IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pal/palcom/v7y2020i1d10.1057_s41599-020-00637-1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Mehdi Arfaoui

    (EHESS-CEMS)

Abstract

This article examines the categories of orthodoxy and heterodoxy in regards to their use by many authors to position themselves within a research field. By doing so, it attempts to offer original methods for systematically addressing the morphology of a specific field of research. Particularly in economics, establishing one’s position in a field of research is often portrayed in terms of their alignment to orthodox or heterodox perspectives. However, this positioning within categories of “orthodoxy” or “heterodoxy” generally contain implicit political assumptions that are infrequently made explicit. The use of these categories typically implies dominant and dominated positions in a given research field, as well as suggests conformist versus nonconformist approaches to mainstream policy. Consequently, as these overburdened categories are rarely unpacked and explained by those who rely on them, delineating an orthodox versus heterodox viewpoint is nearly impossible. The hypothesis underlining this paper is that, more than the content of the academic production itself, belonging to the heterodoxy or the orthodoxy can be explained through the interpretation by the actors of their own position, as well as the type of relationship they cultivate in the field. The study is based on the exploration of more than 3000 pages of academic production on the topic of cultural policy, following an academic debate from 2000 onward between 11 different authors from various disciplines on the “creative industries turn of cultural policies”. After providing background on the case study as well as a presentation of the research sample and methodology, the paper explores whether a more granular interpretation of orthodox and heterodox positions in a research field can be described. Firstly, a discourse analysis will show how orthodox versus heterodox positions can be depicted through the subjective interpretations by authors of their own position in the field. In this debate, self-proclaimed heterodox-positioned authors tend to represent themselves as a minority in their research field, having difficulty accessing and influencing political decision-making processes. In contrast, orthodox-positioned authors tend to perceive their academic production as unpolitical and their analysis as objective and pragmatic in opposition to “militant” heterodox research. This first “subjective” analysis is followed by illustrating how this binary can be described “objectively” by systemizing citation links between the authors. The demonstration allows a clear segregation between orthodox and heterodox positions, but also displays significant variations in the relationship structure between both fields. The work concludes on the analytical possibilities brought by this relational approach. More importantly, this paper concludes that scientific dominance or political influence need not only to be explained as radical epistemological differences invoked by heterodox and orthodox positionality, but also by the interdependence of the authors belonging to these categories. Overall, this paper aims to draw attention to a potential research agenda that uses a more dynamic understanding and categorization of heterodoxy and orthodoxy.

