Kolaborasi antara Peneliti dan Praktisi: Penelitian Interaktif pada Transformasi Digital di Credit Union Kridha Rahardja

Pande Putu Yuda Raditya Gunasta Putra; Antonius Sumarwan; Titus Odong Kusumajati

doi:10.31940/jbk.v21i3.199-218

Authors

Pande Putu Yuda Raditya Gunasta Putra Universitas Sanata Dharma, Yogyakarta
Antonius Sumarwan Indonesia
Titus Odong Kusumajati

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.31940/jbk.v21i3.199-218

Keywords:

Credit Union, Digital Transformation, Interactive Research

Abstract

Research findings of business management academics are often not applicable in solving concrete problems faced by business practitioners. This is due to the academic orientation that prioritize research with strict objectivity, while practitioners require research that address real-world issues. This syudy aims to bridge both interests by offering an interactive research approach. The research was conducted in collaboration with practitioners from Credit Union Kridha Rahardja, focusing on the case of digital transformation, specifically the achievements of the EsCeTe mobile banking application. The research succesfully increased the activation rates of EsCeTe, the frequency of EsCeTe transactions, and the transaction fees of EsCeTe, while also generating knowledge about actors and their capabilities in implementing digital transformation. Additionally, this study outlines the steps involved in condufting interactive research, along with the chalenges and solution to overcome them

References

Argyris, C. (1980). Inner contradictions of rigorous research. Academic Press.

Avenier, M. J., & Cajaiba, A. P. (2012). The dialogical model: Developing academic knowledge for and from practice. European Management Review, 9(4), 199–212.

Bailey, C. (2022). Employee engagement: Do practitioners care what academics have to say—and should they? Human Resource Management Review, 32(1), 100589.

Budampati, S., & Reddy, R. (2018). Impact of information technology on microfinance industry. Advanced Science and Technology Letters, 150, 116–121.

Clarke, V., & Braun, V. (2017). Thematic analysis. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 12(3), 297–298.

Cummings, T. G., & Worley, C. G. (2015). Organization development & change (10th ed.). Cengage Learning.

Cunliffe, A. L., & Alcadipani, R. (2016). The politics of access in fieldwork: Immersion, backstage dramas, and deception. Organizational Research Methods, 19(4), 535–561.

Dang, T. T., & Vu, H. Q. (2020). Fintech in microfinance: A new direction for microfinance institutions in Vietnam. Asian Journal of Business Environment, 10(3), 13–22.

Dorfleitner, G., Forcella, D., & Nguyen, Q. A. (2021). Why microfinance institutions go digital: An empirical analysis. ULB—Université Libre de Bruxelles.

Dorfleitner, G., Forcella, D., & Nguyen, Q. A. (2022). The digital transformation of microfinance institutions: An empirical analysis. Journal of Applied Accounting Research, 23(2), 454–479. https://doi.org/10.1108/JAAR-02-2021-0041

Dorfleitner, G., Nguyen, Q. A., & Röhe, M. (2019). Microfinance institutions and the provision of mobile financial services: First empirical evidence. Finance Research Letters, 31.

Eikeland, O. (2006). The validity of action research—Validity in action research. Shaker Publishing.

Ellström, P.-E. (2008). Knowledge creation through interactive research: A learning approach. Proceedings of the ECER Conference.

Ellström, P. E., Elg, M., Wallo, A., Berglund, M., & Kock, H. (2020). Interactive research: Concepts, contributions and challenges. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 31(8), 1517–1537. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMTM-09-2018-0304

Fauzi, F., Siregar, H., Barus, B., & Indraprahasta, G. S. (2025). Merevitalisasi UMKM Kabupaten Bekasi melalui transformasi digital: Tinjauan PCA dan analisis spasial. Jurnal Bisnis dan Kewirausahaan, 21(1), 43–65.

