Table 4. Reverse mentoring research... | Emerald Publishing

Table 4.

Reverse mentoring research agenda: Theoretical, contextual and methodological directions (TCM perspective)

Dimension	State of the art	Gaps identified	Future research questions (RQs)
Theory	Predominance of Social Exchange Theory (Blau, 1964; Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005), often combined with JD-R (Bakker and Demerouti, 2007). Additional references include classical mentoring theories (Kram, 1988; Scandura, 1992), knowledge management (Nonaka et al., 2000; Crossan et al., 1999), and occasional use of RBV/DC (Wernerfelt, 1984; Teece et al., 1997)	Heavy reliance on descriptive or loosely defined frameworks; limited adoption of strategic-level theories; absence of integrative frameworks combining micro (individual), meso (organizational) and macro (institutional) levels	RQ28: How can strategic theories (RBV, Dynamic Capabilities) be systematically applied to explain RM’s role in firm competitiveness? RQ29: Can multi-level frameworks integrate individual, organizational and institutional perspectives in RM research?
Context – geographical	Strong concentration in Asia, particularly India (10 / 36 articles), followed by USA (4) and UK (3). Emerging but fragmented interest in smaller contexts (Slovenia, Taiwan, Sri Lanka, Poland, Australia, Philippines)	Lack of balanced cross-country comparisons; underexploration of national culture, institutional systems and industrial structures as contextual moderators; many studies without defined context	RQ29: How does reverse mentoring unfold in underexplored contexts (e.g. Africa, Latin America, Middle East, Eastern Europe)? RQ30: Do emerging vs mature economies differ in how RM translates into organizational outcomes?
Context – industrial	Clear predominance of Technology/ICT (13 articles), with some presence in public sector (5), manufacturing (3), knowledge-intensive services (2), business/finance, healthcare and education (1 each). (Juriševič Brčić and Mihelič, 2015; Burdett, 2014; Raza and Onyesoh, 2020)	RM mostly studied in technology-driven contexts; limited evidence in traditional industries, SMEs, or cross-sectoral ecosystems. Absence of sector-level comparative studies	RQ31: How does RM operate in different sectors (e.g. manufacturing vs service)? RQ32: What are the differences in RM adoption and impact across highly regulated vs market-driven industries?
Method	Empirical studies dominate (61%); quantitative surveys with SEM, CFA/EFA most common (Chen, 2014; Garg, Murphy and Singh, 2022). Qualitative work uses semi-structured interviews, case studies, action research (Jammulamadaka, 2021; Gabriel et al., 2020). Mixed methods rare (4.5%)	Scarcity of longitudinal and experimental designs; limited use of mixed methods and multi-source triangulation	RQ32: How can longitudinal and experimental designs establish causal effects of RM? RQ33: How can mixed-method approaches combine quantitative rigour with qualitative depth to capture RM complexity?

Dimension	State of the art	Gaps identified	Future research questions (RQs)
Theory	Predominance of Social Exchange Theory (Blau, 1964; Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005), often combined with JD-R (Bakker and Demerouti, 2007). Additional references include classical mentoring theories (Kram, 1988; Scandura, 1992), knowledge management (Nonaka et al., 2000; Crossan et al., 1999), and occasional use of RBV/DC (Wernerfelt, 1984; Teece et al., 1997)	Heavy reliance on descriptive or loosely defined frameworks; limited adoption of strategic-level theories; absence of integrative frameworks combining micro (individual), meso (organizational) and macro (institutional) levels	RQ28: How can strategic theories (RBV, Dynamic Capabilities) be systematically applied to explain RM’s role in firm competitiveness? RQ29: Can multi-level frameworks integrate individual, organizational and institutional perspectives in RM research?
Context – geographical	Strong concentration in Asia, particularly India (10 / 36 articles), followed by USA (4) and UK (3). Emerging but fragmented interest in smaller contexts (Slovenia, Taiwan, Sri Lanka, Poland, Australia, Philippines)	Lack of balanced cross-country comparisons; underexploration of national culture, institutional systems and industrial structures as contextual moderators; many studies without defined context	RQ29: How does reverse mentoring unfold in underexplored contexts (e.g. Africa, Latin America, Middle East, Eastern Europe)? RQ30: Do emerging vs mature economies differ in how RM translates into organizational outcomes?
Context – industrial	Clear predominance of Technology/ICT (13 articles), with some presence in public sector (5), manufacturing (3), knowledge-intensive services (2), business/finance, healthcare and education (1 each). (Juriševič Brčić and Mihelič, 2015; Burdett, 2014; Raza and Onyesoh, 2020)	RM mostly studied in technology-driven contexts; limited evidence in traditional industries, SMEs, or cross-sectoral ecosystems. Absence of sector-level comparative studies	RQ31: How does RM operate in different sectors (e.g. manufacturing vs service)? RQ32: What are the differences in RM adoption and impact across highly regulated vs market-driven industries?
Method	Empirical studies dominate (61%); quantitative surveys with SEM, CFA/EFA most common (Chen, 2014; Garg, Murphy and Singh, 2022). Qualitative work uses semi-structured interviews, case studies, action research (Jammulamadaka, 2021; Gabriel et al., 2020). Mixed methods rare (4.5%)	Scarcity of longitudinal and experimental designs; limited use of mixed methods and multi-source triangulation	RQ32: How can longitudinal and experimental designs establish causal effects of RM? RQ33: How can mixed-method approaches combine quantitative rigour with qualitative depth to capture RM complexity?

Source(s): Authors’ own work