IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jmerit/v6y2026i2p12-d1940684.html

Mapping the Evidence on Decent Work (2022–2025): An Evidence Gap Map of Recent Empirical Research

Author

Listed:
  • Theodoro Batsios

    (Complutense Institute for International Studies, Complutense University, 28040 Madrid, Spain)

  • Sumanjeet Rajak

    (Department of Psychology, University of Delhi, New Delhi 110007, India)

  • Elisabetta Rubiolo

    (Department of Psychology, University of Bologna, 40127 Bologna, Italy)

  • Abel Perez-Gonzalez

    (Ortega-Marañón University Institute, Complutense University of Madrid, 28040 Madrid, Spain)

Abstract

Purpose: This study presents an evidence gap map (EGM) of recent empirical survey-based research on decent work published between 2022 and 2025. The aim is to systematically visualize where empirical evidence has accumulated and to identify persistent knowledge gaps across key dimensions, populations, regions, outcomes, and methodological approaches, thereby informing future research agendas and evidence-informed policy development. Design/methodology/approach: A systematic mapping review was conducted following established guidance for evidence gap maps. Searches were performed in major bibliographic databases using a focused strategy to identify studies explicitly engaging with the decent work construct. Empirical quantitative studies based on survey methods were screened against predefined eligibility criteria. A total of 214 studies published between January 2022 and 2025 were included and coded using a structured framework covering decent work dimensions, population characteristics, geographic context, methodological design, and outcome variables. Evidence gap maps were constructed using matrix-based visualizations to display evidence density and gaps. Findings: Despite a substantial increase in publication volume since 2022, the evidence base remains unevenly distributed. Empirical research continues to concentrate on a limited subset of decent work dimensions and individual-level outcomes, while dimensions related to social dialogue and employment security receive comparatively little attention. Vulnerable worker populations—including persons with disabilities, domestic workers, and gig economy workers—remain critically underrepresented. Methodologically, cross-sectional designs predominate, with longitudinal and multilevel approaches still relatively scarce. Geographic coverage is similarly uneven, with research activity concentrated in a limited number of regions. Research limitations/implications: By systematically mapping recent empirical survey-based evidence, this study highlights persistent misalignments between theoretical ambitions, policy priorities, and empirical practice. The findings provide a structured basis for prioritizing future research and for aligning psychological research on decent work more closely with equity-oriented policy objectives. Originality/value: This study is the first evidence gap map focusing specifically on recent empirical survey-based research on decent work. By applying a rigorous EGM approach to post-2021 literature, it offers a structured overview of this segment of the evidence base and identifies priority areas where empirical knowledge remains limited.

Suggested Citation

  • Theodoro Batsios & Sumanjeet Rajak & Elisabetta Rubiolo & Abel Perez-Gonzalez, 2026. "Mapping the Evidence on Decent Work (2022–2025): An Evidence Gap Map of Recent Empirical Research," Merits, MDPI, vol. 6(2), pages 1-22, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jmerit:v:6:y:2026:i:2:p:12-:d:1940684
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2673-8104/6/2/12/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2673-8104/6/2/12/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:gam:jmerit:v:6:y:2026:i:2:p:12-:d:1940684. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.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.