Marxism, critical theory and working class studies: economics and power in qualitative research

This is our latest post on political and theoretical paradigms for qualitative research. We don't intend to convince you to use one paradigm over another, but it's helpful to know what's out there! This post focuses on Marxist theory and its relationship to social class. You can also check out our previous posts on feminism and post qualitative research.

What is Marxist theory?

Marxist theory is a broad collection of social and economic theories about capitalism. Broadly, it posits capitalism as exploitative of workers and driven towards profit over human good. It is interested in critiquing capitalism and its internal contradictions. 'Marxist theory' is not just the work of Karl Marx (and Friedrich Engels, his frequent collaborator), but also the work of later thinkers who took inspiration from him.

Marxist theory is radical and political: Marx wrote with the aim of inspiring radical social change. He and Engels thought that a workers' revolution would dissolve capitalism, allowing a fairer system to take its place (White and Cooper 2022).

Marx saw capitalist society as divided into distinct economic classes, which we'll come to next, as it's important to define to understand this whole post.

What is class in Marxist theory?

'Class' in Marxist theory is the economic position of a person in relation to their society. It might encapsulate, for example, the economic resources that they possess or do not possess, and the occupation that allows them to gain those resources. Marx variably defined the classes of society, but settled on three in the unfinished volume of Capital: "laborers, capitalists and property owners", based on their "respective source of income: wages, profit, or rent" (Entin 2020). However, Marx noted that these labels were inexact. Class does involve a person's income, but it's also more than income: it's a person's relationship to others in their society, and it's an aspect of how they engage with their own society and culture.

Since then, various attempts have been made to delineate the classes of society. These are nationally, culturally and historically specific. Here in the UK we might talk about the 'working class' (usually people working in lower income occupations), the 'middle class' (usually people working in higher paying occupations, some small business owners), and the 'upper class' (usually people with inherited wealth and/or property, large business owners). But this is hardly a concrete set of categories, and there are plenty of people who straddle the boundaries between these, or may variably be labelled as multiple classes. There are also additional classes to these ones: some would count those in severe poverty or unemployment as a separate class to the working class. And today, there are also increasing references to an additional working class called the 'precariat': people in poor paying, 'flexible' jobs rather than stable employment, who often have to work more than one job (or spend the same time as a second job searching for new flexible positions in case their current one falls through), and who possess limited job security and legal rights compared to those in salaried jobs (Entin 2020).

It's acknowledged more and more that it can be difficult to draw the boundaries between classes. There's also the question of class culture: how someone's cultural background affects their class. For example, an academic might be economically 'working class' in terms of their salary or job security, but perceived as socially/culturally 'middle class' or higher, since they were able to enter and take a position in higher education. People debate whether there are specific cultures associated with e.g. the working class: generally it's accepted that these ideas of 'class culture' are subjective and socially constructed.

Class is closely tied to one's occupation, but more recent scholarship into class has challenged this on several levels (Mellor et al. 2014). Firstly, class is now seen as "an ongoing process" rather than an inherent part of identity; it's a category which is formed through people's ongoing actions and experiences. There is also more attention paid to the ways in which class impacts social experiences outside of money and employment – like the interactions and intersections between class, race and gender (Mellor et al. 2014). Class dynamics were never set in stone even in Marx's work, and since Marx, this has become even more apparent. Still, it is useful to understand the initial class dynamic that was posited by Marx's philosophy, to get a sense of how we now conceptualise class today.

What are the core arguments of Marxism?