Gulati, R. (2007). Tent poles, tribalism, and boundary spanning: The rigor–relevance debate in management research. Academy of Management Journal, 50(4), 775–782.

Haley, U. C. V., Cooper, C. L., Hoffman, A. J., Pitsis, T. S., & Greenberg, D. (2022). In search of scholarly impact. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 21(3), 343–349. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2022.0327

Harvey, W. S., & Spee, A. P. (2023). Walking the tightrope of academic and practitioner expectations in field research. Management Learning, 55(5), 769–789. https://doi.org/10.1177/13505076231213176

Hibbert, P., Sillince, J., Diefenbach, T., & Cunliffe, A. L. (2014). Relationally reflexive practice: A generative approach to theory development in qualitative research. Organizational Research Methods, 17(3), 278–298.

Hodgkinson, G. P., & Rousseau, D. M. (2009). Bridging the rigour–relevance gap in management research: It’s already happening! Journal of Management Studies, 46(3), 534–546.

Kaufman, B. E. (2015). Evolution of strategic HRM as seen through two founding books: A 30th anniversary perspective on development of the field. Human Resource Management, 54(3), 389–407.

Kieser, A., Nicolai, A., & Seidl, D. (2015). The practical relevance of management research: Turning the debate on relevance into a rigorous scientific research program. Academy of Management Annals, 9(1), 143–233.

Kraimer, M. L., Greco, L., Seibert, S. E., & Sargent, L. D. (2018). An investigation of academic career success: The new tempo of academic life. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 18(2), 128–152. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2017.0391

MacIntosh, R., Beech, N., Bartunek, J., Mason, K., Cooke, B., & Denyer, D. (2017). Impact and management research: Exploring relationships between temporality, dialogue, reflexivity and praxis. British Journal of Management, 28(1), 3–13. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12207

Maurer, M., & Githens, R. P. (2010). Toward a reframing of action research for human resource and organization development: Moving beyond problem solving and toward dialogue. Action Research, 8(3), 267–292. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476750309351361

Mia, M. A. (2020). Technological change and innovations in microfinance institutions: What matters? Global Business Review. https://doi.org/10.1177/0972150920927368

Ohlsson, J., & Johansson, P. (2010). Interactive research as a strategy for practice-based learning: Designing competence development and professional growth in local school practice. In Learning through practice (pp. 240–255). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-3939-2_13

Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (2001). Handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice. Sage.

REF. (2019). Index of revisions to the “Panel criteria and working methods” (2019/02). https://2021.ref.ac.uk/publications-and-reports/panel-criteria-and-working-methods-201902/index.html

REF. (2021). Guide to REF results.

Roche, A. (2020). An analysis of the difficulties experienced by the credit union sector in Ireland engaging in digital transformation [Master’s thesis, National College of Ireland]. https://norma.ncirl.ie/4800/1/alanroche.pdf

Rosenthal, R. (1976). Experimenter effects in behavioral research. Irvington.

Simsek, Z., Bansal, P. (Tima), Shaw, J. D., Heugens, P., & Smith, W. K. (2018). From the editors—Seeing practice impact in new ways. Academy of Management Journal, 61(6), 2021–2025. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2018.4006

Stones, R. (2005). Structuration theory. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-230-21364-7

Sumarwan, A., Luke, B., & Furneaux, C. (2021). Putting members in the centre: Examining credit union accountability as member-based social enterprises. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, 18(2), 228–254.

Svensson, L., Brulin, G., & Ellström, P.-E. (2015). Interactive research and ongoing evaluation as joint learning processes. In Sustainable development in organizations (pp. 346–362). Edward Elgar Publishing.

Svensson, L., Ellström, P.-E., & Brulin, G. (2007). Introduction—On interactive research. International Journal of Action Research, 3, 233–249.

Van de Ven, A. H., & Johnson, P. E. (2006). Knowledge for theory and practice. Academy of Management Review, 31(4), 802–821.

Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research. Sage.