STATE OF THE ART
A Blockchain Research Framework
What We (don’t) Know, Where We Go from Here, and How We Will Get There
Marten Risius
•
Kai Spohrer
Received: 11 January 2017 / Accepted: 14 August 2017 / Published online: 5 December 2017
Ó US Government 2017
Abstract While blockchain technology is commonly
considered potentially disruptive in various regards, there
is a lack of understanding where and how blockchain
technology is effectively applicable and where it has
mentionable practical effects. This issue has given rise to
critical voices that judge the technology as over-hyped.
Against this backdrop, this study adapts an established
research framework to structure the insights of the current
body of research on blockchain technology, outline the
present research scope as well as disregarded topics, and
sketch out multidisciplinary research approaches. The
framework differentiates three groups of activities (design
and features, measurement and value, management and
organization) at four levels of analysis (users and society,
intermediaries, platforms, firms and industry). The review
shows that research has predominantly focused on tech-
nological questions of design and features, while neglect-
ing application, value creation, and governance. In order to
foster substantial blockchain research that addresses
meaningful questions, this study identifies several avenue s
for future studies. Given the breadth of open questions, it
shows where research can benefit from multidisciplinary
collaborations and presents data sources as starting points
for empirical investigations.
Keywords Blockc hain Research framework Literature
review Distributed ledger technology Digitalization
1 Introduction
Blockchain technology currently receives a lot of public
attention as advocates argue that it constitutes the foun-
dation for truly trust-free economic transactions based on
its unique technological characteristics (Glaser 2017).
Blockchain technology is among the most trending tech-
nologies (Gartner 2016) and argued to disrupt various
intermediary services (Tapscott and Tapscott 2016). It
acquired fame as the technology underlying Bitcoin (Beck
and Mu
¨
ller-Bloch 2017) but is currently expanded to other
areas of application (Wo
¨
rner et al. 2016).
At the same time, however, scholars are drawing par-
allels between blockchain technology and, for example,
bubble memory regarding their revolutionary impact on
business, remembering that bubble memory also never
lived up to the expectations associa ted with it (Avital et al.
2016). Glaser (2017) repeats the commonly expressed
concern that blockchain technology is an innovative tech-
nology searching for use cases. Despite the great expec-
tations, there is currently a paucity of knowledge regarding
where and how blockchain technology is effectively
applicable and where it can provide mentionable societal
effects. We argue that research can help overcome this
paucity by comprehensively understanding the effects of
unique blockchain properties (e.g., decentralization,
Accepted after two revisions by the editors of the special issue.
Electronic supplementary material The online version of this
article (https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-017-0506-0) contains supple-
mentary material, which is available to authorized users.
Dr. M. Risius (&)
College of Business and Behavioral Science, Clemson
University, 515 Calhoun Dr, Clemson, SC 29634, USA
e-mail: risius@g.clemson.edu
Dr. K. Spohrer
University of Mannheim, Chair of General Management and
Information Systems, L 15, 1-6-Room 520, 68161 Mannheim,
Germany
e-mail: spohrer@uni-mannheim.de
123
Bus Inf Syst Eng 59(6):385–409 (2017)
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-017-0506-0
transaction speed, security, auditability and control) and by
investigating respectively appropriate societal fields of
application. So far, however, application-oriented contri-
butions to blockchain rese arch appear to be scarce, dis-
connected and focused on a limited number of topics (e.g.,
payment systems). To address these issues, we draw on an
established research framework that has previously helped
structure and create a meaningful research stream in the
related area of social media and business transformation
(Aral et al. 2013). We adapt this fra mework to the partic-
ularities of the blockchain technology. By drawing on a
fruitfully established framework and transferring the cor-
responding research questions, we intend to systematically
organize findings and develop research topics that look
beyond the currently considered subjects. Thereby, we
address two research questions: What is the current state of
knowledge regarding blockchain, and how can it pur-
posefully be advanced?
To achieve our research objective, we systematically
collected published scholarly blockchain papers to review
them under consideration of the related research frame-
work and relevant technological foundations (Tschorsch
and Scheuermann 2016). In contrast to existing blockchain
frameworks (Yli-Huumo et al. 2016), this approach enables
us to structure current findings as well as inspire research
questions beyond the focus of extant work. Moving for-
ward from the current state of research, we highlight links
to other disciplines and propose starting points for empir-
ical research by pointing at some available data sources
that can help close the large discrepancy between scholarly
knowledge and expectations. To substantiate a long-term
contribution, we provide online access to the framework
and invite collaborative paper submissions to keep the lit-
erature overview up to date.
