A relational approach to heterodox versus orthodox positions in contemporary cultural policy debates

This article questions the possibility to simultaneously generalize and systematize the use of "orthodoxy" and "heterodoxy" as analytical categories when studying fields of research or discursive formation. On the one hand, describing the structure of an academic controversy—namely the "creative industries turn" of cultural policy debate, it aims to test the relevance of the orthodox versus heterodox categorization to describe academic debates in general. On the other hand, the article seeks to investigate what makes it possible to more systematically define a scientific positioning as orthodox or heterodox. The categorization of "orthodoxy" versus "heterodoxy" has become a common way to describe networks of researchers and theories in the field of economics, but its relevance extends beyond economics to other fields such as sociology, political science, organizational management, medical practice, heritage studies, and religion. This categorization generally contains implicit political assumptions and often implies dominant versus dominated positions and conformist versus nonconformist approaches to mainstream policy; as such, it is difficult to objectively delineate orthodox versus heterodox positions. It can also obscure the multiplicity of institutions that determine inclusion and the circulation of actors and ideas between heterodoxy and orthodoxy. To avoid these pitfalls, this article does not define orthodox versus heterodox positions based on researchers’ theories alone. Instead, it addresses how positions are constructed and made visible in practice by examining authors’ subjective interpretations of their own position and by modeling intercitation links among them. Cultural policy studies are treated as a discursive formation bringing together multiple disciplines, making it a suitable case for a relational analysis. The study focuses on the "creative industries turn" in cultural policy, a contested shift associated with policy reforms (notably in Great Britain and Australia) that reframed culture around creative industries and the creative economy. The debate pits scholars supportive of these reforms against those who criticize them as a neoliberal turn, with implications for inequalities, recognition of diverse cultural practices, and the role of the state. The article presents the sample and methodology, then results showing subjective self-positioning and objective intercitation structures, and concludes on the analytical possibilities of a relational approach to orthodoxy and heterodoxy.

The article situates the orthodoxy/heterodoxy distinction within a broad literature across disciplines, highlighting its frequent but undertheorized use to signal dominance, conformity, and political valence in research fields. Drawing on Bourdieu and others, it notes that the binary can apply to many symbolic production fields, including sociology, political science, management, medicine, and heritage studies. Prior work often relies on verbal or statistical descriptions of paradigmatic structures; relatively few studies empirically test whether fields follow an "orthodox core–heterodox periphery" pattern. The paper builds on calls (e.g., Glötzl and Aigner, 2018) to empirically investigate such structures via relationships and interactions (citations, discourse) rather than solely theoretical content. In cultural policy, longstanding dichotomies (cultivated/high-brow vs mass/industrial culture) gave way from the 1980s to new frameworks emphasizing creativity, innovation, and the creative economy, influenced by policy shifts (e.g., UK Labour governments) and international diffusion (e.g., Europe, South America, Southeast Asia). This "creative industries turn" spurred extensive scholarship and debate, dominated by pro–creative industries work yet strongly contested by critical scholars who foreground inequalities and advocate recognition of plural practices. The article takes this debate as a locus to examine how orthodoxy and heterodoxy are constructed and perceived, and how disciplinary anchorage and policy engagement shape positions and visibility.

The study conducts a systematic relational analysis of a targeted sample at the core of the English-language debate on the "creative industries turn" of cultural policy. Sample construction: - Starting point: two European Commission–commissioned KEA reports (2006, 2009) emblematic of reconceptualizing European cultural policy around economy/creative industries. - Bibliographic expansion via academic search engines (notably Google Scholar) to identify second-level references; iterative refinement to a balanced set judged central to the dispute through activity and citation visibility. - Inclusion criteria: English-language academics (often with practitioner/consulting experience) who are active in or frequently cited within the debate; exclusion of profiles without any academic position. - Final sample: 11 English-speaking researchers (US, UK, AUS) across disciplines, divided into an orthodox cluster (Caves, Cunningham, Florida, Howkins, Throsby) and a heterodox cluster (Hesmondhalgh, Garnham, McGuigan, Oakley, Pratt, Schlesinger). Corpus and tools: - 32 books/chapters/articles by these 11 authors related to the creative industries turn (see Appendix in the paper). - Qualitative coding with ATLAS.ti to extract passages where actors articulate their subjective position in the field (self-descriptions and descriptions of others). Intercitation network modeling: - Identification of all mutual citations among the 11 authors across the corpus, yielding 183 intercitation instances. - Each citation manually classified by reason, mapped to an attraction intensity used in Gephi (network analysis/visualization): • Criticizes (A critical B): Low attraction, intensity 1. • Neutral citation (A quotes B): Neutral attraction, intensity 10. • Supports (A supports B): High attraction, intensity 30. - When multiple citations exist from A to B with differing valences, the most "extreme" value (1 or 30) overrides neutral citations for the A→B link. The author reports no cases where an author both criticizes and supports the same target within the sample. - Visualization emphasizes polarization, intra-cluster support, and inter-cluster criticism/repulsion, complemented by descriptive statistics (e.g., citation counts, h-indices from Google Scholar, Scopus, Microsoft Academic, Web of Science, collected June 2018).

