In science and technology studies, the agency of technology has largely been confined to its role in rearranging social relations and human–nonhuman networks, while its influence on the selection and transformation of theoretical frameworks has received far less attention. Through a case study of blockchain studies as an emerging technology, and by introducing the concept of the “theory–technology dialectic,” this paper demonstrates that technology can play a role in shaping, modifying, and displacing the theories researchers employ. The arguments of this paper show that no single theoretical framework is capable of explaining all dimensions of emerging technologies such as blockchain, and researchers are compelled to draw simultaneously on diverse theories. This situation reflects a kind of “theoretical flexibility” when confronting complex technologies. Ultimately, the paper proposes “theoretical assemblage” as a methodological strategy for studying emerging technologies and points to its Methodological implications for the field of technology studies.
Keywords: Blockchain, Science and Technology Studies, Technological agency, Theoretical flexibility, Theoretical assemblage
Introduction
This study addresses a neglected question in Science and Technology Studies (STS): can emerging technologies shape not only social relations but also the theoretical frameworks through which they are studied? While contemporary STS approaches have emphasized the agency of technology in transforming sociotechnical networks, they have paid comparatively little attention to technology’s influence on the selection, modification, and evolution of research theories themselves. When encountering an emerging technology, a key question is how a researcher should approach the study of this technology—specifically, what theoretical framework or theory they should use. Broadly speaking the application of theory in studies of technology can initially take three forms:
- The researcher attempts to explain all aspects of the technology under study using a single theory (single explanation).
- The researcher uses one theory to explain some aspects of the technology (partial explanation).
- The researcher employs multiple theories to explain most aspects of the technology (plural/multiple explanation).
We argue that behind these three initial modes—each with its own difficulties—there exists a dialectic between theory and technology. Part of the reason that single explanation leads to tension, or that researchers are driven toward partial or multiple explanation, is that technology itself, alongside other factors, acts as an agent that moderates and reshapes theory. We argue—through a case study of blockchain studies—how scholars of technology (sometimes without a philosophical orientation toward technology) have, over several years, been actively or inadvertently engaged in this theory–technology dialectic. We will show that this dialectic results in what we call theoretical flexibility in the study of technology. The methodological outcome of this flexibility is what we term theoretical assemblage. We will defend theoretical assemblage as an alternative “fourth” mode to the three cases described above. In the conclusion, we will also attempt to address certain policy implications of theoretical montage for studies of technology.
Materials & Methods
This study combines philosophical and empirical methodological approaches. On the one hand, through philosophical argumentation, it seeks to show the various ways researchers theoretically engage with technology and to defend the claim that the three conventional modes lead—through the theory–technology dialectic—to theoretical tension. On the other hand, to lend an empirical dimension to this philosophical analysis, the article turns to blockchain research to examine how scholars have engaged with this emerging technology from a theoretical perspective. Accordingly, what follows is an empirical component that examines the correspondence between theoretical frameworks and modes of explanation in the blockchain literature. The study adopts a conceptual and qualitative research design based on a systematic review of blockchain literature. Twenty-four peer-reviewed studies explicitly employing established theoretical frameworks were selected and analyzed. Rather than evaluating blockchain applications themselves, the review focused on identifying the theories adopted by researchers, the analytical roles these theories played, and the explanatory dimensions they emphasized.
Discussion & Result
The systematic review demonstrates substantial theoretical diversity within blockchain research. Actor-Network Theory appeared most frequently, followed by Agency Theory and Transaction Cost Theory, while Institutional Theory, Resource-Based View, Trust Theory, and several complementary perspectives were employed less frequently. More importantly, the analysis revealed that each theory explains only a particular dimension of blockchain. The comparison illustrates that none of these theories alone adequately captures blockchain’s technical, organizational, institutional, economic, and social complexity. Rather than reflecting merely different disciplinary preferences, this plurality indicates that blockchain itself resists being fully interpreted within a single theoretical framework. As researchers encounter aspects of blockchain that fall outside the explanatory capacity of their initial theories, they experience conceptual tensions that encourage theoretical revision or movement toward alternative perspectives. This phenomenon constitutes what the article defines as the theory–technology dialectic. Evidence for this dialectic extends beyond theory selection to theory development itself. The article highlights the emergence of Blockchain Agency Theory, which revises the classical assumptions of Agency Theory by incorporating blockchain-specific characteristics such as information symmetry, goal alignment, smart contracts, and decentralized governance. This example demonstrates that emerging technologies may stimulate the reconstruction of theoretical assumptions rather than simply serving as objects to which existing theories are applied.Building on these findings, the article evaluates four methodological responses to studying emerging technologies. The first three involve relying on a single theory, accepting partial explanations from one theory, or combining several complete theories. Each suffers from significant limitations, including explanatory incompleteness or ontological and epistemological inconsistency. As an alternative, the article proposes theoretical assemblage, inspired by John Law’s concept of method assemblage. Instead of committing to one comprehensive theory or simultaneously adopting several incompatible theories, researchers employ a heterogeneous toolbox of concepts, mechanisms, models, and analytical tools drawn from multiple traditions. This approach enables greater theoretical flexibility while avoiding unnecessary commitments to the full philosophical assumptions of every contributing theory.
Conclusion
The study concludes that no single theoretical framework is capable of explaining all dimensions of blockchain. Instead, researchers require theoretical flexibility, enabling them to draw selectively from diverse conceptual resources according to the specific characteristics of the phenomenon under investigation. The proposed notion of theoretical assemblage offers a methodological strategy for achieving this flexibility without demanding complete allegiance to multiple incompatible theoretical paradigms.
Beyond blockchain, these findings have broader implications for Science and Technology Studies and technology research more generally. They suggest that journals, supervisors, and research institutions should place greater emphasis on researchers’ familiarity with diverse theoretical traditions rather than requiring strict adherence to a single theory. Future research may examine whether the theory–technology dialectic also characterizes other emerging technologies, such as artificial intelligence, the Internet of Things, and quantum technologies, thereby assessing the broader applicability of the proposed conceptual framework.