3 Methodology

This chapter will describe how the research was conducted. It will both explain and justify the chosen
methods of research. Section 3.1 will explain the research approach. Section 3.2 will discuss the research
sample. In section 3.3 the data collection technique and procedure will be described, and section 3.4 will
describe the data analysis strategy.

3.1 Research approach

In selecting a research approach, a choice has to be made between a qualitative or quantitative approach.
Bryman (2012) describes quantitative research as a research strategy that emphasizes quantification in the
collection and analysis of data, and that entails a deductive approach to the relationship between theory
and research, with the emphasis placed on testing of theories (p. 35). Qualitative research is described as a
research strategy that mostly emphasizes words rather than quantifications in the collection and analysis
of data, and that predominantly emphasises an inductive approach to the relationship between theory and
research and in which the emphasis is placed on the generation of theories (Bryman, 2012, p. 36).

The selection of a suitable research approach depends first and foremost on the nature of the research
question. The goal of this study is to examine what factors influence the adoption of blockchain
technology in the Netherlands, as well as how those factors influence adoption. As there is limited research
available on the factors that drive adoption of blockchain in general, and even less so specific to the
Netherlands, the aim of this study is to fill the gap in existing knowledge, it is explorative in nature. This
research therefore aims to identify the factors that drive adoption of blockchain technology in the
Netherlands and determine the relationship between these factors and adoption, i.e. the study does not
seek to test existing theory but seeks to expand upon it. As the aim is to build theory from the gathered
information rather than to test an existing theory, an inductive approach is taken (Saunders, Lewis, &
Thornhill, 2008, p. 125).

In addition to the limited existing research and the lack of information on current adoption status noted
in section 2.3, it is to be expected that the complex and evolving nature of the problem will require the
ability to identify concepts through sensitizing concepts rather than definitive ones (Bryman, 2012, p.
388). Gaining the insights required to answer the main research question is not expected to be measurable
through statistics or with random sampling. Moreover, as is explained in more detail in section 3.2.1, the
sample universe is very small, making gathering sufficient data for quantitative analysis challenging.

Considering the research objective stated in section 1.3, a qualitative approach therefore best suits the
needs of this study. This approach is consistent with previous research on factors influencing technology
adoption (e.g. Al-Hujran, Al-Lozi, Al-Debei, & Maqableh, 2018; Ellis & Van Belle, 2009; Saedi & Iahad,
2013).

40
3.2 Research sample
In this section, the research sample is discussed. Section 3.2.1 describes the sample universe and the in-
and exclusion criteria used for selection. Section 3.2.2 describes and justifies the sample size used in this
study. Section 3.2.3 describes the sampling strategy used, as well as the final sample.

3.2.1 Sample universe & inclusion and exclusion criteria

The sampling universe consists of experts on the subject of the adoption by organizations of blockchain
technology based solutions and/or products.

The definition of what constitutes an ‘expert’ is not very precise. Littig (2013) describes an expert as being
in possession of ‘expert knowledge’ such as technical knowledge or process knowledge such as decision
making, both of which are relevant to this study (p. 10). The status of ‘expert’ in the context of a study is
not formal, and therefore constitutes a subjective criterium. It is important to note that the status of
‘expert’ is one that is usually ascribed to a participant by the researcher (Littig, 2013, p. 8).

To qualify as an expert for this study, a participant must be active in an entrepreneurial context providing
knowledge, technology or services based on blockchain technology to customer organizations within the
Netherlands. The reason for this, as touched upon in section 1.5.3, is that, as a technology rather than an
application, adoption of blockchain is done not by individual consumers but by organizations.

Moreover, the experts must all have been active in doing so for at least two years, and as their primary
occupation. The purpose of this criterium is to exclude potential participants that have only very recently
entered the market, and/or those who only spend a very limited amount of their time on blockchain and
thus have limited experience to draw upon.

3.2.2 Sample size

The aim of determining the sample size is to arrive at a sample size that will provide data saturation. Data
saturation refers to the point in data collection when no new additional data are found that develop
aspects of a conceptual category (Francis et al., 2010, p. 3). Fusch and Ness (2015) describe data
saturation as reached when there is enough information to replicate the study, when the ability to obtain
additional new information has been attained, and when further coding is no longer feasible (p. 1408).