- Subjective positioning dichotomy: • Heterodox authors portray orthodox positions as aligned with or accommodating a dominant neoliberal ideology; they self-identify as marginalized/resistant, emphasizing politics and critique (e.g., McGuigan 2005/2016; Hesmondhalgh 2008; Schlesinger 2016). • Orthodox authors view their stance as pragmatic, non-political, and objective, and characterize heterodox work as politicized/militant and unhelpful for policy formulation (e.g., Cunningham 2008/2009; Florida 2002). - Objective intercitation structure (183 links among 11 authors): • Clear polarization into two clusters with differing internal structures. • Heterodox cluster: high density of reciprocal supportive citations (intensity 30) among members; references to orthodox authors are frequent and often critical, making orthodoxy a mandatory citation point for heterodoxy (core–periphery pattern). • Orthodox cluster: less frequent and less reciprocal supportive citations; presence of distinct roles: - "Great passive" authors (e.g., Richard Florida, Richard E. Caves): heavily cited and criticized but rarely cite peers and do not respond to heterodox critiques; unilateral/passive relation to the field. Florida and Caves’ flagship books (Florida 2002; Caves 2000) anchor many references, including policy/grey literature (e.g., Florida cited 21 times in KEA 2009; 11 times in UNCTAD 2008; Caves cited 9 times in UNCTAD 2008). - "Small active" author (e.g., Stuart Cunningham): actively supports orthodox peers and responds with critiques of heterodox authors; comparatively lower citation metrics/h-index than great passive authors and engages to build visibility. • Such roles are not observed on the heterodox side, where unilateral/passive relations are absent and reciprocal intercitation is common. - Disciplinary anchorage correlates with cluster membership: • Heterodox authors are predominantly anchored in cultural sub-disciplines (cultural policy, media/culture studies, cultural economy), whose institutional logics depend on maintaining "culture" as a specific field. • Orthodox authors are predominantly from generalist disciplines (economics, management, business, media/communications) without explicit “culture” in titles, aligning with despecialization and adaptation to innovation/creative economy frames. • Notable exceptions nuance the pattern: David Throsby (orthodox, but specialized in cultural economics) maintains more neutral/less polarizing links with heterodox authors; Nicholas Garnham (heterodox, media studies) claims a Marxian framework aligning him with heterodoxy despite discipline label. Overall, the network evidences a core–periphery dynamic, heterogeneous strategies within orthodoxy (silent dominance vs active engagement), and collective reciprocity within heterodoxy.

The paper argues for a relational approach to the orthodox–heterodox binary, moving beyond purely conceptual definitions toward empirically observable practices and interactions (citations, discourse, positioning). The findings extend results from economics to cultural policy research, showing a core–periphery pattern wherein orthodox work functions as a mandatory reference point and heterodox authors occupy a periphery with strong intra-group reciprocity. Importantly, orthodoxy is heterogeneous: high-visibility figures may remain silent and passively dominant, while less prominent orthodox authors engage actively to build visibility. This approach illuminates not only opposition but also potential continuities and circulations between orthodoxy and heterodoxy over time, as elements of heterodox theory can be appropriated into orthodoxy and vice versa. It foregrounds how disciplinary anchorage shapes citation strategies and positions: departments whose existence relies on "culture" as a distinct domain tend to resist despecializing reforms tied to the creative economy, while generalist disciplines align with innovation-centered frames. The method is proposed as transferable to other fields to concretely characterize and track orthodox/heterodox dynamics.

The dispute over the "creative industries turn" in cultural policy can be characterized as an opposition between two clusters with distinct subjective self-understandings and objective interaction patterns. Self-described critical/heterodox authors emphasize politics, resistance, and marginalization; orthodox authors claim pragmatism and non-political analysis. Intercitation modeling reveals polarization, with heterodoxy marked by reciprocal support and orthodoxy by the presence of highly visible yet passive figures alongside more actively engaging others. Orthodoxy serves as a mandatory citation passage for heterodoxy, consistent with a core–periphery structure, and cluster membership correlates with disciplinary/sub-disciplinary anchorage. The article concludes that scientific dominance and political influence are shaped not only by epistemological divides but also by interdependencies among authors, advocating a dynamic, relational research agenda for understanding orthodoxy and heterodoxy.

- Sampling is not exhaustive: a small, purposively selected set of 11 English-speaking academics and 32 texts was analyzed, focusing on those central to the dispute; non-Anglophone debates may show different patterns. - Language and field bias: English-language focus reflects citation visibility and "celebrity" dynamics that may underrepresent other academic spheres. - Inclusion criteria exclude non-academic practitioners entirely, potentially omitting influential policy actors. - Manual coding of 183 citations and assignment of attraction intensities may introduce classification bias; the modeling prioritizes extreme values (critique/support) over neutral citations. - Reliance on publicly available citation metrics (collected June 2018) provides only a superficial proxy for visibility and may change over time. - The relational snapshot centers on the creative industries debate from 2000 onward; dynamics may evolve and differ in other periods or policy contexts.