The 'core arguments' of Marxist theory are a little difficult to pin down. Marx wrote over many decades of his life, and his ideas changed and evolved significantly over this time (Hyman 2006). Additionally, Marx was writing in the context of nineteenth-century industrial capitalism, with even fewer generally accepted workers' rights, so a lot of it may seem less relevant from a contemporary perspective. We will soon talk about what a 'modernised Marxism' might look like, but the list that follows is what I would characterise as the core arguments of 'classic' Marxism:

1. Marxist theory is materialist; it believes that material conditions produce social realities. In materialist philosophy, ideas are produced by material circumstances. They don't emerge from nowhere or 'naturally' from the human psyche. Marx believed that the 'base' of capitalist society (its economic system; its systems of production) determines its 'superstructure': the ideas and social relations of capitalism, and how people think (Hyman 2006). This is particularly evident in the relationship between workers and employers. Arguably this is what makes certain capitalist ideas seem self-explanatory or logical, like the exchange of labour for a wage.
2. Work under capitalism is inherently exploitative and alienating, on several levels:
   1. Capitalism relies on a power imbalance between the working class (the proletariat) and the dominant or capitalist class (the bourgeoisie, those who own land and/or employ workers).
   2. Workers aren't paid what their labour is actually worth - only enough to survive (White and Cooper 2022; Hepburn 2003).
   3. Work under capitalism is therefore coercive, as working is a means of ensuring one's survival.
   4. Workers produce far more for capitalist employers than they would need to survive on their own. The capitalist then profits from this 'surplus labour' (Watson 2017).
   5. Workers are alienated from their own labour, autonomy and humanity. The process of alienation compromises their identity and even their humanity (Hyman 2006).
      1. Workers are alienated from their labour economically, because they are not in control of what they produce for their employer. They are not selling what they produce (they don't own anything they produce), and instead they are selling their capacity to work.
      2. They are alienated from their autonomy because they cannot work as they please. Their time and activity is determined by their employer.
      3. They are alienated from their humanity because they are unable to pursue the activities they desire. Marx believed that "self-conscious creative activity was a defining characteristic of humanity", but this creative energy is monopolised by the capitalist employer (Hyman 2006).
   6. Alienated workers experience false consciousness. Under false consciousness, they aren't fully aware of their solidarity with other workers, and they accept the terms of their exploitation as simply 'how things are'. But false consciousness can be overcome via class consciousness. This is a sense of one's economic social position and solidarity with those in the same position.
3. Capitalists are encouraged to compete against one another to maximise profits. Monopolies are inevitable in this framework, as wealth is passed up to fewer and fewer people (Hepburn 2003).
4. The capitalist economy is driven by a commodity-based market (Hyman 2006). Basic components of survival are sold as commodities instead of secured as a human right. Capitalism (and its social relations) also thrives on commodity fetishism. Essentially, consumerist desires to buy particular items or commodities are necessary to keep capitalism running. Creating desire for commodities keeps the market demand high. Additionally, Marx suggests that through alienation, workers themselves become commodities (Madison 2020).
5. Capitalism has successfully instilled itself as the 'natural order of things', but its internal contradictions guarantee that it will not last forever.

Why is Marx still relevant to social and qualitative research?

Marxist theory, and Marxism itself, is maligned and misinterpreted by many. Marxism inspired political movements, most famously the formation of the Soviet Union. However, the Soviet Union failed to implement communism and instead re-established oppressive hierarchies on new axes (Hepburn 2003). Now that the Soviet Union no longer exists, Marxism has somewhat fallen out of fashion, and for about 15 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall it was common to speak of Marxism only in the past tense (Pendakis and Szeman 2014). It doesn't help that even to present-day Marxists, Marx's theories of industry are considered outdated, particularly in light of deindustrialisation and our global information/technology economy (Hepburn 2003).

Yet even today, Marx's thought remains an important component of critical social research. Derrida refers to Marx's theories as "spectres": they persist in critical thought and radical research, even when not directly cited (cited in Hepburn 2003). Researchers are continually returning to Marx's texts to make sense of our current capitalist landscape (Entin 2020). In particular, economic downturns seem to lead to Marxism and its offshoots becoming more academically popular, like the 2008 Wall Street crash (Pendakis and Szeman 2014).

Is Marxist theory positivist?

