View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Institutional Environment and the Use of Blockchain Technology: Exploring the Context and Conditions of Using Blockchain in the Higher Education Institutions

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Institutional Environment and the Use of Blockchain Technology: Exploring the Context and Conditions of Using Blockchain in the Higher Education Institutions
Language: English
Authors: Buddhi Pathak (ORCID 0000-0001-9801-642X), Mhd Fadi Alakkad, Vikas Kumar
Source: Higher Education Quarterly. 2025 79(3).
Availability: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 18
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Educational Environment, Technology Uses in Education, Information Technology, Educational Technology, Higher Education, Technology Integration, Adoption (Ideas), Usability, Barriers, Privacy
DOI: 10.1111/hequ.70034
ISSN: 0951-5224
1468-2273
Abstract: Blockchain (BC) technology is widely believed to be the next disruptive technology that can address challenges in higher education institutions (HEIs) and support resilient strategies. This study aims to contribute to the literature and inform policymakers about BC's capability and potential in HE by examining enablers, barriers and contextual factors influencing BC adoption in HEIs. Through qualitative research, including interviews with 20 BC experts, we identified 12 factors affecting BC adoption. Key enablers include immutability, scalability, usability, management commitment, collaboration and standardisation, while barriers encompass government regulations, bureaucracy, governance and language. Additionally, privacy and cost emerged as factors that could act as both enablers and barriers. Our findings highlight the critical role of the institutional environment, revealing five new enablers and barriers to BC adoption in HE. We offer several strategies for facilitating BC technology adoption, taking into account the environmental, institutional and technological in-depth insights gained from this research.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1478695
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGk4Z0l0gK4ZpiDGvJ58OyVAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDBATplZZyvH83ykfRAIBEICBm6oCfaD-BN1eB73P-6hQQ0hlZ2bOCGG8-UV_fr_ZGmxn2X2RLSWyyGufcfDxJAsiLbhWRH9H2t57d9Uw-9QLaGj1bIa2Ax2s56p8gAG9P_Xxk3tr6UHli3limX0tNB1AtlO1wgBdKohnJcjcM3NmMOyfTapdm5QlCp5FdJRWJ3xFYnXZ6bP6yOdYyLciukScK0r4pYWnXbOI1fmn
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0186991656;d8501jul.25;2025Jul31.05:59;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0186991656-1">Institutional Environment and the Use of Blockchain Technology: Exploring the Context and Conditions of Using Blockchain in the Higher Education Institutions </title> <p>Blockchain (BC) technology is widely believed to be the next disruptive technology that can address challenges in higher education institutions (HEIs) and support resilient strategies. This study aims to contribute to the literature and inform policymakers about BC's capability and potential in HE by examining enablers, barriers and contextual factors influencing BC adoption in HEIs. Through qualitative research, including interviews with 20 BC experts, we identified 12 factors affecting BC adoption. Key enablers include immutability, scalability, usability, management commitment, collaboration and standardisation, while barriers encompass government regulations, bureaucracy, governance and language. Additionally, privacy and cost emerged as factors that could act as both enablers and barriers. Our findings highlight the critical role of the institutional environment, revealing five new enablers and barriers to BC adoption in HE. We offer several strategies for facilitating BC technology adoption, taking into account the environmental, institutional and technological in‐depth insights gained from this research.</p> <p>Keywords: blockchain; enablers & barriers; higher education; institutional factors; TOE</p> <hd id="AN0186991656-2">Introduction</hd> <p>A blockchain (BC) is a digital list of records containing values and transactions (Gates [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref1">33</reflink>]). It consists of individual records, called 'blocks', that are made up of three main components: data, hash and a cryptographic hash of the previous block. Consecutive 'blocks' are enmeshed to form a secure BC. Increasingly, scholars are starting to believe that this technology will become 'the fifth disruptive computing paradigm after mainframes, personal computers, the internet and mobile/social networking' (Wu and Tran [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref2">79</reflink>], 20). According to Haugsbakken and Langseth ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref3">38</reflink>]), BC technology will disrupt many sectors, including higher education institutions (HEIs). BC's decentralisation, security, immutability and veridicality traits can provide an invaluable contribution to HEIs (Al Harthy et al. [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref4">3</reflink>]; Stefan‐Robert and Butincu [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref5">70</reflink>]).</p> <p>Within the education sector, academic records are considered lifelong learning passports that are issued by institutions in a paper form and cannot be readily shared with third parties such as potential employers (Ma and Fang [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref6">51</reflink>]). The use of BC throughout the HE sector can grant the issue of these records digitally and retain the desirable characteristics of verification, integrity and trust among the employees within the HEIs, the students, recruiters and all other relevant HEI stakeholders. It could also simplify university procurement in terms of company selection and the issuance of public notices (Onjewu et al. [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref7">58</reflink>]). It could be part of the university's collaborative system that supports equity in shaping access and streamlines the documentation process for lack of experience. However, these are a few applications of BC, there are many other types, as demonstrated by Singh et al. ([<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref8">69</reflink>]) and Chan et al. ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref9">19</reflink>]). BC could further disrupt the HEI by making it more decentralised in its many and often bureaucratic functions, developing smart contracts to manage digital badges and records, and creating a transparent system for funding grants, scholarships, credit transfer and copyright content. Plagiarism and academic misconduct are two burning issues within HEIs that have increased significantly during the COVID‐19 pandemic (QAA [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref10">62</reflink>]); conventional centralised and bureaucratic current systems may not work in tackling this (Mohan [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref11">55</reflink>]) but distributed decentralised ledger technology—the BC—may provide an alternative approach to solving this problem.</p> <p>Despite there being several advantages to using BC, there are only a few HEIs that have implemented the technology so far, including TUDocChain (Budhiraja and Rani [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref12">15</reflink>]) and EduCTX (Turkanović et al. [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref13">76</reflink>]), and there are a limited number of studies that have investigated the benefits and challenges of using BC within HEIs (e.g., Ma and Fang [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref14">51</reflink>]; Juricic et al. [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref15">43</reflink>]; Awaji et al. [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref16">8</reflink>]). Some studies have also explored the development of real applications for BC‐based certification management (Budhiraja and Rani [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref17">15</reflink>]; Taha and Zakaria [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref18">72</reflink>]).