Between Description and Evaluation: How Sociologists Do Normativity

Sebastián Raza & Galen Watts

The American Sociologist2025https://doi.org/10.1007/s12108-025-09650-warticle
ABDC B
Weight
0.41

What the paper says

Abstract We argue that the philosophical distinction between the “good” and the “right” is helpful in discerning the plurality of normative stakes in sociological accounts. Our argument stands in contrast to other approaches to the question of normativity in sociology on several grounds. Primarily, we locate the normative content of sociological accounts in their actual explanatory, descriptive, or interpretative empirical models, rather than in their deep theoretical cores. We contend that sociologists inevitably engage in normativity, even when employing empirical constructs that appear unanchored from robust theoretical commitments. Furthermore, we propose that appeals to the good life and justice cut across different types of sociological accounts. Surveying a number of celebrated theoretical and empirical studies, drawn from a variety of sociological subfields, we bring to light how these normative modalities take shape in routine applications and discussions of three sociological concepts: (1) agency , (2) structures , and (3) processes .

2 citations

Open paper page →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s12108-025-09650-w

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{sebastián2025,
  title        = {{Between Description and Evaluation: How Sociologists Do Normativity}},
  author       = {Sebastián Raza & Galen Watts},
  journal      = {The American Sociologist},
  year         = {2025},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s12108-025-09650-w},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

Between Description and Evaluation: How Sociologists Do Normativity

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.


Evidence weight

0.41

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.25 × 0.4 = 0.10
M · momentum0.55 × 0.15 = 0.08
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.