While Marx was a materialist, he was not a positivist: his analysis was based in dialectical materialism (Bhavnani et al 2020). Dialectical materialism is essentially looking at 'truth' as something that is produced by relationships between 'objects' or 'groups'. Under dialectical materialism, the 'truth' is transformed through the conflict between opposing objects (in this case, the working and capitalist classes). This can be seen as quite compatible with later poststructuralist thinkers, who also see 'truth' as not innate, but socially produced.

Equally, many of Marx's works were still rooted in the rather nineteenth-century idea of a 'scientific' approach to society. After Marx's death, Engels revised his unfinished work in a way which emphasised the scientific aspect of his thought (Hepburn 2003). So his philosophy isn't positivist, but it is certainly structuralist and deterministic. It sets out rigid, systematic ideas about how capitalism functions, and how it will inevitably evolve. Hence, I would suggest that his ideas need some updating to be applicable to modern-day qualitative studies.

Critical, poststructural and intersectional updates to Marxism

This next section will consider the most significant updates to Marxism since Marx's own writing. 'Updates' is something of a misnomer, because these concepts continue to be in debate to this day. But I'm essentially using 'updates' as shorthand to refer to places where people have adjusted Marxist theory to fit subsequent historical periods.

Critical theory and Marxism

Most researchers using a Marxist approach today will not just work with Marx, but also later theorists who drew directly from his work. These theorists are generally described under the umbrella of 'critical theory', and many originate from the 'Frankfurt School'. It must be said that critical theory is a very broad umbrella, and critical theorists often conflict in their arguments (Kincheloe and Mclaren 2011). But as a whole, critical theorists built on Marx's original theories in an attempt to explain the politics of their time. Many wished to understand the alarming global trend towards fascism (e.g. Theodor Adorno, who famously theorised the 'authoritarian personality' and mass culture as a vehicle for propaganda, or Antonio Gramsci, who wrote his most renowned theoretical works while he was imprisoned under Mussolini's regime [Hepburn 2003]), as well as the cultural impact of economic crises like the Great Depression. They shared Marx's focus on class and social power dynamics, with similar radical aims for an economically fair society liberated from capitalism.

But unlike Marx, critical theory was much broader in scope, and placed greater emphasis on the political role of cultural institutions in perpetuating capitalist ideology. 'Ideology' in critical theory is not so much about personal viewpoints – it's a way to describe the unspoken ideas that justify a society's "status quo", pushed by its institutions. specific institutional decisions and practices (Kincheloe and McLaren 2011). A 'dominant ideology' is promoted through institutions like schools, churches, and courts, as well as mass media, in order to justify the way that power is distributed in a society and make it appear to be natural or 'common sense'. This makes people consent to the existing distribution of power, and make it harder to envision an alternative. This process of a dominant ideology becoming naturalised is called 'hegemony', a concept most famously developed by Antonio Gramsci (Hepburn 2003). An example of hegemony would be the capitalist free market being considered as 'common sense' or 'the only way to do things'.

Critical theory led to the development of critical ethnography: an attempt to meld the materialism and critical analysis of Marxist thinkers with qualitative processes of data collection (Anders and Noblit 2024). Madison (2020) describes critical ethnography as the "performance" of critical theory; it's a way to do ethnography in a way that questions its own dominant ideologies (particularly in terms of the boundaries between 'researcher' and 'other', or what 'fieldwork' actually means). Critical ethnography shares the political ambitions of critical theory: not just to produce knowledge under existing paradigms, but to actually produce positive social change (Kincheloe and McLaren 2011). It is characterised as being reflexive and concentrating on matters of power, in particular acknowledging the power imbalance between researcher and participant, and the political impact of publishing research that reinforces power inequities without critiquing them (Bhavnani et al. 2020). Shortly, we'll talk about what critical qualitative methodologies look like in practice.