</p> <p>Nonetheless, BC application within HEIs is still relatively new, as many HEIs have yet to consider its adoption (Awaji et al. [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref19">8</reflink>]; Raimundo and Rosário [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref20">63</reflink>]; Santos [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref21">66</reflink>]). Decision‐makers within the HEIs will face challenges in understanding BC potential, its enablers and barriers, and how it can optimise, for example, the certification management process. There are several recent research calls to understand the use of BC in different contexts (e.g., Hughes et al. [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref22">40</reflink>]; Akanfe et al. [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref23">2</reflink>]). Previous research, such as the work of Cenfetelli and Schwarz ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref24">17</reflink>]), has argued the importance of studying both barriers and enablers of technology use, as the barriers could potentially have effects on usage intentions beyond that of enablers, as well as effects on enablers themselves. This may lead to technology rejection rather than fostering its acceptance. However, our literature review reveals that no such systematic study has been conducted so far to investigate the enablers and barriers of BC adoption in HE; hence, our study aims to fill this gap by addressing the research question:</p> <p>What are the enablers and barriers that impact the adoption of BC within HEIs?</p> <p>We investigate the research question through the lens of organisational IT adoption theory, specifically the Technology‐Organisation‐Environment (TOE) framework (Tornatzky and Fleischer [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref25">74</reflink>]), to examine the internal and external factors influencing the adoption and implementation of BC technology. The TOE framework facilitates predicting the likelihood of IT adoption within organisations and supports decision‐makers in implementing innovations (Awa and Ojiabo [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref26">7</reflink>]; AlHinai [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref27">5</reflink>]). This study, therefore, explores the relevance of TOE‐related factors in BC adoption within HEIs, providing decision‐makers with insights into the feasibility of BC implementation in such settings.</p> <p>To address the research question, the study analyses existing literature on BC in higher education (HE), identifying both enabling factors and impediments. Additionally, we conducted 20 semi‐structured interviews with BC experts to uncover enablers and barriers that have not been extensively explored in the current literature.</p> <p>In our efforts to contextualise TOE, we acknowledge that most HEIs do not yet utilise BC‐based systems, as the technology remains emergent in this sector. Our research is among the first to incorporate perspectives from BC industry experts, academic researchers, and HEI administrators, employing a qualitative approach to investigate BC adoption within HEIs. While most existing studies assess BC's potential in HE by drawing from different industries (e.g., Reis‐Marques et al. [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref28">65</reflink>]), our research directly examines BC within the education sector. In contrast, earlier studies have predominantly focused on technology adoption from a consumer perspective (e.g., Kuleto et al. [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref29">49</reflink>]) or have been conceptual in nature (e.g., Haugsbakken and Langseth [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref30">38</reflink>]; Ma and Fang [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref31">51</reflink>]).</p> <p>The remainder of the study will be organised as follows: Section 2 will review the literature and present the conceptual framework, Section 3 will explain the research methodology, Section 4 will present the results of the interviews, Section 5 will discuss the findings and present the final framework and Section 6 will conclude the study. The final section will provide the strategies for decision‐makers.</p> <hd id="AN0186991656-3">Theoretical Background</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0186991656-4">The Prospects and Challenges of the Use of BC Within HEIs</hd> <p>In today's education and human resource systems, storing, tracking and sharing students' educational records has become crucial for various reasons (Han et al. [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref32">36</reflink>]). An education certificate is essential in the education sector as it serves as strong evidence for students seeking employment or further studies (Al Harthy et al. [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref33">3</reflink>]). However, academic institutions remain the sole authorities holding students' learning records and credentials, with photocopies considered unofficial.</p> <p>If a student wishes to apply for a job or continue their education at another institution, they must follow the procedures set by their home academic institution, which can be time‐consuming, costly, and inefficient for institutions, students, and prospective employers. Awaji et al. ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref34">8</reflink>]) argue that centralisation presents a single point of failure, leading to security risks and increased costs. Al Harthy et al. ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref35">3</reflink>]) suggest that BC technology could enhance trust between different stakeholders during the approval process by providing secure access to authorised participants. These discussions suggest a pressing need to explore alternative systems that decentralise trust, improve data accessibility, and reduce transactional frictions within academic settings.</p> <p>There are several use cases of BC applications in HEIs. One example is TUDocChain, developed by Budhiraja and Rani ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref36">15</reflink>]), which provides a practical solution for validating, issuing and sharing certificates through a distributed public BC. Although TUDocChain has the potential for significant impact, its reliance on public BC infrastructure raises questions regarding identity privacy, scalability and institutional control. The University of Maribor has developed a prototype BC‐based platform called EduCTX, implemented on its distributed peer‐to‐peer network system. EduCTX enables the control, assignment and presentation of tokens representing credits earned from completed courses (Turkanović et al. [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref37">76</reflink>]). Another notable BC application is Truver, developed by Taha and Zakaria ([<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref38">72</reflink>]), which offers a secure BC platform for maintaining official diplomas and academic records. Truver's added value lies in its hashed digital certificate stored within the smart contract, while the original certificate remains accessible only to students or potential employers. While these initiatives demonstrate technological feasibility, questions remain regarding interoperability with existing systems, user training requirements and institutional readiness for full‐scale adoption (El Koshiry et al. [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref39">29</reflink>]).</p> <p>Beyond credential security, BC technologies may also help protect academic norms and values within HEIs, particularly concerning scientific misconduct and academic integrity. <emph>An</emph> increasing number of plagiarism and contract cheating cases, primarily driven by advancements in AI and the other widespread availability of low‐cost essay mill services, are undermining academic integrity and institutional reputations (Mohan [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref40">55</reflink>]; Pathak et al. [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref41">60</reflink>]). However, BC‐based systems could offer a robust solution by establishing authorship and ownership through smart contracts, digital signatures, as well as creating immutable academic records. Additionally, course assessments could be redesigned using secure and transparent scoring mechanisms implemented via Ethereum smart contracts (El Koshiry et al. [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref42">29</reflink>]; Tsai et al. [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref43">75</reflink>]). These applications suggest the potential for BC to shift the locus of trust in academic work from institutional gatekeeping to decentralised verification systems.