I am not entirely sure that such a neat distinction between an analysis of fascist ideology and one of fascist praxis is (or should be) possible. On one hand, even works which ostensibly focus on the ideology of Fascism – for instance those of Emilio Gentile (from Le origini dell'ideologia fascista and Il mito dello stato nuovo, dall'antigiolittismo al fascismo, to the more recent Fascismo di pietra or La grande Italia) - do include or rely on elements which are part of a praxis. The symbols and rituals of the fascist squads are difficult to understand and contextualize outside of their concrete relation with the organization and methods of fascist violence, with the personal and particular experiences of the men involved, with the social and political climate where those symbols developed. On the other, it is difficult to examine the practical side of fascism if we ignore its ideological contents. The methods, organization and operations of the fascist squads answered to motives that were both practical (numerical strength, socialist presence and degree of organization, local situation and elements of economical and social conflict) and ideological (need for mobilization and activism, valorization of the experience of the front, defense of the Motherland). For instance, if we ignore the substantial role played by an idea of “anti-Bolshevik” mobilization both as a motivation-force and as a collective rationalization-justification of fascist violence, we are left with a picture of mere economical interest.

At the same time, it's quite difficult to undertake a comprehensive examination of Fascism from all practical and all ideological perspectives – as this goes beyond the scope even of the most ambitious works (in this regard, the closest thing would still be De Felice's monograph on Mussolini) – with most authors focusing specifically on certain traits, whether perceived as practical or ideological.

Now, it is probably true that, in recent years, more attention has been dedicated to the “ideological” side of Fascism. That's in good measure,because this aspect of the “fascist phenomenon” has been (or is perceived to be) the less historiographically developed one, with various authors describing this “ideological” approach as the result of a shift in perspective starting with the 1980s (see for instance Rethinking the nature of Fascism – Comparative Perspectives, edited by Costa Pinto, A.); this means, it goes without saying, a shift in methodology, which is also implicitly an ideological shift in our approach to the ideology of Fascism.

Methodology, ideology, even the very branches of historiography tend to “age” more rapidly than certain practical assessments. A discussion on the historical approach to Fascism made in the 1950s would generally be regarded as extremely dated (with different degrees for various disciplines, but this holds true more or less in general), while, as I discussed in a previous reply, works on certain “practical facts” of Fascism tend to “last longer” (in this regard, the “relationship with different classes” would not be regarded as praxis any longer, except in a loose sociological context). We know, for instance, that negotiations for the formation of a Salandra-Mussolini (or even Giolitti-Mussolini) Government had been going on during the second half of October 1922. As those negotiations have been examined in detail, there is no perceived need for “new history” on the matter. There is a large amount of literature on the developing relations between Fascism and the establishment, produced during the 1950s-1970s, when this was a relatively new and unexplored direction. Those works didn't exist in an ideological vacuum but, granted their possible limitations, their conclusions remain sound and the matter quite unambiguously settled. To cite a few which come to mind:

Alatri, P. - Le origini del Fascismo, 1956

Valeri, N. - Da Giolitti a Mussolini, 1956

Repaci, A. - La Marcia su Roma, 1963

Catalano, F. - Potere economico e Fascismo, 1964

Tasca, A. - Nascita e avvento del Fascismo, 1965 [first ed. 1938]

Melograni, P. - Gli industriali e Mussolini, 1972

Catalano, F. ; Chieffi, F. - La nascita del Fascismo, 1976

Catalano, F. - Fascismo e piccola borghesia, 1979

Other works have focused on the development of fascism in its particular, local context – for instance its relations with labor organizations, or with the centers of political and economical power. To name a few:

Colarizi, S. - Dopoguerra e fascismo in Puglia (1919-26), 1971

Roveri, A. - Le origini del Fascismo a Ferrara (1919-21), 1974

Roveri, A. - Aspetti della lotta politica dal 1919 al 1926; in Storia dell'Emilia Romagna

Roveri, A. - Considerazioni sul consenso al regime fascista; in Storia dell'Emilia Romagna

An attempt at a more comprehensive view of the development of Fascism is given in:

Vivarelli, R. - Storia delle origini del Fascismo, 1965-2012

One thing that all the works I have mentioned so far have in common (with the except of a few of Gentile's ones) is that they have not been translated to English. Which doesn't prevent them from being referenced in foreign publications, but may explain why this sort of investigation seems more underrepresented than it actually is.

It is nonetheless important to stress that, even within the Italian field of historiography, there is a degree of tendency to an increased openness towards a “comparative” or “multi-disciplinary” approach. One example of this, besides Gentile, the works of Mario Isnenghi (for instance L'Italia del Fascio) where elements of “history of the ideas” coexist with a rather traditional approach to praxis.

As a further examination of these trends, as well as a proponent of the importance of not losing track of the connection between praxis and ideology, you may check Robert Paxton's Anatomy of Fascism.

And, on this aspect, the idea that an excessive attention to the cultural side of “fascism” - which in itself is a perfectly fair approach – may lead to overestimate certain traits is not entirely unwarranted (a discussion of this in Adamson, W. - The Culture of Italian Fascism, Journal of Contemporary History, October 1995, pp. 555-575 – as well as in various referenced works: Costa Pinto, Griffin, Kallis, etc.), especially since every approach does, at least implicitly, ascribe a particular degree of importance to the chosen perspective.

For a more traditional, less “ideology-oriented” approach, my general recommendation are the works of R.J. Bosworth - Italy, the least of the great powers [1979], Italy and the wider world [1996], Mussolini [2002] and Mussolini's Italy: Life Under the Dictatorship [2005] - and those of H.J. Burgwyn - The legend of the Mutilated Victory: Italy, the Great War and the Paris Peace Conference, 1915-19 [1993] and Italian foreign policy in the interwar period, 1918-40 [1997].

An examination of Fascist Italy from a “social” perspective is available in P. Corner's The Fascist Party and Popular Opinion in Mussolini's Italy [2012]. And of similar tone, albeit slightly more dated, the works of Alexander De Grand: for instance Italian Fascism: its origins and development [1982].

Additionally, various monographs, “comparative” works, collections, include references to many articles which, albeit not always accessible, are the matter of fact integration of various “lesser” pieces which don't reach the scope of a whole published volume. There you'll find sociology, gender studies, economics, political science, and indeed many other disciplines with their own particular approach to the “fascist phenomenon”. Even if you aren't particularly interested to the general angle of most recent works, they do certainly rely on scholarship which may be a better fit for your needs.