Why the Truly Marginalized Use Mobile Payments? Evidence from a Low-Income and Less-Educated Population of a Developing Economy

Government and non-government agencies have promoted mobile payment technology as an instrument of financial inclusion, with the agenda of fostering socioeconomic development. However, the true developmental capabilities of the technology can be recognized only by understanding its usage among the truly marginalized who are often ignored by mainstream studies. To address this issue, we develop a research model for the context of marginalized users, disadvantaged by low income and less education, distinguished from the general population by their habit of technology use, trust, perception of risk related to monetary transactions, and the network of users they transact with. To validate the model, we collect evidence using a survey of a low-income low-education sample of 98 respondents from the developing economy of India. The results show how habit and trust play a significant role compared to perceived risk, with an interesting interaction of education with network externalities. The findings hold major developmental implications related to mobile payment use by the marginalized, and hence their financial inclusion

Why would microentrepreneurs continue using mobile payments? An entrepreneurial perspective with evidence from India

Over the past decade, business activities have advanced electronically with mobile phones emerging as a significant channel for commercial transactions. How consumers are embracing mobile payments has received major attention in the literature. We shift focus to the microentrepreneurs, including small merchants and informal retailers, who constitute a bulk of developing economy markets. With the recent popularity of mobile payments among microentrepreneurs due to the demands of the Covid-19 pandemic, we now enquire about its long-term continuity. To acknowledge the entrepreneurial mindset driving microentrepreneurs to continue using mobile payments, we draw from the Entrepreneurial Orientation framework (Lumpkin & Dess, 1996) and develop a model that captures entrepreneurial characteristics of the technology like autonomy, innovativeness, competitive externalities, and customer expectations. Using the findings from a survey of 208 microentrepreneurs operating from an urban marketplace in India, we propose how mobile payment can contribute to sustainable development through long-term financial inclusion

An Investigation of Affordances and Constraints for Continued Usage of Mobile Payment Technology

Users may continue to use or abandon a technology even after adoption. India’s historic demonetization of cash, which had forced users to adopt mobile payments, was followed by the return of cash to circulation after two years. This offers a setting to investigate users’ continued usage of mobile payment technology, since a majority of users continued using payment apps. We develop a research model that utilizes technology affordances and constraints theory (TACT) to study technology as contextually-embedded objects with respect to their capabilities perceived by humans. We identify the affordances and constraints that act as influencers or barriers to continued usage of mobile payment technology. We further analyze the effect of merchant and payment app companies on continued usage. We propose a survey-based methodology to gather empirical evidence for the developed research model. This study has important implications for IS research and practice since affordance theory, a novel theory for the field of mobile payments, provides a valuable lens for understanding action potential of a technology as an interplay between user and environment

Factors facilitating Adoption of Mobile Payment Services over Credit/Debit Cards: An Investigation after the Demonetization Policy Shock in India

The heavy cash dependence of India and low digital payment adoption changed when the government announced its demonetization scheme on November 2016, invalidating banknotes and creating a crisis. In this cash shortage, the nation, that was historically low on mobile payment adoption, was ‘pushed’ to use digital payment. Though debit/credit cards are traditional digital options, easier to maintain in comparison to mobile wallets, the adoption rate for wallets was surprisingly higher. Environmental events occurring around the same time period include introduction of low cost Internet offering better facilitating conditions, discounts by e-wallets companies, and increased risk perception for payment cards from theft news flocking the media. We propose to investigate the various facilitating and inhibiting factors that accelerated mobile payment adoption above other digital options

“Real impact” : challenges and opportunities in bridging the gap between research and practice – making a difference in industry, policy, and society

Achieving impact from academic research is a challenging, complex, multifaceted, and interconnected topic with a number of competing priorities and key performance indicators driving the extent and reach of meaningful and measurable benefits from research. Academic researchers are incentivised to publish their research in high-ranking journals and academic conferences but also to demonstrate the impact of their outputs through metrics such as citation counts, altmetrics, policy and practice impacts, and demonstrable institutional decision-making influence. However, academic research has been criticized for: its theoretical emphasis, high degree of complexity, jargon-heavy language, disconnect from industry and societal needs, overly complex and lengthy publishing timeframe, and misalignment between academic and industry objectives. Initiatives such as collaborative research projects and technology transfer offices have attempted to deliver meaningful impact, but significant barriers remain in the identification and evaluation of tangible impact from academic research. This editorial focusses on these aspects to deliver a multi-expert perspective on impact by developing an agenda to deliver more meaningful and demonstrable change to how “impact” can be conceptualized and measured to better align with the aims of academia, industry, and wider society. We present the 4D model - Design, Deliver, Disseminate, and Demonstrate - to provide a structured approach for academia to better align research endeavors with practice and deliver meaningful, tangible benefits to stakeholders.https://www.elsevier.com/locate/ijinfomgt2026-05-04hj2024InformaticsNon

“Real impact”: Challenges and opportunities in bridging the gap between research and practice – Making a difference in industry, policy, and society

Achieving impact from academic research is a challenging, complex, multifaceted, and interconnected topic with a number of competing priorities and key performance indicators driving the extent and reach of meaningful and measurable benefits from research. Academic researchers are incentivised to publish their research in high-ranking journals and academic conferences but also to demonstrate the impact of their outputs through metrics such as citation counts, altmetrics, policy and practice impacts, and demonstrable institutional decision-making influence. However, academic research has been criticized for: its theoretical emphasis, high degree of complexity, jargon-heavy language, disconnect from industry and societal needs, overly complex and lengthy publishing timeframe, and misalignment between academic and industry objectives. Initiatives such as collaborative research projects and technology transfer offices have attempted to deliver meaningful impact, but significant barriers remain in the identification and evaluation of tangible impact from academic research. This editorial focusses on these aspects to deliver a multi-expert perspective on impact by developing an agenda to deliver more meaningful and demonstrable change to how “impact” can be conceptualized and measured to better align with the aims of academia, industry, and wider society. We present the 4D model - Design, Deliver, Disseminate, and Demonstrate - to provide a structured approach for academia to better align research endeavors with practice and deliver meaningful, tangible benefits to stakeholders

“Real impact”: challenges and opportunities in bridging the gap between research and practice – making a difference in industry, policy, and society

Achieving impact from academic research is a challenging, complex, multifaceted, and interconnected topic with a number of competing priorities and key performance indicators driving the extent and reach of meaningful and measurable benefits from research. Academic researchers are incentivised to publish their research in high-ranking journals and academic conferences but also to demonstrate the impact of their outputs through metrics such as citation counts, altmetrics, policy and practice impacts, and demonstrable institutional decision-making influence. However, academic research has been criticized for: its theoretical emphasis, high degree of complexity, jargon-heavy language, disconnect from industry and societal needs, overly complex and lengthy publishing timeframe, and misalignment between academic and industry objectives. Initiatives such as collaborative research projects and technology transfer offices have attempted to deliver meaningful impact, but significant barriers remain in the identification and evaluation of tangible impact from academic research. This editorial focusses on these aspects to deliver a multi-expert perspective on impact by developing an agenda to deliver more meaningful and demonstrable change to how “impact” can be conceptualized and measured to better align with the aims of academia, industry, and wider society. We present the 4D model - Design, Deliver, Disseminate, and Demonstrate - to provide a structured approach for academia to better align research endeavors with practice and deliver meaningful, tangible benefits to stakeholders.</p