</p> <p>In parallel, BC technologies may support wider institutional functions and regulatory compliance beyond academic integrity. These include the immutability of records relating to academic credentials, curriculum design, degree completion and non‐completion and financial reporting (Belahouaoui and Attak [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref44">12</reflink>]). Additionally, smart contracts can automate compliance with employment agreements, thereby supporting adherence to labour regulations in academic hiring and HR processes. Moreover, BC systems could track and report sustainability metrics, thereby supporting HEI in reducing waste and emissions and promoting sustainable practices (El Koshiry et al. [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref45">29</reflink>]).</p> <p>BC may also contribute to social equity within HEIs, particularly through gender inclusion initiatives. It enhances transparency, traceability and decentralised decision‐making in governance, thereby reducing information asymmetry and strengthening institutional accountability (Chittipaka et al. [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref46">21</reflink>]; Akanfe et al. [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref47">2</reflink>]). Through smart contract and immutable records, BC can foster stakeholder trust, promote equitable treatment and align institutional practices with sustainable development goal 5 (SDG 5) on gender equality. Its anonymised and decentralised nature may help reduce gender bias, support the creation of digital identities and facilitate women's participation in the digital economy and decision‐making process (Di Vaio et al. [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref48">26</reflink>]). Nonetheless, as highlighted by UNCTAD ([<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref49">78</reflink>]), BC adoption must be accompanied by gender‐responsive safeguards to prevent the deepening of structural inequalities.</p> <p>Delgado‐von‐Eitzen et al. ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref50">24</reflink>]) proposed an NFT‐based BC model to ensure GDPR compliance, while Stefan‐Robert and Butincu ([<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref51">70</reflink>]) advanced this concept by proposing an Ethereum‐based BC that includes mechanisms for both certificate generation and revocation. This application partially addresses privacy challenges while maintaining immutability and usability. It is the decentralisation features of BC that enable it to effectively meet institutional demands. Some studies (e.g., Kuleto et al. [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref52">49</reflink>]) have demonstrated the application of BC and prototype implementations within HEIs (e.g., Budhiraja and Rani [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref53">15</reflink>]). However, evidence on long‐term institutional integration and user experience remains limited, particularly beyond pilot stages.</p> <p>However, despite BC's transformative capabilities and the benefits of its use in the HEI sector, as demonstrated by the studies mentioned above, it would be unrealistic to assume that BC technology is immune to challenges, limitations and threats. Current BC literature primarily explores its prospective use in certificate management, as discussed earlier, but fails to address challenges associated with its application in other aspects of HEIs, including planning, procurement, accounting, recruitment, human resource management, logistics and services.</p> <p>Similarly, key issues related to BC implementation remain underexplored, particularly in societal aspects such as lack of trust among users (Gan and Lau [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref54">32</reflink>]), environmental concerns, including BC's high energy consumption and its ecological impact (Mzoughi et al. [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref55">56</reflink>]), and ethical risks at both individual and network levels. Additionally, critical issues related to the life‐cycle stages of BC systems, such as data access, privacy and security, have also been largely overlooked in existing studies (Agerskov et al. [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref56">1</reflink>]).</p> <p>Although BC‐based technology presents numerous opportunities for HEIs, its adoption raises ethical concerns regarding data ownership and control (Behl et al. [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref57">11</reflink>]). Integrating BC systems within existing legacy systems poses significant challenges for HEIs. Beyond the costs of purchasing hardware and software, BC's substantial electricity consumption imposes a significant financial burden (Ibrahimy et al. [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref58">41</reflink>]). This issue has intensified, particularly for European HEIs, due to rising energy costs following the COVID‐19 pandemic and the Russia‐Ukraine war.</p> <p>Cybersecurity threats are another major concern. In 2023/24, 97% of UK HEIs reported a breach or cyberattack (Department for Science, Innovation and Technology [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref59">25</reflink>]). Despite its security advantages, BC‐based systems are not immune to hacking (Chainalysis [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref60">18</reflink>]). Additionally, balancing privacy protection with the risk of exposing confidential data remains a complex issue (Sedlmeir et al. [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref61">68</reflink>]). These factors reinforce the need for a more nuanced understanding of BC implementation, including not only its technical feasibility but also its ethical, operational and institutional implications.</p> <p>To navigate these tensions, the following section critically reviews BC enablers and inhibitors within HEIs. This review serves as a basis for the conceptual framework we propose, which integrates the practical and theoretical issues identified in the existing literature.</p> <hd id="AN0186991656-5">Blockchain Enablers and Inhibitors in HEIs</hd> <p>The existing literature on BC adoption in HEIs has yet to comprehensively identify the factors that enable or inhibit its implementation. While various studies have highlighted factors classified as either enablers or inhibitors, most focus predominantly on one aspect, leaving gaps for future research. For example, Deenmahomed et al. ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref62">23</reflink>]) identified immutability as a key enabler of BC implementation in higher education, as immutable records provide a foundation for ensuring high data reliability within HEIs.</p> <p>Additionally, usability has emerged as another critical enabler of BC adoption in higher education. Awaji et al. ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref63">8</reflink>]) and Raimundo and Rosário ([<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref64">63</reflink>]) emphasise the importance of user‐friendly and accessible interfaces in facilitating BC adoption within HEIs.</p> <p>Compared to the enablers, existing literature on BC adoption in HEIs primarily focuses on three key barriers: financial, technical and human factors. Savelyeva and Park ([<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref65">67</reflink>]) examine these barriers, arguing that consensus mechanisms based on proof‐of‐work, BC size in relation to the number of nodes, the permanency of non‐retractable records, proof‐of‐work verification tasks, and miners' reward systems all contribute to increasing technical complexity and costs, which scale proportionally with BC size (Yeung [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref66">80</reflink>]; Deenmahomed et al. [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref67">23</reflink>]).</p> <p>BC technology has also been criticised for its high energy consumption and lack of power efficiency. Additionally, human‐related challenges, such as the rights of students and teachers to data privacy and security, have been undermined, as they are often treated as secondary, non‐human instrumental 'nodes' within the BC network (Savelyeva and Park [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref68">67</reflink>]). This raises further concerns regarding the adoption of BC in HEIs.