Suggested Citation

  • Mehdi Arfaoui, 2020. "A relational approach to heterodox versus orthodox positions in contemporary cultural policy debates," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 7(1), pages 1-11, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:7:y:2020:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-020-00637-1
    DOI: 10.1057/s41599-020-00637-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1057/s41599-020-00637-1
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1057/s41599-020-00637-1?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Óscar Carpintero, 2013. "When Heterodoxy Becomes Orthodoxy: Ecological Economics in The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics," American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 72(5), pages 1287-1314, November.
    2. Pierre-Jean Benghozi & Thomas Paris, 2016. "The cultural economy in the digital age: A revolution in intermediation?," Post-Print hal-01381220, HAL.
    3. Rosen, Sherwin, 1981. "The Economics of Superstars," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 71(5), pages 845-858, December.
    4. Bruce Cronin, 2010. "The Diffusion of Heterodox Economics," American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 69(5), pages 1475-1494, November.
    5. Florentin Glötzl & Ernest Aigner, 2018. "Orthodox Core–Heterodox Periphery? Contrasting Citation Networks of Economics Departments in Vienna," Review of Political Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(2), pages 210-240, April.
    6. Jason Potts & Stuart Cunningham & John Hartley & Paul Ormerod, 2008. "Social network markets: a new definition of the creative industries," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 32(3), pages 167-185, September.
    7. John B. Davis, 2008. "The turn in recent economics and return of orthodoxy," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 32(3), pages 349-366, May.
    8. Leonhard Dobusch & Jakob Kapeller, 2012. "Heterodox United vs. Mainstream City? Sketching a Framework for Interested Pluralism in Economics," Journal of Economic Issues, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 46(4), pages 1035-1058.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. William A. Jackson, 2018. "Strategic Pluralism and Monism in Heterodox Economics," Review of Radical Political Economics, Union for Radical Political Economics, vol. 50(2), pages 237-251, June.
    2. Ambrosino, Angela & Fontana, Magda & Gigante, Anna Azzurra, 2015. "Shifting Boundaries in Economics: the Institutional Cognitive Strand," Department of Economics and Statistics Cognetti de Martiis. Working Papers 201544, University of Turin.
    3. Claudius Gräbner & Birte Strunk, 2020. "Pluralism in economics: its critiques and their lessons," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 27(4), pages 311-329, October.
    4. Angela Ambrosino & Magda Fontana & Anna Azzurra Gigante, 2018. "Shifting Boundaries In Economics: The Institutional Cognitive Strand And The Future Of Institutional Economics," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(3), pages 767-791, July.
    5. Gruszka, Katarzyna & Scharbert, Annika Regine & Soder, Michael, 2017. "Leaving the mainstream behind? Uncovering subjective understandings of economics instructors' roles," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 485-498.
    6. Aigner, Ernest, 2021. "Global dynamics and country-level development in academic economics: An explorative cognitive-bibliometric study," SRE-Discussion Papers 07/2021, WU Vienna University of Economics and Business.
    7. Peter Earl & Jason Potts, 2013. "The creative instability hypothesis," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 37(2), pages 153-173, May.
    8. Samia Jamshed & Nauman Majeed, 2022. "Framing evolution and knowledge domain visualization of business ethics research (1975–2019): a large-scale scientometric analysis," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 56(6), pages 4269-4294, December.
    9. Astrid Agenjo‐Calderón & Lina Gálvez‐Muñoz, 2019. "Feminist Economics: Theoretical and Political Dimensions," American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 78(1), pages 137-166, January.
    10. Røpke, Inge, 2020. "Econ 101—In need of a sustainability transition," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    11. Martha A. Starr, 2010. "Increasing the Impact of Heterodox Work: Insights from RoSE," American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 69(5), pages 1453-1474, November.
    12. Christian Handke & Carolina Dalla Chiesa, 2022. "The art of crowdfunding arts and innovation: the cultural economic perspective," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 46(2), pages 249-284, June.
    13. Leye Li & Louise Yi Lu & Dongyue Wang, 2022. "External labour market competitions and stock price crash risk: evidence from exposures to competitor CEOs’ award‐winning events," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 62(S1), pages 1421-1460, April.
    14. Sudip Datta & Mai Iskandar-Datta, 2014. "Upper-echelon executive human capital and compensation: Generalist vs specialist skills," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(12), pages 1853-1866, December.
    15. Luis Garicano & Thomas N. Hubbard, 2016. "The Returns to Knowledge Hierarchies," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 32(4), pages 653-684.
    16. Katsiaryna Bardos & Steven E. Kozlowski & Michael R. Puleo, 2021. "Entrenchment or efficiency? CEO‐to‐employee pay ratio and the cost of debt," The Financial Review, Eastern Finance Association, vol. 56(3), pages 511-533, August.
    17. Till Treeck, 2014. "Did Inequality Cause The U.S. Financial Crisis?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(3), pages 421-448, July.
    18. Bryson, Alex & Chevalier, Arnaud, 2015. "Is there a taste for racial discrimination amongst employers?," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(C), pages 51-63.
    19. Gaspar, Jess & Glaeser, Edward L., 1998. "Information Technology and the Future of Cities," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 136-156, January.
    20. Francisco Alcalá & Miguel González‐Maestre, 2012. "Artistic Creation and Intellectual Property: A Professional Career Approach," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(3), pages 633-672, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:7:y:2020:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-020-00637-1. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.nature.com/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.