Within the small world of scholars who study the early śramaṇa movements, those who attend closely to the Ājīvikas form an even smaller circle. The figure who still stands as the primary point of reference is A. L. Basham, whose monograph *History and Doctrines of the Ājīvikas* remains the most comprehensive single study of this now‑extinct tradition. His work laid the groundwork for nearly all subsequent attempts to reconstruct Ājīvika doctrine and history from fragmentary and often hostile sources. Although Basham is not a contemporary voice, his scholarship continues to shape how the tradition is approached and understood.

Among more recent scholars, several have engaged the Ājīvikas as a significant strand within broader research on early Indian philosophy and ascetic movements. Piotr Balcerowicz has produced detailed critical studies of the sources for Ājīvika thought, especially the determinist teachings and the reliability of Buddhist and Jaina portrayals. Johannes Bronkhorst has likewise treated Ājīvika ideas in the context of other śramaṇa traditions, examining their doctrines in relation to early Buddhism and Jainism. Paul Dundas, primarily known for work on Jainism, has contributed important discussions of Jain–Ājīvika interactions, particularly in historical settings where these communities intersected.

Other scholars have also made notable, if more limited, contributions to the understanding of this tradition. Padmanabh S. Jaini has explored Ājīvika doctrines where they intersect with Jain and Buddhist materials, while K. T. S. Sarao has examined their place in the religious landscape of ancient India. Earlier Indologists such as Ernst Leumann helped establish some of the textual and epigraphic foundations on which later interpretations rest. These figures, taken together, show that while no large, independent field of “Ājīvika studies” has crystallized, the tradition has not been entirely lost to scholarly memory.

Because the surviving evidence is scattered and second‑hand, most of these scholars approach the Ājīvikas indirectly, as part of a wider inquiry into Indian religious and philosophical history. This situation mirrors the fate of the tradition itself: present largely as an echo in the records of its rivals, yet still capable of provoking careful, critical reflection. For a spiritual seeker, this scholarly landscape suggests that understanding the Ājīvikas requires patience and a willingness to dwell in uncertainty, drawing on the work of those who have sifted the sparse sources with great care.