</p> <p>As the volume of transactions and records increases, HEIs must address the need for extensive storage infrastructure and effective management strategies, which existing research defines as a scalability challenge (Ma and Fang [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref69">51</reflink>]; Castro and Au‐Yong‐Oliveira [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref70">16</reflink>]). This issue may act as a barrier to BC adoption. Additionally, the absence of a well‐defined regulatory framework could hinder BC implementation in academia, as noted by Turkanović et al. ([<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref71">76</reflink>]) and Steiu ([<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref72">71</reflink>]).</p> <p>Despite these challenges, the current literature does not sufficiently enhance our understanding of BC technology usage intentions within HEIs. It lacks a comprehensive explanation of institutional intent to adopt or reject technology (Cenfetelli and Schwarz [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref73">17</reflink>]). Prior studies do not clarify how a particular factor may function as an enabler or, under specific conditions, act as an inhibitor. Therefore, the impact of these factors varies depending on the context of BC implementation in HEIs.</p> <p>Most of the existing literature is either conceptual (Savelyeva and Park [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref74">67</reflink>]) or presents generic discussions (Yeung [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref75">80</reflink>]) that are not specifically focused on HEIs, lacking the institutional, environmental and contextual relevance needed to understand the potential use cases of emerging technology. However, it provides valuable insights into the factors influencing BC adoption and highlights the need for a more focused investigation of enablers and barriers. Building on these prior studies, this research aims to bridge this gap by offering a detailed examination of BC enablers and inhibitors in the HEI context. Therefore, we propose the following conceptual framework to examine the factors shaping BC adoption in HEIs.</p> <hd id="AN0186991656-6">Conceptual Framework</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0186991656-7">Technological, Organisational and Environmental (TOE)</hd> <p>The dominant literature on BC adoption has primarily utilised technology acceptance theories to study its implementation in organisations. The Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) has been widely applied, often in conjunction with affordance theory to examine BC adoption in banking and finance (Gan and Lau [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref76">32</reflink>]) and agency theory to assess its potential in supply chain management (Medina et al. [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref77">52</reflink>]). Other studies have adopted alternative theoretical lenses; for instance, Liyanaarachchi et al. ([<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref78">50</reflink>]) employ a paradox theory and psychological reactance framework from an outside‐in perspective, while Chhina et al. ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref79">20</reflink>]) apply diffusion of innovation theory to examine the decision‐making stages in BC adoption. However, our study seeks to explore enablers and barriers from both 'outside‐in' and 'inside‐out' perspectives by incorporating organisational, technological and institutional dimensions. Given this broader scope, we found the TOE framework to be the most suitable approach.</p> <p>The TOE framework, developed by Tornatzky and Fleischer ([<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref80">74</reflink>]), provides a structured approach for examining technology adoption across three key dimensions: technological, organisational and environmental. The technological dimension includes both internal and external technological factors relevant to an institution, encompassing existing technologies in use and those available in the market but not yet adopted (Baker [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref81">9</reflink>]). The organisational dimension considers internal institutional characteristics such as size, management structure, workforce and available resources (Oliveira and Martins [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref82">57</reflink>]). The environmental dimension accounts for external factors, including industry structures, government policies, regulations, competition and IT providers that influence institutional operations (Baker [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref83">9</reflink>]; Clohessy et al. [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref84">22</reflink>]; Akanfe et al. [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref85">2</reflink>]).</p> <p>The selection of the TOE framework is guided by the research question, as it offers a holistic approach by addressing technological, organisational and environmental factors influencing BC adoption in HEIs. Unlike alternative theories such as Rogers' Diffusion of Innovation (DOI), which primarily examines technology diffusion at the individual level, TOE focuses on organisational‐level adoption, making it particularly suitable for higher education institutions (Oliveira and Martins [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref86">57</reflink>]). Similarly, while TAM provides insights into technology acceptance among individuals (Mihov et al. [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref87">53</reflink>]), it does not account for the institutional and environmental dynamics that influence adoption decisions within complex organisational structures such as HEIs.</p> <p>Additionally, TOE's flexibility enables the integration of HEI‐specific variables, such as government regulations and academic governance structures, all of which shape technology adoption (Kinkel et al. [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref88">47</reflink>]). This adaptability makes TOE better suited than generalised technology adoption models, as it allows for a more context‐sensitive exploration of BC enablers and inhibitors. Furthermore, TOE has been successfully applied in previous studies on technology adoption in other institutional contexts (Kinkel et al. [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref89">47</reflink>]; Pathak et al. [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref90">59</reflink>]), demonstrating its robustness and reliability in institutional research. By applying TOE, this study develops a comprehensive conceptual framework that systematically examines BC enablers and barriers in HEIs, addressing both internal and external factors that shape adoption decisions.</p> <hd id="AN0186991656-8">A Conceptual Framework of BC Adoption in HEIs, Enablers and Barriers</hd> <p>After reviewing the features and limitations of previous studies on BC adoption within HEIs, we identified five key factors that were frequently discussed (Table 1). However, prior research has primarily examined only one or two of these factors at a time, resulting in a fragmented understanding of BC adoption in higher education. In contrast, our study integrates all previously reported constructs, providing a more comprehensive and inclusive approach. Similarly, Mohammad and Vargas ([<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref91">54</reflink>]) emphasised the need for further research on the environmental and organisational dimensions of the TOE framework, highlighting that certain aspects of BC adoption within HEIs may create resistance and negatively impact acceptance.</p> <p>1 TABLE The definition of key constructs of the BC.