Background: This study explores the significance of ICT on the capabilities of unbanked MSE entrepreneurs in Lesotho. MSE entrepreneurs are the primary source of income for their families, especially in the context of developing countries. Accordingly, MSEs are fundamental instruments for economic growth, poverty alleviation and source of employment in developing countries. Hence, the country that invests in this business sector is a step closer to accomplishing its MDGs. Purpose: The study explored and empirically assessed the influence of mobile payments among MSE entrepreneurs through a capabilities lens. Given that MSEs are crucial for developing countries, the targeted participants were MSE entrepreneurs from diverse trading industries in Lesotho. Research methodology: The methodology for this study was qualitative. Exploratory and descriptive research methods were used to evaluate the influence of mobile payments on the capabilities of MSE entrepreneurs. This study adopted Kleine's Choice Framework to explore and empirically assess the benefits of mobile payments among MSE entrepreneurs. Data was collected using semi-structured interviews and field notes and analysed using thematic analysis. Key Findings: The findings revealed the use of M-Pesa within the MSE sector enabled microentrepreneurs to accomplish their goals. The findings show that M-Pesa leads to the growth of MSEs. Therefore, entrepreneurs in the MSE business sector are capable of providing food, shelter and clothes for their families through income generated from their enterprises. Additionally, MSE entrepreneurs bank, transfer and receive money through accessible and available mobile payment platforms. However, these entrepreneurs face issues such as network failure, withdrawal amount limits and security risks while using mobile payments. Value of the study: The study contributes to the existing ICT4D and mobile payments literature in Lesotho by discussing the influence of mobile payment through the Choice Framework.

Diese Dissertation aus der Sparte der Reflexiven Bibliometrie erforscht die Rückwirkungen der Verwendung von quantitativen Indikatoren in der Wissenschaftsevaluation auf die Wissensproduktion und Forschungsqualität in der Astronomie. Eine qualitative Analyse der strukturellen Bedingungen der akamdeischen Astronomie anhand des Rational Choice Frameworks führen zur Beobachtung eines "Evaluation Gap" zwischen dem, was Indikatoren messen und dem, was Forscher unter Forschungsqualität verstehen. Die Analyse offenbart weiters einen Balanceakt, in dem Astronomen zwischen Publikationsdruck und Forschungsintegrität Kompromisse finden. Weiterführende quantitative Untersuchungen unter Einbezug von Organisational Culture Theories und Self-Determination Theory zeigen, dass kontrollierte Formen von Motivation zu einem erhöhten Publikationsdruck und wissenschaftlichem Fehlverhalten führen, während autonome Formen von Motivation das Gegenteil bewirken. Schließlich skizziert die Arbeit Wege zur Transformation der Forschungskultur hin zu mehr Vielfalt und Partizipation, einschließlich der Einführung offener Wissensmanagement-Infrastrukturen und kontinuierlicher, reflexiver Evaluationsprozesse. / This dissertation from the field of Reflexive Bibliometrics, investigates the constitutive effects of utilizing quantitative metrics in research evaluation on knowledge production and research quality in astronomy. Embedded in the Rational Choice Framework to analyze the structural conditions within academic astronomy, a qualitative analysis reveals an "Evaluation Gap" between what metrics measure and researchers' perceptions of research quality. Furthermore, the analysis unveils a balancing act where astronomers navigate compromises between publication pressures and research integrity. Subsequent quantitative analyses, incorporating Organizational Culture Theories and Self-Determination Theory, demonstrate that controlled forms of motivation exacerbate publication pressure and scientific misconduct, while autonomous motivations yield contrasting effects. Lastly, the study outlines pathways towards transforming research culture towards greater diversity and participation, including the adoption of open knowledge management infrastructures and continuous, reflexive evaluation processes.