1
The remainder of the paper is structured as follows.
First, we introduce the key technological concepts under-
lying blockchai n technology. Subsequently, we describe
the study’s processes of collecting and analyzing the lit-
erature before introducing the adapted framework with the
respective research questions and existent findings. We
then highlight links to related disciplines as several larger
questions may require IS researchers to collabo rate with
scholars of other disciplines or at least consider their the-
ories in order to conduct relevant and rigorous research.
Lastly, we present promising data sources for empirical
investigations and critically discuss the work’s contribu-
tions before deriving general conclusions.
2 Conceptual Background
In its generic form, blockchain technology
2
refers to a fully
distributed system for cryptographically capturing and
storing a consistent, immutable, linear event log of trans-
actions between networked actors. This is functionally
similar to a distributed ledger that is consensually kept,
updated, and validated by the parties involved in all the
transactions within a network. In such a network, block-
chain technology enforces transpa rency and guarantees
eventual, system-wide consensus on the validity of an
entire history of transactions. As current blockchain tech-
nology can not only process monetary transactions but can
also ensure that transactions comply with programmable
rules in the form of ‘‘smart cont racts’’(Tschorsch and
Scheuermann 2016), it allows even parties who do not fully
trust each other to conduct and reliably control mutual
transactions without relying on the services of any trusted
middlemen. This may be one reason why nearly all banks
are currently engaged in developing a vision of what this
technology means for their business (Glaser 2017).
Beyond their primary distributed ledger functionality,
single implementations of blockchain technology differ in
their technical details and capabilities. Recent publicly
available blockchains (e.g., Ethereum or Hyperledger
Fabric) comprise elements for implicitly managing a fully
distributed network of peers, different cryptography-en-
abled consensus mechanisms for capturing and storing
transactions as well as data attached to transactions, and
programming languages to create smart contracts of
immutable or dynamic business functionality that can be
used during transactions (Glaser 2017). Implementations
differ regarding their mechanisms to enforce consensus, the
power of included programming languages, their capabil-
ities to define who is allowed to participate in a network,
and the type of cryptocurrency they include (Beck and
Mu
¨
ller-Bloch 2017; Yli-Huumo et al. 2016).
Recent reviews of technical papers on blockchain
research show that the majority of scholarly work has
focused on improvements and challenges of current pro-
tocols, primarily for cryptocurrencies in general and for
Bitcoin in particular (Glaser and Bezzenberger 2015;
Morisse 2015; Tschorsch and Scheuermann 2016; Yli-
Huumo et al. 2016). While security, data privacy, and
usability in these blockchain implementations are subject
to ongoing development, particularly the question of the
best algorithms to incentivize and ensure transactional
validity and consensus is fiercely discussed in research and
practice (Walsh et al. 2016). As such, proof-of-work
1
We provide open access to the overview of current scientific
knowledge [Table 2 and Table A1 (in the appendix, available online
via http://link.springer.com)] here: http://bit.ly/BCSOTA. We are
thankful to Florian Glaser for his inspiring feedback to the avenues
for future research.
2
In the following also interchangeably referred to as ‘‘blockchain’’,
‘‘blockchain systems’’, ‘‘blockchain environment’’, or ‘‘decentralized
blockchain’’.
123
386 M. Risius, K. Spohrer: A Blockchain Research Framework, Bus Inf Syst Eng 59(6):385–409 (2017)
approaches that require high levels of energy but guarantee
relatively high levels of consistency and protection against
forgery by any actor in the network (e.g., in Bitcoin)
compete against less costly ones (for a comprehensive
introduction see Tschorsch and Scheuermann (2016)).