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Key components</th><th align="center">Definition/concept</th><th align="center">Relevant research</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Privacy</td><td align="center">The ability to access and use the information securely</td><td align="center">Han et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr36">2018</xref>); El Koshiry et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr29">2023</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Usability</td><td align="center">The process of allowing users to use BC even if they do not have the technical skills</td><td align="center">Awaji et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr8">2020</xref>); Raimundo and Rosário (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr63">2021</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Immutability</td><td align="center">This means that when information, once stored in blocks, will be impossible to change or delete</td><td align="center">Kamisalic et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr45">2019</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Scalability</td><td align="center">The changes in throughput and latency when increasing the number of nodes and a number of concurrent workloads (Dinh et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr27">2018</xref>, 11)</td><td align="center">Ma and Fang (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr51">2020</xref>); Castro and Au‐Yong‐Oliveira (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr16">2021</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Cost</td><td align="center">The amount of money spent on the transaction process</td><td align="center">Haugsbakken and Langseth (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr38">2019</xref>); Singh et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr69">2023</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Government regulation/legal challenges</td><td align="center">Ensuring that BC applications comply with protection laws of information in a certain country</td><td align="center">Turkanović et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr76">2018</xref>); Steiu (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr71">2020</xref>); Chan et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr19">2023</xref>); Ibrahimy et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr41">2024</xref>)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>To address these gaps, we examine BC adoption using all three dimensions of the TOE framework, technological, organisational and environmental, by incorporating five key constructs, as illustrated in Figure 1 (below). This conceptual framework provides a holistic perspective on the enablers and barriers influencing BC adoption in HEIs.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/D85/01jul25/hequ70034-fig-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="hequ70034-fig-0001.jpg" title="1 Conceptual framework of BC adoption in HEIs; enablers and barriers." /> </p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0186991656-10">Methodology and Research Context</hd> <p>This study employs a qualitative semi‐structured interview method to investigate the enablers and barriers of BC adoption within HEIs. As discussed in the previous section, BC adoption in higher education remains a relatively new research area (Hamdan et al. [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref92">35</reflink>]). Semi‐structured interviews allow for structured yet flexible discussions, facilitating both the exploration of the conceptual framework and the identification of new and emergent findings (Brinkmann and Kvale [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref93">14</reflink>]). This aligns with the work of AlHinai ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref94">5</reflink>]), who applied semi‐structured interviews within the TOE framework to examine digital technology adoption in disaster management.</p> <p>To ensure relevant expertise and diversity, this study employs purposeful sampling (Patton [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref95">61</reflink>]) to select 20 BC experts, including university academics, administrators and professors researching BC adoption, as well as industry pioneers involved in developing and consulting on BC implementation (see Table 2). Interviewees were selected based on their direct experience with BC applications relevant to HEI and their understanding of higher education systems in Western countries, particularly the USA and the UK. This included individuals working on specific technologies such as credential verification (e.g., I‐16) and BC‐based platforms for academic records (e.g., I‐5).</p> <p>2 TABLE Interviewees' profiles.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Interviewees (coded)</th><th align="center">Interviewees' backgrounds and description</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">I‐1</td><td align="center">Executive Director at a BC company with over 14 years of systems implementation experience</td></tr><tr><td align="left">I‐2</td><td align="center">BC Researcher/Emerging technology BC ‐ Bronze Badge with over 9 years of experience</td></tr><tr><td align="left">I‐3</td><td align="center">BC Researcher for HE/Member of R&D team at BC Lab: UM</td></tr><tr><td align="left">I‐4</td><td align="center">Assistant Professor/BC Researcher/Software developer with over 12 years of experience</td></tr><tr><td align="left">I‐5</td><td align="center">Co‐Founder of a BC Company. A leading BC voice & adoption advocate</td></tr><tr><td align="left">I‐6</td><td align="center">Associate Director of Emerging Technology/active member of the major BC organisations</td></tr><tr><td align="left">I‐7</td><td align="center">Co‐Chair of Technical Committee for IEEE Healthcare/Co‐Author: BC in Medical book</td></tr><tr><td align="left">I‐8</td><td align="center">IT Consultant BC Strategist at the multinational organisation</td></tr><tr><td align="left">I‐9</td><td align="center">Technology expert with over 16 years of experience and an academic in a reputed UK HEI</td></tr><tr><td align="left">I‐10</td><td align="center">Research Associate in BC. Have published 3 peer‐reviewed BC articles</td></tr><tr><td align="left">I‐11</td><td align="center">Technology expert in human‐computer interaction with over 15 years of experience</td></tr><tr><td align="left">I‐12</td><td align="center">BC Strategist at one of the American multinational shipping & delivery services</td></tr><tr><td align="left">I‐13</td><td align="center">Business‐IT Consultant, BC expert; Researcher & part time Lecturer at the UK HEI</td></tr><tr><td align="left">I‐14</td><td align="center">Professor at the UK HEI and previously a Senior Manager at an IT Consultancy company</td></tr><tr><td align="left">I‐15</td><td align="center">Computing Course Director at one of the UK universities teaches BC fundamentals</td></tr><tr><td align="left">I‐16</td><td align="center">Student and Programme support manager at one of the UK universities, responsible for managing student records and certifications</td></tr><tr><td align="left">I‐17</td><td align="center">Principal Administrative Officer at one of Wales universities, responsible for home and international students' recruitment, with over 15 years of experience</td></tr><tr><td align="left">I‐18</td><td align="center">Senior Administrative Manager at the UK universities, responsible for student service department with over 8 years of experience</td></tr><tr><td align="left">I‐19</td><td align="center">Senior academic at one of Wales universities, experience of managing IT systems implementations at the university</td></tr><tr><td align="left">I‐20</td><td align="center">Currently a Senior Cyber Security consultant with experience in blockchain project development, previously engaged in selling IT solutions to major UK universities</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Additionally, participants included potential future users with experience in legacy university systems. Participants were identified and contacted through LinkedIn, BC‐specific groups and the authors' professional networks. They were screened based on a minimum of 5 years of experience in their relevant fields and demonstrated knowledge of BC technology. An introductory email was used to filter out irrelevant participants, after which interviews were conducted via MS Teams.</p> <p>During the interviews, participants were asked about their general perceptions of BC implementation within HEIs, including enablers and barriers identified in previous research (Table 1, Figure 1), as well as any additional factors they considered relevant. The discussions began with experiential questions, such as asking about their experience with BC technology, its prospects, and their involvement. This was followed by generative questions addressing specific enablers and barriers, such as the impact of cost on adoption, including infrastructure expenses, energy consumption and administrative costs. At least two questions were asked for each factor listed in Table 1, and participants reflected on whether they viewed them as enablers or barriers and explained their reasoning. Additional questions were included where time permitted to explore further factors.