Poststructuralist responses to Marxism

Since Marx's time, capitalism has become much more complex, and has weathered attempts to overthrow it and replace it with something else. In turn, philosophical frameworks have also grown more complex in their understanding of 'truth' and 'knowledge' (Pendakis and Szeman 2014). The poststructuralist philosophies commonly applied in contemporary qualitative studies (and particularly post qualitative inquiry) are sceptical regarding economic and material 'realities'; these are themselves socially constructed (Pendakis and Szeman 2014). Postmodernists and poststructuralists have made peace with the fact that language is inexact and the ideas that we form about our politics and culture are not set in stone, but are socially constructed. As a result there is no 'truth' that can arise from studying them, only interpretations.

We discussed hegemony, which I would say has its own poststructural descendant in Foucault's concept of 'dominant discourse'. These are ideas which determine the modes of thought, identity and speech that are possible in a society. (We discuss this concept in more detail in our summary of discourse analysis.) Dominant discourses overlap with hegemony but are arguably even more powerful. Our present-day information economy has significantly blurred the boundary between capitalist production and ideas/culture. Hegemony and discourse both provide more complete answers to why this has occurred, and how power circulates today (for more on the compatibility of Foucault with Marx, see Hyman 2006). But Foucault's approach is less deterministic than Marx's. A dominant discourse may express where power lies, but power itself cannot be 'owned' by a sole group. It circulates through systems and institutions, and can be expressed by anyone (Hepburn 2003).

Some Marxists argue that poststructuralism is too loose with its definitions of identity and power, with the effect of deemphasising economic power as a force of oppression (Pendakis and Szeman 2014). Poststructuralist theory therefore functions as an explanation of why people have not risen against their oppressors (because everyone is complicit in perpetuating the existing system of power by default), but it is not itself a roadmap to social liberation. The trend towards poststructuralism seems to accept the failure of critical theory and philosophy to make radical changes in society. Instead, according to its detractors, it shifts towards a more descriptive, defeatist political philosophy that can only speak of what's there and not what could be (Pendakis and Szeman 2014).

However, Marxism, critical theory and poststructuralism do share some preoccupations, particularly given their preoccupation with analysing and understanding power. We discussed earlier that the deconstructive tendency is present in Marxism too (despite its materialism) because it's interested in the internal contradictions of capitalism. Some recent works also aim to unite poststructuralism and critical theory, creating a nuanced analysis of power that rejects the deterministic tendencies of Marxism (Kincheloe and McLaren 2011). Marxism, critical theory and poststructuralism are also united because they pay close attention to relationality, and this is where we turn next.

Working class studies and Marxism

In both poststructural theory and Marxism, classes are defined not by innate qualities, but by their relationship to one another (Hyman 2006). And since poststructuralism's reconceptualisations of identity, we now have working-class studies as a discipline. This is broadly the study of working-class identity and culture, although it is accepted that these categories are fluid and uncertain (Launius 2020). Working-class studies emerged out of the deindustrialisation of much of the West in the 1980s, leading to the dissolution of previously stable industries and mass job losses (Fazio et al. 2020). As a result, interest grew in the status of working class identity in the wake of increased economic instability. Though not all of working-class studies is Marxist, the field shares an interest in the analysis of class relations, and continues the aim to improve the political position of the working class.

Working-class studies updates Marx's initial analysis of class for the intersectional understanding of identity as complicated and fluid, with society based along multiple axes of oppression which all feed into one another (Entin 2020). Intersectionality (which we discuss more in our blog post on feminist theory) may provide a compelling explanation to theorise 'false consciousness' in the present day: racist, misogynistic and ableist discourses can pit working-class people against each other, obfuscating their common economic position. Entin (2020) argues that what we commonly understand as 'identity politics' "can ... be understood as elements of a larger challenge to the capitalist organization of social and economic life".

Why do we need postmodernism and poststructuralism to analyse capitalism?

