From Theory–Technology Dialectic to Theoretical Assemblage:  A Case Study of Blockchain Studies

Kakavandi, Yousef; Sharifzadeh, Rahman; Mohammadi, Mehdi; Abooyee Ardakan, Mohammad; Heidary Dahooie, Jalil

doi:10.30465/ps.2026.54604.1833

From Theory–Technology Dialectic to Theoretical Assemblage: A Case Study of Blockchain Studies

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

Yousef Kakavandi ¹

Rahman Sharifzadeh ²

Mehdi Mohammadi ³

Mohammad Abooyee Ardakan ⁴

Jalil Heidary Dahooie ⁵

¹ Ph.D. Candidate of Technology Management, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

² Associate Professor of Science and Technology Studies, Iranian Research Institute for Information Science and Technology (IranDoc), Tehran, Iran

³ Associate Professor of Technology Management, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.

⁴ Professor of management, University of Tehran, Tehran,Iran

⁵ Associate Professor of Industrial management, University of Tehran, Tehran,Iran

https://doi.org/10.30465/ps.2026.54604.1833

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Blockchain

Science and Technology Studies

Technological agency

Theoretical flexibility

Theoretical assemblage

Subjects

Philosophy of technology

Barad, K. (2007). Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning: duke university Press.

Beck, R., Müller-Bloch, C., & King, J. L. (2018). Governance in the blockchain economy: A framework and research agenda. Journal of the association for information systems, 19(10), 1.

Bijker, W. E. (1997). Of bicycles, bakelites, and bulbs: Toward a theory of sociotechnical change: MIT press.

Bijker, W. E., & Pinch, T. J. (1987). The social construction of fact and artifacts. Philosophy of technology: the technological condition: an anthology, 107-139.

Bloor, D. (1984). The Strengths of the Strong Programme, w: Brown JR.(red.), Sociological Rationality: The Sociological Tum, D. In: Reidel, Dordrecht.

Chedrawi, C., & Howayeck, P. (2018). Audit in the Blockchain era within a principal-agent approach. Information and Communication Technologies in Organizations and Society (ICTO 2018):“Information and Communications Technologies for an Inclusive World.

Chen, W., Botchie, D., Braganza, A., & Han, H. (2022). A transaction cost perspective on blockchain governance in global value chains. Strategic Change, 31(1), 75-87.

Chhina, S., Chadhar, M., Firmin, S., & Tatnall, A. (2023a). The Role of Actors in Blockchain Adoption Decisions–An Innovation Translation Perspective. Australasian Journal of Information Systems, 27.

Chhina, S., Chadhar, M., Firmin, S., & Tatnall, A. (2023b). Understanding Blockchain Adoption from an Institutional Theory perspective.

Collins, H. M. (1975). The seven sexes: A study in the sociology of a phenomenon, or the replication of experiments in physics. Sociology, 9(2), 205-224.

Compagnucci, L., Lepore, D., Spigarelli, F., Frontoni, E., Baldi, M., & Di Berardino, L. (2022). Uncovering the potential of blockchain in the agri-food supply chain: An interdisciplinary case study. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 65, 101700.

De Filippi, P., Mannan, M., & Reijers, W. (2020). Blockchain as a confidence machine: The problem of trust & challenges of governance. Technology in Society, 62, 101284.

DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American sociological review, 48(2), 147-160.

Duan, Y., Zhu, Q., & Sarkis, J. (2025). Revisiting buyer–seller relationships in sustainable sourcing: advancing trust-commitment theory within the context of blockchain technology. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 55(3), 223-247.

Ellul, J. (1954). (1964). The technological society (J. Wilkinson, Trans.).

Fleming, J. E. (2015). The bicycle boom and women's rights. The Gettysburg Historical Journal, 14(1), 3.

Folkinshteyn, D., Lennon, M. M., & Reilly, T. (2015). A tale of twin tech: Bitcoin and the WWW. Journal of Strategic and International Studies, Forthcoming.

Franklin, A., Guzik, K., & Pickering, A. (2008). The Mangle in Practice: Science, Society, and Becoming: Duke University Press.

Frizzo-Barker, J., Chow-White, P. A., Adams, P. R., Mentanko, J., Ha, D., & Green, S. (2020). Blockchain as a disruptive technology for business: A systematic review. International Journal of Information Management, 51, 102029.

Grosse, N., Guerpinar, T., & Henke, M. (2021). Blockchain-enabled trust in intercompany networks applying the agency theory. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2021 3rd Blockchain and Internet of Things Conference.

Haraway, D. (2013). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective 1. In Women, science, and technology (pp. 455-472): Routledge.

Harding, S. (1993). The" racial" economy of science: Toward a democratic future: Indiana University Press.

Hartley, J. L., Sawaya, W., & Dobrzykowski, D. (2022). Exploring blockchain adoption intentions in the supply chain: perspectives from innovation diffusion and institutional theory. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 52(2), 190-211.