</p> <p>The interviews, conducted between June 2020 and September 2023, lasted between 30 and 60 min, with an average duration of 40 min. They were recorded using MS Teams and subsequently transcribed and analysed using NVivo. To ensure trustworthiness and reliability, interviewee responses were systematically cross‐referenced, compared with existing literature, and validated using secondary sources (Patton [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref96">61</reflink>]). The final sample comprised nine BC technical experts from the industry, seven academic researchers, and four university administrative staff with knowledge of legacy university systems who are also potential future key users of BC‐based systems. This diverse mix ensured a socio‐techno‐institutional perspective on BC adoption in HEIs.</p> <p>Thematic analysis was used to examine the interview data, following the approach of Braun and Clarke ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref97">13</reflink>]), Jackson and Bazeley ([<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref98">42</reflink>]) and King and Brooks ([<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref99">46</reflink>]). Data analysis involved systematically coding and categorising responses and identifying patterns across transcripts through iterative comparison. These themes were explicitly mapped onto the theoretical constructs presented in our conceptual framework (Table 1, Figure 1), ensuring alignment between empirical patterns and conceptual categories such as Usability, Privacy and Regulations. This theoretical alignment enabled the interpretation of participant responses not only as descriptive themes but as manifestations of the Technological, Organisational and Environmental dimensions theorised in prior literature. Inter‐coder reliability was ensured by having two researchers independently review coding decisions, refining themes through iterative discussions. To enhance validity, responses were triangulated with literature and secondary data sources, strengthening the credibility of the findings (Patton [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref100">61</reflink>]). NVivo software was used to maintain an audit trail of coding decisions in order to enhance the verifiability of the findings.</p> <p>Our methodological approach aligns with previous qualitative research, which emphasises depth and detail over breadth (Guest et al. [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref101">34</reflink>]). For example, Komulainen and Nätti ([<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref102">48</reflink>]) used a sample of seven BC experts to examine barriers to BC adoption in securities services value networks. Additionally, our sample size of 20 participants exceeds the recommended range of 11–15 for qualitative studies (Galvin [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref103">31</reflink>]). By integrating these measures, this study provides a comprehensive and credible examination of BC adoption in HEIs. Findings from the thematic analysis are reported in the next section, with examples of generated codes, themes and representative quotations presented in Tables 3–5.</p> <p>3 TABLE BC enablers, key themes, codes and sample quotations.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Themes</th><th align="center">Codes</th><th align="center">Representative quotations</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Immutability</td><td align="center">Security</td><td align="center">51% attack allows someone to come in and change things, so no BC is immutable. It's just the degree to which you've prevented certain attacks from happening or the mutability [I‐7]</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Reputation</td><td align="center">I think it would be seen as a benefit... like in a university has to manage this reputation right so you don't want people in the world going around saying I've got a certificate from the University of Oxford [I‐2]</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Scalability</td><td align="center">Number of transactions supported</td><td align="center">If you are a university, it's different... You are not in the hundreds of thousands of transactions at that time [I‐6]</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Hash</td><td align="center">It should be on the BC, and that's you know when it hashes it, no matter how big it is, it still turns out to be the same size [I‐1]</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Usability</td><td align="center">User interface</td><td align="center">It's more depends on the UI and the interface is at the front end of the system [I‐1]. All depends on the user interface [I‐2]</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Management commitment</td><td align="center">Strong management commitment</td><td align="center">Having strong management commitment at the top‐down direction can influence BC adoption [I‐9].</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Collaboration & coopetition</td><td align="center">Working together</td><td align="center">BC is all about collaboration [I‐2]. Consortiums and things like that were put together all competitors, but they're all working together to build standards... but it's not where they are competing [I‐6]</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Standardisation</td><td align="center">Unique standards</td><td align="center">You have technical standards that whatever. That would need to be agreed on, but that's more the techie community when it comes to universities collaborating and accepting [I‐2]</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0186991656-11">Findings</hd> <p>Our data analysis identified 12 themes influencing BC adoption in HEIs, categorised as enablers, barriers, or dual‐impact factors. Six themes emerged as enablers: immutability, scalability, usability, management commitment, collaboration and coopetition and standardisation. Four themes were identified as barriers: regulations, bureaucracy, governance and language. Additionally, privacy and cost were found to function as both enablers and barriers, depending on the specific adoption context (Tables 3–5).</p> <hd id="AN0186991656-12">Enablers of BC Adoption in HEIs</hd> <p>As presented in Table 3, immutability, scalability, usability, management commitment, collaboration and standardisation were identified as key enablers of BC adoption in HEIs. Our findings indicate that the immutable nature of BC enhances the integrity of student records, increases global recognition for universities and ensures security and transparency. This perspective is reinforced by I‐11, who stated: 'the fact that we know that technology makes data immutable gives us some high level of assurance that whatever we find in their system is what it is supposed to be'.</p> <p>However, some participants raised concerns about whether decision‐makers should be wary of the impossibility of editing or revoking certificates once recorded on BC. Interviewee I‐10 suggested that 'using multiple chains, such as one public and one private, could solve the problem'. Regarding scalability, I‐1 reported that 'whatever you store in BC will be turned into the hash value, and the hash occupies a small size in the database. Every new technology will come to scale down the effect of storage and bandwidth, and even if we encounter a low speed in the network, it will not be an issue at all in the long term because there is a development of new communication and high‐speed technology, such as the 5G'.</p> <p>All interviewees agreed that using BC is not inherently complex, and some suggested that usability drivers can mitigate any concerns about adoption. Additionally, they argued that user‐friendly interfaces make BC systems more accessible and less complicated, as confirmed by I‐2, I‐15 and I‐20.</p> <p>Strong management commitment from a top‐down approach was identified as a critical enabler of BC adoption. Interviewee I‐9 stated that 'if universities do not have strong management commitment, they will eventually invest in a solution that no one will use'. Without direct participation from senior management, institutions risk unnecessary expenditures, whereas strong leadership ensures alignment between different departments, faculty members, administrative units and external collaboration (I‐9, I‐16, I‐17 and I‐18).