In my opinion, poststructuralism is the only option for critiquing the information-based capitalism of today. Marx and critical theory is needed to anchor the discussion to economic exploitation, but our present neoliberal economic situation is built on speculative markets, potential profit, and the impossible pursuit of infinite growth. These are all nebulous concepts which are best deconstructed through poststructuralism, to highlight their contribution to a 'post-truth' economy. (We discuss this more in our post on the problems with using generative 'AI' for qualitative research: it is an exemplar of this problem; it's financed and funded based on its potential for profit in spite of underdelivering on all its promises of 'artificial intelligence'.)

Applying Marxist theory to qualitative research

The most obvious direct application of Marxist theory to qualitative research is in research that relates to class or work. It is a helpful analytical framework when someone is talking about how their identity relates (or does not relate) to their occupation, or as a means of explaining why someone might identify with a particular class. If someone is talking about economic pressures like pay equality or making enough to make ends meet, Marxist theory, and by extension working class studies, is particularly worth consideration. Marxist theory also helps when examining one's own positionality as a researcher, or the academic landscape as it currently stands under neoliberalism - driven by a capitalist pursuit of profit over knowledge creation, tying a researcher's livelihood to the perceived 'quality' of their research or their ability to produce research outputs at unrealistic or unsustainable rates to improve arbitrary metrics, like the Research Excellence Framework here in the UK (see also Kuntz 2015, Bhavnani et al 2020).

Marxist theory is useful if there is any economic dimension to what you are studying - this can be almost any social phenomenon! Even if you don't personally identify as a Marxist or do not wish to entirely dismantle our current economic system, Marx has had a huge impact on how we understand economics and work today, and many theorists believe Marxist theory points the way towards a more economically equitable future (Watson 2017; Entin 2020).

Applying critical theory to qualitative research

Nowadays it is less common for researchers to invoke Marx directly, especially when studying contemporary society and culture. It's more common that they would use critical theory as a part of their qualitative research. So how is this done? There is a lot of debate around this, firstly because there is a difference between 'critical theory' and 'critical inquiry'. Like post qualitative inquiry, critical theory usually treats the development of theory as the end goal. White and Cooper (2022) argue that this can come at the cost of the research's practical applicability, and capacity to produce real social change. Personally, I'm not sure about this - I think that for better or worse, Marxism and critical theory's impact on the world and on research paradigms proves that theory can make a political impact on its own. But then, I am a theorist, so perhaps I am inevitably going to come to this conclusion!

'Critical inquiry', on the other hand, focuses on how we can weave a 'critical' approach (the tools and focuses of critical theory) into practical methods. The goal is to produce research that will have a direct impact on the world. This includes through the methodology itself: critical inquirers suggest that research is always impacted by power relations, so this should be challenged through critical methodologies. As an approach, critical inquiry is usually multidisciplinary: its goal, like critical theory, is to see the broader political context of social interactions: what these might say about society at large, and what we can then do about it to make society more equitable (Willis 2007). This is a lot easier to do if you bring in findings from many fields, like incorporating historical and philosophical research in addition to sociology, psychology, and so on.

The exact meaning of a 'critical' qualitative methodology is defined differently by different researchers. Bhavnani et al (2020) has a good overview of the different definitions of 'critical':

• The methodology itself can be critical: a critical qualitative methodology rejects positivism and favours looser and more reflexive qualitative approaches.
• The research can be critical of a specific field, and generate new fields of research to address its weaknesses. For example, feminist and women's studies is often more qualitative, and it is critical of prevailing scientific fields which have subjugated women.
• Critical research can be actively political: e.g. doing political activism through research, and directly challenging the power dynamics that typically discipline research, as in participatory action research where participants take charge of designing and producing the research.
• Critical research can also involve the researcher's public face: being a critical member of the academy, using their position of authority to voice political dissent and challenge the power imbalances within their own institution (e.g. the requirements and biases of research funding bodies, which often deprioritise critical and qualitative work).

