Social scientists studying prisons and punishment are increasingly calling things bad instead of explaining why they happen. That is the argument of a long essay by sociologist Ashley T. Rubin, who says normative judgment is quietly taking the place of theory.
The paper, “Normativity is not a replacement for theory”, was published online in Theory and Society on July 1, 2025, and appears in the journal’s October 2025 issue.
What counts as theory
Rubin defines “normative” as letting one’s norms, morals or political preferences hold sway regardless of the empirical reality. Theory, in her definition, must explain rather than describe, and must apply beyond a single case.
She argues that normativity once mainly shaped which topics scholars chose. Now, she writes, it shapes methods, research partnerships, writing style, citation practices and peer review.
Using interdisciplinary punishment studies as her case, she makes two claims. Normativity is replacing theory, because scholars sometimes mistake moral pronouncements for explanation. And it is overtaking theory, because making those pronouncements has become more important than building or testing generalizable explanations.
Two logics of research
At the heart of the paper is a contrast between two ways of doing research. Under a science logic, the goal is understanding; researchers let the question guide the work, weigh counterarguments and compare a case with similar but different cases.
Under an activist logic, the goal is exposing injustice. Social change goals guide the research, findings that cut against the argument tend to be left out, and a case serves as an example of generalized “badness”.
Rubin argues that when the answer to why something happened is simply racism, colonialism or another form of oppression, readers learn that a policy should be condemned, but not the mechanisms behind it or the conditions under which it varies. That, she writes, is a description, not an explanation.
She stresses that pressure toward activist framing does not come only from authors. Reviewers and editors, she argues, increasingly ask scholars to do more to advance activist causes.
Why she thinks it matters
Rubin does not claim every study must produce theory, and she notes that some research with normative undertones still theorizes well. Her concern is the overall shift.
Academics claim authority, she argues, because they collect and analyse data systematically to explain the world. If scholars abandon that, they give up one of the main grounds on which voters and policymakers might trust their research.
In earlier work with Alena Shalaby, Rubin argued that theory on penal change has stagnated. This essay names one reason she sees behind that stagnation.
Study Details:
- Title: Normativity is not a replacement for theory
- Authors: Ashley T. Rubin
- Journal: Theory and Society
- Publication Date: July 1, 2025
- DOI: 10.1007/s11186-025-09633-3