This article examines the role of normativity in sociological explanation by addressing the conflict between “explanatory norms” and “ultimate evaluations” in development studies in Iran. Its point of departure is a critique of the rigid separation between “explanation” and “evaluation,” and the premise that every explanatory framework entails not only epistemological and methodological assumptions but also normative ones. Drawing on historical-comparative analysis and documentary analysis, and focusing on three historical periods from the Constitutional Revolution to the Islamic Republic, the study examines how these two levels of normativity have emerged and come into conflict within development discourses and policies in Iran. The findings indicate that some explanatory and policy impasses stem not merely from tensions between development models and Iran’s structural conditions, but also from the lack of transparency surrounding the normative assumptions underlying both sides of this conflict. In some cases, the internal norms of development theories have been presented as neutral facts, while local evaluations have been reduced to prescriptive claims rather than being incorporated into explanations of social reality. Against this background, the article proposes “normative reflexivity” as an approach for making visible, comparing, and critically examining these two levels of normativity.