All of these definitions are incomplete, but they share the common desire to create political change, the presumption that research is not critical enough by default, and that standardised research methodology must be questioned at all levels (Bhavnani et al 2020).

For a methodology to be critical, all parts of the research process should be interrogated (Willis 2007). This isn't to make the research more 'objective', but to acknowledge the subjectivity and non-neutrality of the process. By doing this, critical methodologies are able to show how even ostensibly 'objective' methods are themselves subjective and driven by ideology. Whether structured or unstructured, qualitative methodologies lend themselves the best to a critical approach, because they are the best at achieving a complex and nuanced understanding of the world, one which acknowledges the subjectivity of the researcher. You might notice that this sounds quite similar to the feminist qualitative methodologies we discussed in our earlier blog post. Critical inquiry and critical ethnography developed around the same time as a lot of feminist theory, and contributed to the development of specifically feminist critical methodologies. Both desire to create new forms of research that challenge how knowledge is currently generated and thereby have a chance to alter the political status quo (Madison 2020).

Critical inquiry is an unapologetically political application of research methodology: this fits better with qualitative methods which have the freedom to be more overtly 'subjective'. The choice of research design, interpretation and analysis is directed by the researcher's own political intentions and desires to critique the current state of society (Kincheloe and McLaren 2011). Researcher reflexivity and positionality isn't just a "best [practice]" exercise to attempt to eliminate bias, but it is a way to situate every part of the research in its proper social context, showing how each part dialectically interacts with one another to produce the research context (Bhavnani et al 2020). This doesn't mean that 'anything goes', as though a critical researcher can just go and find results that match their assumptions - rather, these are the practices that every researcher should be doing in order to properly and honestly situate their research in relation to power and ideology (Kincheloe and McLaren 2011).

Kincheloe and McLaren suggest that critical research does away with "how to" and instead focuses on "why should". For example, conventional inquiries into the workplace aren't critical if they are primarily concerned with capitalist interests and metrics, like a study which aims to identify the best method to increase worker productivity. Such a study may still have a positive impact on workers if it finds that higher wages or increased autonomy leads to increased productivity. But it's still not critical research, because we're still operating in the bounds of capitalist power relations. The decision to improve conditions for workers is still at the whim of the capitalists and it's still framed as an economic exchange: (potentially) better conditions in exchange for greater productivity. By contrast, a critical inquiry into the workplace might study why worker productivity is so valued by capitalism, how hegemonic ideology encourages people to be ever more productive, and how this process might be alienating them from themselves. The notion of 'productivity' and how it impacts power relations is what is being critiqued, rather than attempting to produce 'more' productivity without really understanding its societal consequences.

As a whole, critical inquiry hopes to give people the tools to emancipate themselves, either through the generation of new theory which inspires people to take action, or through directly engaging with people through research practice and outputs. However, there is debate as to how successful this can be, or if this framing just elevates the researcher's role, continuing an unequal power relation between researcher and participant (Kincheloe and McLaren 2011). While certainly not unproblematic, critical inquiry has a genuine desire to make a positive change in the world and fight injustice. I think any researcher can learn to strengthen their methodology through taking on some critical methods - asking why they're interested in that research question in particular, and who the results of their research might serve.

Recommended reading and resources

There is of course a tension in us talking about Marxist theory as a viable qualitative approach, but also running a for-profit business in the context of capitalism. If a partial purpose of this blog is to promote our qualitative software, how can you trust any of the rest of the information in this post? Well, I would recommend you go and do the reading for yourself so you can make your own judgment. The works in our bibliography should be a good start for primers on Marxism and critical theory in the context of qualitative research and social science. You can also, of course, go back to the source. You could read Marx and Engels' Communist Manifesto, probably the most accessible of their works (although many of the ideas were simplified and rhetorically expressed so they could be shared more easily), or you could read Marx's unfinished Capital, which is a vastly heavier read but still stands as the culmination of his philosophies.

