Search results

This paper seeks to investigate the differences in the teachers’ professional development (TPD) by mentorship in workplace. The authors examined the role of mentorship in the PD of teachers and conducted a meta-analysis of pertinent empirical data.

Using data from over 2,900 individuals, 66 experiments and 12 countries, the authors presented a meta-analysis of the association between workplace mentorship and TPD.

The authors concluded that mentoring activities could boost the TPD to some extent. It contributes positively to the discipline of science and language, kindergarten, individual mentoring and curriculum research. In addition, the periodicity should not exceed 1 year.

The results of the meta-analysis are restricted to short-term mentorship activities, and the sample size is modest. Building upon the findings from the literature review and meta-analysis, the authors delineated a research agenda for prospective investigations. This includes an imperative for further exploration into the nexus between mentoring and the PD of educators.

Based on the available literature and meta-analysis findings, the authors developed a framework for the “Experts in the classroom” TPD pattern.

This is the first meta-analysis evaluating the association between mentorship and TPD.

The relationship between industrial policy and exploratory innovation is imperfect.

The authors use Chinese high-tech enterprise identification policy (HTEP) as a natural experimental group to test policy impacts, spillover effects and mechanisms of action.

First, HTEP promotes exploratory innovation. In addition, HTEP has a greater impact on non-exploratory innovation. Second, HTEP has spillover effects in two phases: HTEP (2008) and the 2016 policy reform. HTEP affects exploratory innovation in nearby non-high-tech firms, and the policy effect decreases monotonically with increasing distance from the treatment group. Third, HTEP affects innovation capacity through financing constraints, technical personnel flow and knowledge flow, which explains not only policy effects but also spillover effects. Fourth, the analysis of policy heterogeneity shows that the 2016 policy reforms reinforce the positive effect of HTEP (2008). By deducting the effects of other policies, the HTEP effect is found to be less volatile. In terms of the continuity of policy identification, continuous uninterrupted identification has a crucial impact on the improvement of firms’ innovation capacity compared to repeated certification and certification expiration. Finally, HTEP has a crowding-out effect in state-owned enterprises and large firms’ innovation.

This paper contributes to the existing literature in several ways. First, the authors enrich the literature on industrial policy through exploratory innovation research. While previous studies have focused on R&D investment and patents (Dai and Wang, 2019), exploratory innovation helps firms break away from the inherent knowledge mindset and achieve sustainable innovation. Second, few studies have explored the characteristics of industrial policies. In this paper, the authors subdivide the sample into repeated certification, continuous certification and certification expiration according to high-tech enterprise identification. In addition, the authors compare the differences in policy implementation effects between the 2016 policy reform and the 2008 policy to provide new directions for business managers and policy makers. Third, innovation factors guided by industrial policies may cluster in specific regions, which in turn manifest externalities. This is when the policy spillover effect is worth considering. This paper fills a gap in the industrial policy literature by examining the spillover effects. Finally, this paper also explores the mechanisms of policy effects from three perspectives: financing constraints, technician mobility and knowledge mobility, which can affect not only the innovation of beneficiary firms directly but also indirectly the innovation of neighboring non-beneficiary firms.