This article investigates the use of "orthodoxy" and "heterodoxy" as analytical categories in academic research, focusing on the challenges of generalizing and systematizing their application. The study uses the "creative industries turn" debate in cultural policy as a case study to explore the relevance of this categorization in academic controversies. The use of these terms often implies power dynamics and dominant/dominated positions, but these are rarely explicitly addressed. The article argues against defining orthodox and heterodox positions solely based on the content of researchers' theories, proposing instead an analysis of the relationships between researchers and their subjective interpretations of their positions. The choice of cultural policy studies as the case study is motivated by its multidisciplinary nature, which makes it a particularly interesting context for studying the interaction of different disciplinary traditions within a discursive formation. This makes it a dynamic environment to analyze the interplay between different perspectives.

The article reviews existing literature on the use of orthodoxy and heterodoxy as categories in various fields, including economics, sociology, political science, and organizational management. It notes that while the distinction is frequently employed, the implicit political assumptions are often left unexamined. The lack of explicit definition and the frequent disregard for the complexities of institutional dynamics and the movement of actors and ideas between orthodoxy and heterodoxy are highlighted as limitations of previous studies. The author references Bourdieu's work on symbolic production to provide a framework for understanding the constructivist nature of these categories. This review emphasizes the need for a more empirical and nuanced approach to understanding these categorizations, moving beyond simple verbal or statistical descriptions.

The study uses a mixed-methods approach combining discourse analysis and social network analysis. The case study focuses on the "creative industries turn" debate in cultural policy, analyzing the academic production of 11 English-speaking researchers involved in the dispute from 2000 onwards. The data comprises over 3000 pages of academic texts (32 books and articles) identified through various academic search engines and literature reviews. Discourse analysis, using ATLAS.ti software, examines how researchers subjectively portray their positions and those of others within the field. Social network analysis, using Gephi software, models the citation network between the 11 researchers, assigning weights to citations based on their supportive, critical, or neutral nature. The analysis explores how citation patterns reveal the relationship structure and power dynamics within and between the orthodox and heterodox groups. The sample selection involved several steps to ensure representativeness, including focusing on English-language publications and selecting researchers who are recurrently cited and central to the debate. This selection was further refined through a systematic comparison with other literature reviews.

The analysis reveals a clear distinction between orthodox and heterodox positions, expressed both subjectively and objectively. Subjectively, heterodox researchers position themselves as marginalized, resistant to a dominant neoliberal ideology, while orthodox researchers present their work as objective and pragmatic. Objectively, citation network analysis demonstrates a core-periphery pattern, with the orthodox cluster serving as a mandatory citation point for the heterodox cluster, but not vice versa. The orthodox cluster is further characterized by a variation in the behavior of its members, with some highly cited but passive (rarely citing others or responding to criticism) and others less cited but actively engaging in the debate. This contrasts with the heterodox cluster which exhibits stronger internal reciprocity and collaboration. Disciplinary affiliation also correlates with position: Researchers in specialized cultural fields tend towards heterodoxy, while those in generalist disciplines (economics, management) are more likely to be orthodox. However, exceptions exist, highlighting the influence of theoretical frameworks on positioning within the network.

The findings support the hypothesis that researchers' positions are shaped by their self-perceptions and relational dynamics within the field, rather than solely by theoretical differences. The study demonstrates that power dynamics and visibility within the academic community play a significant role in shaping scholarly debate. The core-periphery model highlights the central role of orthodox perspectives, underscoring their influence and the challenges faced by heterodox voices. The observed variations within the orthodox cluster, with both highly cited passive and less-cited active participants, suggests that strategies for achieving prominence differ depending on academic status. The link between disciplinary background and position reinforces the importance of considering institutional contexts in understanding scholarly debates. The study's limitations, such as the focus on a specific debate and a limited sample of English-speaking researchers, suggest areas for future research.

This study offers a novel relational approach to understanding orthodoxy and heterodoxy in academic debates, demonstrating that the dynamics are shaped by both subjective interpretations and objective power relations within the field. The methodology presented offers a valuable tool for studying similar controversies. The findings suggest that understanding scholarly dominance and influence requires considering not only theoretical differences, but also the complex interplay of visibility, citation patterns, and disciplinary backgrounds. Future research could apply this methodology to other academic fields and explore how these dynamics evolve over time, particularly focusing on the potential for movement between orthodox and heterodox positions.

The study's limitations include its focus on a specific debate and a relatively small sample of English-speaking researchers. The findings might not be generalizable to other academic fields or non-English-speaking contexts. The weighting of citations, while methodologically sound, involves subjective interpretation. The specific temporal scope of the study could also limit the understanding of long-term shifts in perspectives and power dynamics.