</p> <p>The participants (I‐6, I‐8 and I‐20) identified two key roles of senior management in implementing BC‐based systems. First, they must initiate the process within the university, share their vision and commitments, and effectively communicate by assembling a dedicated team. Second, they should collaborate with external partners, such as other universities and technology providers, to establish consortia. I‐6 provided insights into how this could be achieved: 'consortiums or things like that were put together all Universities/competitors in the same region, but they're all working together to build standards, or they might all be using the same database/system, but it's not where they competing, it's what they agree on that would be on that database/system (I‐6)'. Therefore, strong commitment from the senior management team could make a significant contribution to the BC implementation process.</p> <p>Stakeholder collaboration was also noted as a key factor. I‐1 and I‐19 emphasised that effective stakeholder collaboration plays a crucial role in BC adoption within HEIs. I‐8 highlighted the importance of strong connections between universities and other organisations in accelerating adoption. Participants also identified coopetition as a factor that optimises communication among competitors. While I‐7 noted that private institutions may find it challenging to collaborate due to competition, I‐8 argued that all parties should maintain professionalism and cooperation. I‐2 reinforced this view, stating that BC is all about collaboration. Sharing networks and databases could enhance usability and reduce costs, as confirmed by I‐7 and I‐6.</p> <p>Standardisation was another key enabler. I‐2 stated that standardised BC protocols could improve acceptance across different stakeholders, while I‐11 and I‐20 highlighted that standardisation facilitates cross‐border data transmission. Without standardised procedures, institutions in different countries may adopt inconsistent BC policies, limiting interoperability.</p> <hd id="AN0186991656-13">Barriers to BC Adoption in HEIs</hd> <p>Table 4 presents the four primary barriers to BC adoption: government regulation, governance, bureaucracy and language. Most interviewees noted that government regulation is a significant obstacle that could hinder the implementation of BC in higher education. I‐4 and I‐19 pointed out that BC faces legal challenges related to data control and protection, which must align with governmental standards. I‐7 noted that some countries restrict BC mining due to regulatory concerns, while I‐1 highlighted that differences in national policies, particularly within the EU, may complicate BC adoption, particularly in areas such as grade calculation systems.</p> <p>4 TABLE BC barriers, key themes, codes and sample quotations.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Themes</th><th align="center">Codes</th><th align="center">Representative quotations</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Regulation</td><td align="center">Regulators approach</td><td align="center">The hesitation by regulators to incorporate BC in their normal work, Is going to slow down its adoption [I‐5]</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Absence of policy</td><td align="center">That there should be some sort of a certain subset of Policy Exchange and policy agreements, which currently lacks [I‐11]</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Differences in regulations</td><td align="center">It depends on the country and impends adoption depends on each region and university I would say [I‐3]</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Governance</td><td align="center">Complex mechanism</td><td align="center">If there is something that needs to be changed, how does everyone agree? .... if it's just within a university, so there are so many departments too, they all have to agree and there's a lot of governance, which are not easy [I‐1]The data is different. The governance is different and you need to work out certain things that are much more complex [I‐7]</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Bureaucracy</td><td align="center">Various levels of bureaucracy</td><td align="center">The bureaucracy costs public institutions more time, money and effort [I‐2]The bureaucracy makes the BC adoption very was difficult, where there are two levels of bureaucracy. On the university level and the government level [I‐3]</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Language</td><td align="center">Various languages</td><td align="center">If the name on the certificate is written in another language that is not in English in blockchain, so how other countries will verify it [I‐20]We already have issues with the names written on the certificates, the BC system would add further complications [I‐1]</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Interviewees also emphasised the growing role of government oversight as BC technology matures. The challenges stem not only from how organisations collaborate internally but also from how they interact with regulatory bodies. Institutions must navigate these regulatory complexities to ensure compliance and operational efficiency.</p> <p>Bureaucracy, primarily stemming from the complex ecosystem of HEIs and regulatory pressures, was widely recognised as a significant barrier to BC adoption. I‐10, I‐18 and I‐19 stated that standard bureaucratic and administrative procedures could create significant obstacles for universities in adopting BC. In addition to financial burdens, bureaucracy demands substantial time and effort to navigate institutional approval processes.</p> <p>Language was also identified as a challenge. I‐18 noted that varying terminologies, documentation standards, and linguistic differences across institutions and countries may complicate the seamless implementation of BC: 'Our students have very long and often complex names [at least for us] and its quite common as they come from different culture, speak different language that I hugely respect, but the reality is we often get it wrong and I suspect that BC systems would be an easy task to fix that (I‐18)'. This issue could slow down adoption by making it harder for universities to develop common frameworks for BC integration.</p> <hd id="AN0186991656-14">Dual‐Impact Factors: Privacy and Cost</hd> <p>Interviewees identified privacy and cost as factors that could serve as both barriers and enablers of BC adoption, as presented in Table 5.</p> <p>5 TABLE Enablers and barriers to the adoption of BC.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Key themes</th><th align="center">Codes (enabler)</th><th align="center">Representative quotations</th><th align="center">Codes (barriers)</th><th align="center">Representative quotations</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Privacy</td><td align="center">Private BC</td><td align="center">If we are talking about private BC, you can. We can assure the privacy [I‐2]</td><td align="center">Public BC</td><td align="center">A lot of this is still in development, is still quite a challenge [I‐2]</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Hashing</td><td align="center">You'll have cryptographic primitives and cryptographic solutions that will be a harder way for someone to access these things but, BC has some good privacy compared to other things [I‐4]</td><td align="center">Regulation on privacy</td><td align="center">This (GDPR) is probably an issue because... put out in the EU, the university would probably have to ask the students if they agree [I‐10]</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Forgetting private keys</td><td align="center">If you lose that [keys] and then you can't figure out you know you can't find your private keys, then you're like you just are out of luck [I‐1]</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Cost</td><td align="center">Resource saving in long term</td><td align="center">BC has been known to reduce costs by up to 30% [I‐5]. The cost of technology decreases with time [I‐11]Peer to peer information allowing seconds instead of months to get that knowledge saving millions of dollars a year [I‐7]'The cost of technology decreases with time' [I‐11]. 