Such alternative approaches requi re a portion of trust in
some elements of the network, such as actors based on the
resources they put at risk during validation (e.g., proof-of-
stake in Peercoin) or in the manufacturers of devices that
are used to validate transactions (e.g., proof-of -elapsed-
time in Hyperledger Sawtooth Lake). Blockchain imple-
mentations that target the general (not to be trusted) public
(e.g., Ethereum, Bitcoin) typically include reward mecha-
nisms based on cryptocurrencies to incentivize actors to
verify transactions (‘‘mining Bitcoins’’) whereas imple-
mentations targeting closed, rather trustworthy or at least
mutually familiar groups of users (e.g., Hyperledger Fab-
ric) put more emphasis on permi ssioning mechanisms that
allow for granting participation rights to identifiable and
accountable actors while denying them to others. In sum,
the different approaches towards validation and consensus
building aim for different balances regarding availability,
consistency, and trustworthiness (Tschorsch and Scheuer-
mann 2016). They thereby influence the potential appli-
cations and affordances of each implementation of
blockchain technology (Glaser and Bezzenberger 2015).
By separating such technical decisions into modular layers
that can easily be changed, blockchain technology gains
enormous application possibilities beyond simply
exchanging tokens of a single cryptocurrency like Bitcoin
(Glaser 2017). In fact, some scholars even propose that this
technology paves the way for entirely new models of
business and organization as it allows for econom ically
reasonable transactions with potentially untrustworthy
transaction partners without any additional measures of
precaution. They promote the vision of a trust-free econ-
omy with truly virtual organizations and automatic busi-
ness transactions of devices in the internet of things (Beck
et al. 2016 ; Christidis and Devetsikiotis 2016; Glaser 2017;
Puschmann and Alt 2016).
Against this backdrop, we believe that it holds merit to
throw the spotlight on research that focuses on the wider
ramifications of blockchain technology beyond technical
details and cryptocurrencies. Prior work fruitfully reviewed
and synthesized technical research on protocol improve-
ments, primarily with implications for cryptocurrencies
like Bitcoin (Glaser and Bezzenberger 2015; Morisse 2015;
Tschorsch and Scheuermann 2016; Yli-Huumo et al. 2016 ).
Yet, little is known about research that delves into the
purported disruptive potential of blockchain technology
that extends beyond IT (Beck and Mu
¨
ller-Bloch 2017). In
light of this broad reach, we strive to structure extant work
on blockchain technology beyond cryptocurrencies and
aim to provide a conceptual framework that outlines a
research agenda with guidelines for researchers from IS as
well as from neighboring disciplines.
3 Method for Structuring Blockchain Advancements
This study intends to provide a framework that can guide
future research and delineates prior research for scholars to
progress from. For this purpose, we collected and reviewed
the existent body of research in a structured manner.
Afterwards, we developed the study’s framework through a
guided content analytical approach towards the collected
literature. Both processes are further elaborated in the
following.
3.1 Paper Collection for Literature Review
In conducting a scoping review (Pare
´
et al. 2015)of
blockchain research, we followed a systematic approach
towards selecting and analyzing literature in this emerging
research stream. Based on our research questions, we
developed a protocol for identifying papers to be included
in the analysis. In line with the idea of a scoping review,
we thereby aimed for a comprehensive overview of prior
work relevant to our research questions but willingly
excluded even high quality papers on blockchain technol-
ogy if they did not help answer our research questions
(Pare
´
et al. 2015). The protocol consisted of defined
sources of research to scan, means to access them, and
basic criteria for inclusion and exclusion of single papers
(Kitchenham and Charters 2007; Pare
´
et al. 2015). As we
were interested in scientific knowledge on the wider ram-
ifications of blockchain technology, we only focused on
scholarly literature and thereby excluded the manifold
statements, ideas, and visions of blockchain enthusiasts and
opponents in public press, media, and whitepaper collec-
tions. In doing so, we acknowledge that there are enor-
mously influential whitepapers that have shaped the
discussion of blockchain in industry as well as academia
(esp. Back et al. 2014; Buterin 2014a; Nakamoto 2008;
Rosenfeld 2012; Schwartz et al. 2014; Wood 2014), but we
refer read ers to detailed extant discussions of these papers
(Tschorsch and Scheuermann 2016; Yli-Huumo et al.
2016).