Though we are a for-profit business, and we invite you to take our guidance with a grain of salt, we are trying to do business differently and sustainably (both in an economic and an environmental sense). We work with other small businesses, we don't support exploitative companies like Amazon, and we are passionate about making qualitative research accessible to everyone, with discounts for economically disadvantaged researchers and free licences for participant-researchers. Quirkos is paid software because of our present economic reality: under our current economic system we need to make sure our software is sustainable and maintainable for a long time, and ensure that everyone is compensated fairly for their contributions to the software. If you want to do research that changes our world for the better, we want to make sure we're there to help you do just that.

It's often said that when for-profit software is free, you (that is, your data, and your eyes on ads and political propaganda) are the product. By contrast, we don't sell ad space, sell your data or use your data to train AI. You can also look at free software for qualitative research: always check the privacy policy of anything you download, but open-source software will usually abide by similar standards and may also be a good candidate to look at. Alternatively, if you'd like to give Quirkos a try, we have a 14-day free trial, and options for either temporary subscriptions or a lifetime software licence, depending on what works best for you.

Bibliography

Anders, A. D., & Noblit, G. W. (2024). Critical Turns in Ethnography. In A. D. Anders & G. W. Noblit (Eds.), Evolutions in Critical and Postcritical Ethnography (pp. 21–54). Springer Nature Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-58827-3_2

Bhavnani, K.-K., Chua, P., & Collins, D. (2020). Critical Approaches to Qualitative Research. In P. Leavy (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Qualitative Research (2nd ed., pp. 243–262). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190847388.013.17

Entin, J. (2020). Reconceiving class in contemporary working-class studies. In M. Fazio, C. Launius, & T. Strangleman (Eds.), Routledge International Handbook of Working-Class Studies (1st ed., pp. 32–44). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315200842-5

Fazio, M., Launius, C., & Strangleman, T. (2020). Introduction. In M. Fazio, C. Launius, & T. Strangleman (Eds.), Routledge International Handbook of Working-Class Studies (1st ed., pp. 1–8). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315200842-1

Hepburn, A. (2003). An introduction to critical social psychology. SAGE.

Hyman, R. (2006). Marxist Thought and the Analysis of Work. In M. Korczynski, R. Hodson, & P. K. Edwards (Eds.), Social Theory at Work (pp. 26–55). Oxford University PressOxford. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199285976.003.0002

Kincheloe, J. L., & McLaren, P. (2011). Rethinking Critical Theory and Qualitative Research. In K. Hayes, S. R. Steinberg, & K. Tobin (Eds.), Key Works in Critical Pedagogy (pp. 285–326). SensePublishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6091-397-6_23

Kuntz, A. M. (2015). The responsible methodologist: Inquiry, truth-telling, and social justice. Left Coast Press, Inc.

Launius, C. (2020). Section Introduction: Methods and principles of research in working-class studies. In M. Fazio, C. Launius, & T. Strangleman (Eds.), Routledge International Handbook of Working-Class Studies (1st ed., pp. 11–19). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315200842-3

Madison, D. S. (2020). Critical Ethnography: Method, Ethics, and Performance. SAGE Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781071878965

Mellor, J., Ingram, N., Abrahams, J., & Beedell, P. (2014). Class matters in the interview setting? Positionality, situatedness and class. British Educational Research Journal, 40(1), 135–149. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3035

Andrew Pendakis & Imre Szeman. (2014). Introduction: Marxisms Lost and Found. In A. Pendakis (Ed.), Contemporary Marxist theory: A reader (pp. 1–17). Bloomsbury Academic.

Watson, T. J. (2017). Sociology, work and organisation (Seventh edition). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315673509

White, R. E., & Cooper, K. (2022). Qualitative Research in the Post-Modern Era: Critical Approaches and Selected Methodologies. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-85124-8

Willis, J. (2007). Foundations of Qualitative Research: Interpretive and Critical Approaches. SAGE Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452230108