Why are Epistemic Reasons Normative?

Normativism is the (controversial) view that epistemic reasons for belief are really, genuinely normative. Normativists might wonder - and anti-normativists might press the question - why, or in virtue of what, are epistemic reasons normative? Borrowing Korsgaard's metaphor, what's the "source" of their normativity? Here I argue that this question is both highly interesting and subtly distinct from other common questions in the literature. I also propose an initial taxonomy of stance-dependent and stance-independent answers, and I advocate a novel, hybrid type of view as ultimately most promising for (mostly) vindicating normativism.