We searched the databases of the Web of Science, IEEE
Xplore, the AIS Electronic Library, ScienceDirect, and
SSRN for research on blockchain technology published in
journals and conferences. In particular, we used the search
terms ‘‘block chain’’ and ‘‘blockchain’’ in the mentioned
databases. As there is a number of helpful syntheses on the
state of technical research on blockchain protocols (e.g.,
Morisse 2015; Tschorsch and Scheuermann 2016; Yli-
123
M. Risius, K. Spohrer: A Blockchain Research Framework, Bus Inf Syst Eng 59(6):385–409 (2017) 387
Huumo et al. 2016), we decided to focus only on papers
that went beyond technical blockchain protocol improve-
ments. We were particularly interested in finding concep-
tual papers or empirical analyses of the application, design,
use, or implications of blockchain technology for humans,
organizations, and markets. For reasons of quality assur-
ance, we discarded all working papers and workshop pro-
ceedings to retain only published academic research in
scholarly journal articles and conference proceedings. We
then examined titles and abstracts of all retained papers for
elements that referred to the application , design, use, or
implications of blockchain technology for humans, orga-
nizations, or markets. All papers that matched any one of
those criteria were included in our review. We explicitly
excluded papers that solely focused on technology or on
cryptocurrency performance or market trends. Technical
papers improving or proposing algorithms without any
connection to humans, organizations or markets were also
discarded. In order to ensure consistency in the selection
procedure, the first and second authors of this paper jointly
defined the inclusi on and exclusion criteria, examined a set
of 10 papers together with a research assistant for their
relevance, and then had the research assistant recommend
selection or rejection for all identified papers based on their
full text. The first and second authors then each examined
half of the proposed selections and rejections based on their
abstracts to verify the selection quality. In few cases of
disagreement, the authors and the assistant discussed their
opinions to come to a joint verdict about inclusion or
exclusion (Pare
´
et al. 2015 ). In order to address the critique
of systematic literature reviews (Boell and Cecez-Kec-
manovic 2014), we also reviewed the citations of selected
papers to determine whethe r any of them referenced
research papers that we had inadvertently overlooked in
our initial selection process (Webster and Watson 2002).
The authors lastly read the selected literature and removed
papers that were not targeting the focus area as expected
from the abstract. A qualitative content analysis was con-
ducted for a final set of 69 papers. Figure 1 depicts the
numbers of papers that emerged from the single steps of
this process. In sum, we collected a broad set of literature
from various disciplines that provided the input to our
content analysis.
3.2 Directed Content Analysis Approach
In order to develop a framework for tracking and guiding
blockchain related advancements, we oriented towards
Morris’ five-step process for directed content analysis as
described below (Hsieh and Shannon 2005; Morris 1994).
We based our approach on predefined categories and
descriptions of a recognized research structure from the
social media context (Aral et al. 2013), which enabled us to
draw systematic and valid inferences from the collected
data (Krippendorff 2012). This framework was selected,
because it pursues corresponding purposes for a concep-
tually related technol ogy. We consider social media tech-
nology to be conceptually related, because – comparable to
blockchain – it provides a tool for transparent and large-
scale, many-to-many exchanges that empower the indi-
vidual. In the case of social media, this complex and par-
ticipatory environment has redirected control from
companies to consumers and enhanced the users’ ability to
undertake collective action (Shirky 2011). Comparably,
blockchain technology enables comprehensive bidirec-
tional transactions, improves transparency, and is argued to
pose disruptive challenges to society and central authorities
(Atzori 2015). Thus, we assume the social med ia frame-
work from Aral et al. (2013) to provide a viable starting
point for structuring blockchain research.
Following Morris (1994) five steps, at first the singular
studies were determined as the unit of analysis, which
constitute the fragments in which the data was broken
down to for the coding process (Rourke et al. 2001). We
categorized them for their academic discipline and for their
research method. Subsequently, we developed the catego-
rization framework based on the established social media
structure from Aral et al. (2013). Initially, the scheme was
intensively discussed among two senior researchers
familiar with the theoretical and technological background.
Afterwards, it was applied to structure the collected stud-
ies, which led to some revisions under consideration of the
blockchain specifics (Glaser 2017) alongside the test-clas-
sification process until the final version was created (fur-
ther details can be found in Sects. 4.1 and 4.2). Lastly, the
authors processed all 69 selected focal studies in accor-
dance with the research framework.