The required sample size for qualitative studies found in literature vary, as do the determinants upon
which those sizes are based. For example, Romney, Weller, & Batchelder (1986), in a study done in the
field of anthropology, have created a mathematical model where the primary determinant is the
participants’ level of knowledge and competence. Their findings state that, provided the level of
knowledge and competence is high enough, as few as four participants are needed to achieve good results
(Romney et al., 1986, p. 313). Morse (1994) recommends a minimum of six participants for

41
phenomenological studies (as cited by Guest, Bunce, & Johnson, 2006, p. 61). Kuzel (1992) connects
sample size to sample heterogeneity and the research objectives, recommending between six and eight
interviews for a homogenous sample (as cited by Guest et al., 2006, p. 61). Saunders et al. (2008) give no
fixed numbers, but state that a small sample is more appropriate for an inductive study, as opposed to a
large sample for a deductive approach (p. 126). Guest, Bunce & Johnson (2006) suggest 6-12 participants
for a study with a homogenous group of participants and a narrow research scope (p. 59).

In the case of this study, the sampling universe can be considered very homogenous. First, it consists
entirely of participants with expansive knowledge and experience in a quite specific field. Second, all
participants are both of Dutch origin and are based in the Netherlands. Third, they have all been active
for multiple years in offering blockchain based services and/or products to organizations as their primary
activity, which is relatively rare; because of the lack of adoption, many of the companies that entered the
market during the ‘crypto bubble’ hype around 2017 have since exited the market.

As a result of this homogeneity, the sampling universe is also quite small, as not that many companies
exist that offer blockchain services as their primary activity in the first place due to the small market. In
addition, the participants need to have a high level of knowledge and expertise in relation to the topic of
inquiry as detailed in section 3.2.1. In other words, the barrel we are fishing in is not that big. Expanding
it by lowering the criteria for inclusion was considered but increasing sample size at the expense of
potentially decreasing the quality of the feedback was not considered a worthwhile trade-off.

In addition, existing literature was examined to compare what was selected as a suitable sample size in
other studies that used similar approaches. Multiple studies were found that also utilized expert interviews
as their data collection methods and had settled on eight or less interviews (e.g. Helms, Van Oorschot,
Herweijer, & Plas, 2006; Jahnke & Herrmann, 2006; Tong & Wang, 2004).

Considering the above, this study aims for a sample size of eight interviews as this can be both expected
to provide data saturation and is still realistically feasible with the in- and exclusion criteria of this study.

On a final note, when actually conducting the interviews and coding the results for this study, it was
found that no new themes emerged after the first six interviews. The final two interviews conducted still
had value in reinforcing and expanding upon the argumentation for the findings but did not add new
themes.

3.2.3 Sourcing strategy & final sample

This section explains the choice for the sampling strategy that was used, the process by which the
sampling was carried out, and shows the final sample.

When selecting a sampling strategy, it is worth considering the research question, which calls for deep
insights into the factors underlying the decision to adopt blockchain technology by organizations, as well

42
as the sample universe and criteria outlined in section 3.2.1. Moreover, data collection for this study is
done through fieldwork. Research that is field oriented in nature and is not concerned with producing
generalized statistics often uses non-probabilistic sampling (Guest et al., 2006, p. 61).

Since the sample universe consists of experts, whose status as such is ascribed to them based on certain
criteria by the researcher (Littig, 2013), and since the sample size is quite small, a purposive sampling
approach is most suited (Saunders et al., 2008, p. 234). In using purposive sampling, the researcher selects
potential participant with the research goals in mind, so that those sampled are relevant to the research
questions posed (Bryman, 2012, p. 418). The sourcing strategy used in this study is therefore purposive
sampling, based on the criteria described in section 3.2.1.

The process of actually compiling the final sample was relatively straightforward. The most challenging
part was identifying potential participants that matched the criteria, as there is a quite limited group of
potential participants as noted in section 3.2.2. Participants were sourced by scouting and contacting
potential candidates that appeared to match the inclusion criteria. Potential participants were scouted
both online through Google search and LinkedIn and some were also identified through referrals from
other previously contacted potential participants. Once a potential participant was identified, he/she was
evaluated against the inclusion and exclusion criteria in section 3.2.1 and, if found suitable, asked to
participate either by telephone, via email or by LinkedIn message.

During sampling, one potential participant declined to be interviewed, stating he had insufficient time
available to do so. All of the other potential participants that were contacted accepted the invitation for
an interview. The final sample of participants that were interviewed consists of the following people
(anonymized):

Table 3 - final sample of interview participant

No. Position Organization type

1 Strategist Blockchain corporate/government joint venture
2 CEO Blockchain company (projects, consultancy)
3 CEO Blockchain company (projects, consultancy)
4 Blockchain specialist Large consulting firm
5 Blockchain specialist Financial corporation
6 CEO Blockchain company (projects, consultancy)
7 CEO Blockchain company (projects, consultancy)
8 CEO Blockchain company (projects, consultancy)

43