do this primarily by ‘performing’ non-partisanship or epistemic responsibility within interactions. Second, this credibility work does not require the pursuit of ‘objectivity’; sociologists can signal epistemic responsibility despite partisanship, or pursue ‘dispassionate advocacy’. Third, the extent and nature of credibility work varies by context; indeed some sociologists benefit from partisanship, while others feel no need for credibility work. I conclude by stressing the need for further research.

在有限的程度上，社会学家考虑了非学术界对社会学家的信任，合法性已经与无价值，“客观”社会学的思想交织在一起。但是，更广泛的哲学/社会学研究表明，可信度信号更为复杂，例如，无党派关系与认知责任是分开的。在本文中，我将通过采访15位杰出的英国社会学家来探讨实践中“信誉工作”的本质，并做出了三点贡献。首先，我发现一些社会学家刻意追求信誉，这一现象在以前的研究中被大大忽略了。他们主要是通过在互动中“执行”无党派或认知责任来做到这一点。第二，这项信誉工作不需要追求“客观性”。尽管有党派关系，社会学家仍可以发出对认知责任的信号，或者追求“冷静的倡导”。第三，信誉工作的范围和性质因情况而异。确实，有些社会学家受益于党派关系，而另一些社会学家则认为不需要进行信誉工作。最后，我强调需要进一步研究。