4 Results
4.1 Research Framework
The framewor k (Table 1) is based on the popular social
media research agenda from Aral et al. (2013). It was
adapted to the blockchain context mainly by adjustments
regarding the characteristic aspects and affordances of
Fig. 1 Literature selection process
123
388 M. Risius, K. Spohrer: A Blockchain Research Framework, Bus Inf Syst Eng 59(6):385–409 (2017)
blockchain technology (Glaser 2017). The framework is
conceptualized as an intersection of activities that block-
chain developers and users can undertake and the levels of
analysis on which these activities wield influence. Relying
on a powerful, established framework from related litera-
ture and transferring respective research questions enables
us to systematically identify general research topics beyond
the currently discussed research objectives. Thereby, we
are able to raise themes that move beyond the current
blockchain state-of-the-art and broaden the scope to topics
that have not yet been consider ed by contemporary
research reviews that solely focus on the subjects covered
by the reviewed articles (Yli-Huumo et al. 2016).
The combinations of activities and levels of analysis in
this framework provide analytical categories of techno-
logical and theoretical advancements regarding blockchain
systems. It needs to be noted, that these categories are not
defined to be mutually exclusive in the sense that a research
objective can only address one activity and one unit of
analysis at a time. These categories rather help to structure
and inspire future advancements in blockchain research.
They allow for the identification of neglected topic areas
and the definition of meaningful implications for the
respective analytical categories. Furthermore, due to the
pervasive potential of the blockchain technology (Glaser
2017), it is expected to affect various different aspects of
society (e.g., politics, business models). Therefore, we
argue that it is beneficial for researc hers to collaborate
across disciplines or at least consider related theories and
analytical contexts. Consequently, the developed frame-
work also seeks to inspire cross-disciplinary research with
contributions from separate fields of expertise (further
elaborated in Sect. 4.3.1).
The framework’s levels of analysis refer to the scale of
the research target. In reference to Aral et al. (2013), we
differentiate between the four perspectives: ‘users and
society’, ‘intermediaries’, ‘platforms’, and ‘firms and
industries’. As opposed to social media, blockchain sys-
tems are decentrally hosted providing a reliable infras-
tructure independent from the particular intermediary
services provider (Glaser 2017). Thus, deviant from the
original structure in the social media context, we consider
intermediaries and platforms distinct from each other to
account for this unique potential of blockchains as an
Table 1 Multidisciplinary blockchain research framework with prospective paradigmatic research questions
Level of
analysis
Activities
Design and features Measurement and value Management and Organization
Users and
society
How do blockchain features and
design affect the interaction between
users and technology adoption?
How do different features constrain
or unchain usage?
What are the benefits and costs of using
blockchain technology for the individual user and
the society?
How to balance user privacy and
legal demands?
Why and how do users perceive
transactions with humans or
artifacts as sufficiently
trustworthy?
Intermediaries How do alternative blockchain
features and designs enact different
intermediary services?
How do specific features
complement existing
intermediaries?
How can blockchain systems maximize their role
as a transaction intermediary?
What are the value propositions and the
limitations of blockchain technology compared
to established intermediary services providers?
How do existing intermediary
service providers position
themselves towards blockchain
technology?
Which business transactions can be
outsourced to blockchain
systems?
Platforms How do blockchain platforms differ
regarding features and designs?
How can different blockchain
systems complement each other to
overcome individual constraints?
How can blockchain systems enhance their
dissemination among users and linkage with
operating systems?
What are the complementary benefits of
blockchain systems to established information
systems?
How can decentralized blockchains
establish and govern innovative
ecosystems?
What are the effects of hard forks?
How can they be managed or
prevented?
Firms and
industries
How can firms utilize blockchain
features for their own business
processes?
What blockchain features are
relevant for different company
divisions or industry branches?
What type of blockchain is best-
suited for the respective purposes?
How does blockchain provide added value for
companies to conduct transactions within the
company or with customers, other companies,
stakeholders and the government?
Which markets, industry branches, business
models or corporate divisions are more likely to
be affected by blockchain?
How do organizations act under
different blockchain based regimens
of data privacy/confidentiality?
How does decentralized control
work in industry-wide blockchain
systems?
Can new forms of organization be
managed effectively on a
blockchain? If so, how and why?
123
M. Risius, K. Spohrer: A Blockchain Research Framework, Bus Inf Syst Eng 59(6):385–409 (2017) 389