Authors : Halima Halilu

Volume/Issue : Volume 11 - 2026, Issue 8 - August

Google Scholar : https://tinyurl.com/5n8e6pcd

DOI : https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/26aug1380

Note : A published paper may take 4-5 working days from the publication date to appear in PlumX Metrics, Semantic Scholar, and ResearchGate.

Abstract : Purpose: Quantitative evidence increasingly confirms that digital infrastructure and FinTech adoption drive financial inclusion among smallholder farmers, but the lived, behavioural, and relational mechanisms underlying these statistical relationships remain poorly understood. This study qualitatively explores how smallholder farmers and the wider FinTech ecosystem experience, interpret, and negotiate the adoption of digital financial services in rural Nigeria.  Design/Methodology/Approach: The study adopted a qualitative design comprising 18 semi-structured interviews with smallholder farmers, agricultural extension officers, FinTech executives, financial regulators, and traditional financial institution representatives across Nigeria's North Central region. Data were analysed using thematic analysis, supplemented by a systematic stakeholder perspective analysis comparing how different participant groups experienced and framed FinTech adoption. Trustworthiness was established through member checking, thick description, audit trails, and reflexive practice, following Lincoln and Guba's (1985) criteria.  Findings: Five interrelated themes emerged: financial literacy as a foundational capability; the centrality of the digital financial ecosystem (network reliability, agent presence, and POS infrastructure); structural and perceptual barriers and enablers of adoption (registration requirements, trust and fraud concerns, documentation complexity); uneven financial inclusion outcomes despite growing account ownership; and the pivotal role of social support systems, particularly community leadership and peer demonstration, in normalising adoption. Stakeholder perspectives converged on the centrality of infrastructure and trust, while diverging notably on the practicality of regulatory and business-model solutions.  Practical Implications: Interventions that address a single barrier in isolation, such as device provision or literacy training alone, are unlikely to achieve sustained adoption. Coordinated, multi-stakeholder interventions that simultaneously build trust, extend agent networks, simplify documentation, and mobilise community leaders as adoption champions are more likely to succeed. Regulators and FinTech providers should work jointly on adaptive frameworks that protect farmers from fraud without imposing barriers disproportionate to rural realities.  Originality: This study contributes rare, in-depth, multi-stakeholder qualitative evidence, spanning farmers, extension officers, regulators, industry, and financial institutions, on FinTech adoption in an underexplored agricultural context. It illuminates the social and relational mechanisms, particularly trust dynamics and peer-driven social proof, that quantitative models of adoption cannot directly capture, offering a complementary and contextually grounded account of how financial inclusion is actually negotiated in rural farming communities.

Keywords : FinTech Adoption; Qualitative Research; Thematic Analysis; Smallholder Farmers; Stakeholder Perspectives; Financial Inclusion; Nigeria; Trust.

References :

1. Ahmed, A. (2024). Impact of financial technology on micro small and medium enterprises (MSMEs): Evidence from Adamawa State, Nigeria. Journal of Accounting and Financial Management.
2. Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Sage Publications.
3. Das, S. (2024). Financial literacy and education in enhancing financial inclusion and poverty alleviation. In S. Das (Ed.), Financial inclusion and poverty alleviation (pp. 159–178). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-67523-2_8
4. Hennink, M. (2018). Applied thematic analysis. Sage Publications.
5. Khan, F. U., Nouman, M., Negrut, L., Abban, J., Cismas, L. M., & Siddiqi, M. F. (2024). Constraints to agricultural finance in underdeveloped and developing countries: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 22(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2024.2329388
6. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage Publications.
7. Lusardi, A., & Mitchell, O. S. (2011). Financial literacy around the world: An overview. Journal of Pension Economics and Finance, 10(4), 497–508. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1474747211000448
8. Rahman, S., & Singh, A. (2023). Digital financial inclusion in rural India: Infrastructural barriers and implementation challenges. Journal of Rural Studies, 97, 214–227.
9. Rayhan, M. J., Rahman, S. M. M., Mamun, A. A., Saif, A. N. M., Islam, K. M. A., Alom, M. M., & Hafiz, N. (2024). FinTech solutions for sustainable agricultural value chains: A perspective from smallholder farmers. Business Strategy and Development, 7(2). https://doi.org/10.1002/bsd2.358
10. Rogers, E. M. (1962). Diffusion of innovations (1st ed.). Free Press.
11. Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). Free Press.
12. Spivak, I., Mihus, I., & Greben, S. (2024). Financial literacy and government policies: An international study. Financial and Credit Activity: Problems of Theory and Practice, 2(18). https://doi.org/10.36690/2674
13. Zulfiqar, M., Zhang, R., Khan, N., & Nadeem, M. (2023). Financial literacy and subjective well-being: The mediating role of financial self-efficacy and financial behavior. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, 40, 100865.