This article examines the categories of orthodoxy and heterodoxy in academic research, particularly in economics and cultural policy studies. It challenges the common practice of using these terms without unpacking their inherent political assumptions. The hypothesis is that belonging to either orthodoxy or heterodoxy is explained more by actors' interpretations of their position and the relationships they cultivate within the field than by the content of their academic work. A case study of the "creative industries turn" debate in cultural policy (2000 onwards), involving 11 authors, uses discourse analysis of over 3000 pages of academic work and citation analysis to explore this. The study finds that self-proclaimed heterodox authors portray themselves as marginalized, while orthodox authors view their work as objective and pragmatic. Citation analysis reveals a clear segregation between orthodox and heterodox positions, along with variations in the relationship structure between the two.

Mehdi Arfaouil