Herlihy, D. V. (2004). Bicycle: the history: Yale University Press.

Iansiti, M., & Lakhani, K. R. (2017). The truth about blockchain. Harvard business review, 95(1), 118-127.

Ihde, D., & Hanks, C. (2010). A phenomenology of technics: Chichester UK: Wiley-Blackwell.

Islam, A. N., Mäntymäki, M., & Turunen, M. (2019). Why do blockchains split? An actor-network perspective on Bitcoin splits. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 148, 119743.

Ivaninskiy, I., & Ivashkovskaya, I. (2022). Are blockchain-based digital transformation and ecosystem-based business models mutually reinforcing? The principal-agent conflict perspective. Eurasian Business Review, 12(4), 643-670.

Kaushik, S. (2023). A Framework for Adoption decision process for Blockchain Technology-An Institutional and Actor-Network theory Perspective.

Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network theory: Oxford University Press.

Latour, B. (2013). An inquiry into modes of existence: Harvard University Press.

Latour , B. J., Jim). (1988). Mixing humans and nonhumans together: The sociology of a door-closer. Social problems, 35(3), 298-310.

Law, J. (2004). After method: Mess in social science research: Routledge.

Lessing, H.-E. (2001). What led to the invention of the early bicycle. Cycle History, 11, 28-36.

Li, Y., Gomaa, A., & Li, X. (2024). Responsible Blockchain: STEADI Principles and the Actor-Network Theory-based Development Methodology (ANT-RDM). Foundations and Trends® in Information Systems, 7(4), 310-356.

Meckling, W. H., & Jensen, M. C. (1976). Theory of the Firm. Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure, 3(4), 305-360.

Medina, M. J., Baudet, C., & Lebraty, J.-F. (2024). Blockchain and agency theory in supply chain management: A question of trust. International Journal of Information Management, 75, 102747.

Mol, A. (2002). The body multiple: Ontology in medical practice: Duke University Press.

Onjewu, A.-K. E., Walton, N., & Koliousis, I. (2023). Blockchain agency theory. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 191, 122482.

Pickering, A. (2010). The mangle of practice: Time, agency, and science: University of Chicago press.

Pinch, T. J., & Bijker, W. E. (1984). The social construction of facts and artefacts: Or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other. Social studies of science, 14(3), 399-441.

Schlecht, L., Schneider, S., & Buchwald, A. (2020). Creating value through blockchain technology: A Delphi study.

Schmidt, C. G., & Wagner, S. M. (2019). Blockchain and supply chain relations: A transaction cost theory perspective. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 25(4), 100552.

Schneider, S., Leyer, M., & Tate, M. (2020). The transformational impact of blockchain technology on business models and ecosystems: A symbiosis of human and technology agents. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 67(4), 1184-1195.

Sharifzadeh, R. (2022). The Collective Construction of Technology: Re-Narrating Bicycle Development in an ANT Atmosphere. Social Epistemology, 36(6), 759-772.

Sharma, S. K. (2022). Theoretical framework for blockchain technology adoption in public sector organizations: a transaction cost theory perspective. Paper presented at the International Working Conference on Transfer and Diffusion of IT.

Shim, Y., & Shin, D.-H. (2016). Analyzing China’s fintech industry from the perspective of actor–network theory. Telecommunications Policy, 40(2-3), 168-181.

Silvestri, R., Adamashvili, N., Fiore, M., & Galati, A. (2023). How blockchain technology generates a trust-based competitive advantage in the wine industry: a resource based view perspective. European Business Review, 35(5), 713-736.

Sun, R.-T., Garimella, A., Han, W., Chang, H.-L., & Shaw, M. J. (2020). Transformation of the transaction cost and the agency cost in an organization and the applicability of blockchain—A case study of peer-to-peer insurance. Frontiers in Blockchain, 3, 24.

Treiblmaier, H. (2018). The impact of the blockchain on the supply chain: a theory-based research framework and a call for action. Supply chain management: an international journal.

Treiblmaier, H., & Önder, I. (2019). The impact of blockchain on the tourism industry: A theory-based research framework. In Business transformation through blockchain (pp. 3-21): Springer.

Verbeek, P.-P. (2011). Moralizing technology: Understanding and designing the morality of things: University of Chicago press.

Wajcman , J. (2004). Technofeminism. Polity, Cambridge.

Weidener, L., Heurich, B., & Lukács, B. (2025). Bridging Social Capital and Financial Incentives: Navigating Liability and Regulatory Challenges in DAO Governance. Paper presented at the European DAO Workshop.

Yaga, D., Mell, P., Roby, N., & Scarfone, K. (2019). Blockchain technology overview. arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.11078.

Zein, R. M., & Twinomurinzi, H. (2022). Perspective Chapter: Actor-Network Theory as an Organising Structure for Blockchain Adoption in Government. In Blockchain Applications-Transforming Industries, Enhancing Security, and Addressing Ethical Considerations: IntechOpen.