'It saves some money in the supply chain that spending on papers, or documents, papers' [I‐9]</td><td align="center">Lack of skills in short term</td><td align="center">Well so you either must pay the cost of getting educated on your own or you have to pay the cost of hiring people [I‐7]</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Various overheads</td><td align="center">It's difficult to find the money [I‐19]. It's also the cost of maintenance, the cost of upgrading and the cost of licences [I‐10]. cost of data preparation & its time consuming [I‐1]</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0186991656-15">Privacy as a Barrier in the Short Term and an Enabler in the Long Term</hd> <p>Privacy concerns stem from two key issues. First, BC technology is still evolving, and there is little evidence of its successful application in HEIs. I‐6 expressed concern, stating that 'It's not something that we have evidence of ...I don't think you can guarantee privacy yet'.</p> <p>Second, BC's immutability conflicts with data protection regulations such as GDPR, which differ across countries. I‐7, I‐10 and I‐16 highlighted that users need clarity on how data is stored, processed and accessed. I‐11 pointed out that BC's inability to delete data contradicts GDPR's Right to be Forgotten, which allows individuals to request the removal of personal information.</p> <p>Conversely, other participants, such as I‐2, I‐7 and I‐8, argued that BC could enhance privacy rather than hinder it. I‐7 stated that BC could allow students to control access to their own data. Agreeing with I‐7, I‐8 provided an example of how BC can offer transparency while maintaining privacy protections.</p> <p>Furthermore, I‐3, I‐15 and I‐20 emphasised that techniques such as stealth addresses and confidential transactions enhance security. I‐20 stated that 'This is comparatively a new technology and there is a lot going on, the new techniques such as CoinJoin and Mixer or even Confidential Transaction ensure privacy'.</p> <p>To address privacy concerns, participants suggested that a GDPR‐compliant BC use case should be demonstrated to boost stakeholder confidence. Additionally, as BC technology evolves, innovative solutions such as effective hashing or Confidential Transaction could mitigate privacy risks. However, these advancements require significant investment, leading to concerns over cost, which are discussed below.</p> <hd id="AN0186991656-16">Cost as a Short‐Term Barrier and Long‐Term Enabler</hd> <p>Participants debated whether cost is an enabler or a barrier. In the short term, cost poses a major challenge due to expenses related to data preparation, technical expertise, system maintenance, transaction costs and implementation time (I‐1, I‐7, I‐19 and I‐20).</p> <p>The most significant cost factor is time, as multiple preparatory stages are required before full BC integration. These include securing funding, preparing data, integrating BC with legacy systems, training personnel and ensuring long‐term maintenance. I‐1 elaborated on the short‐term financial burden, highlighting that the adoption process requires careful financial planning and resource allocation.</p> <p>However, in the long term, BC adoption could lead to significant cost savings. I‐11 and I‐15 noted that once implemented, BC could reduce administrative inefficiencies, optimise resource allocation and lower operational expenses. I‐9, I‐11, I‐12 and I‐13 suggested that these benefits would outweigh the initial investment.</p> <p>I‐5 supported this view, stating that 'Blockchain has been known to reduce costs by up to 30% and there is a lot of saving in supply chain'. I‐11 agreed and highlighted that cost efficiency would become a key enabler once the technology reaches maturity: 'The cost of technology decreases with time and peer to peer information allowing seconds instead of months to get that (I‐11)'.</p> <hd id="AN0186991656-17">Summary of Findings</hd> <p>The findings highlight that while BC presents significant opportunities for HEIs, adoption is influenced by enablers, barriers and dual‐impact factors. The study identifies key areas that require institutional, regulatory and technical considerations before full implementation. The next section discusses these findings in relation to existing literature and explores their implications for HEI decision‐makers.</p> <hd id="AN0186991656-18">Discussion</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0186991656-19">Technological Considerations</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0186991656-20">Immutability</hd> <p>Previous research has presented conflicting perspectives on the role of immutability in BC adoption within HEIs. Some scholars (Kamisalic et al. [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref104">45</reflink>]) argue that immutability poses challenges, particularly regarding data modification and compliance with regulatory requirements. Conversely, others (Juricic et al. [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref105">43</reflink>]) suggest that immutability enhances the integrity of student records by preventing unauthorised alterations.</p> <p>Our findings support the view that BC's immutability serves as an enabler rather than a barrier in HEIs. BC allows for the creation of new blocks containing updated information, ensuring that employers can verify all transactions without compromising data integrity. This feature enhances transparency, credibility, security and institutional reputation, broadly aligning with prior research (Turkanović et al. [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref106">76</reflink>]; Kuleto et al. [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref107">49</reflink>]).</p> <p>However, immutability also raises concerns, particularly regarding GDPR compliance and the inability to revoke or edit records once stored. These findings are consistent with Kuleto et al. ([<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref108">49</reflink>]), who highlight the contradiction between BC's immutability and the Right to be Forgotten. One possible solution identified in our study is the use of hybrid storage models, where HEIs maintain a private chain for internal data modifications while referencing key changes on a public chain. This approach balances data integrity with institutional flexibility, ensuring compliance with legal frameworks while preserving BC's core security benefits.</p> <p>Additionally, compared to sectors such as finance and supply chain management, where strict immutability is an advantage, HEIs may require a more adaptable system to manage student records over time. This suggests that for HEIs, a controlled implementation of BC, integrated with existing record‐keeping systems, could be a more viable approach than full decentralisation.</p> <hd id="AN0186991656-21">Scalability</hd> <p>Scalability has been widely cited as a primary technological challenge in BC adoption (Ma and Fang [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref109">51</reflink>]; Raimundo and Rosário [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref110">63</reflink>]; Castro and Au‐Yong‐Oliveira [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref111">16</reflink>]). A key concern is that as more nodes and data are added, BC networks may experience slower transaction processing and increased database pressure (Awaji et al. [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref112">8</reflink>]). In the finance sector, where BC transactions occur at high volumes, scalability has been a major limitation.</p> <p>However, our findings challenge this assumption within the HEI context. Unlike financial institutions, HEIs generate relatively low transaction volumes, significantly reducing scalability concerns. Furthermore, student records stored on BC undergo hashing, reducing storage size while maintaining data security. This suggests that for HEIs, scalability constraints are far less restrictive than previously thought.</p> <p>Additionally, advancements in cloud‐based BC solutions, private chains and 5G networks could further enhance scalability. These technologies allow HEIs to store large datasets efficiently while maintaining decentralisation benefits. Compared to other industries, HEIs have more flexibility in selecting BC models that optimise scalability without compromising security or performance.</p> <p>That said, integration with existing student record systems remains a challenge. Many HEIs operate on legacy infrastructure, which may not be immediately compatible with BC networks. Ensuring interoperability through standardised protocols and phased adoption strategies could mitigate these concerns.</p> <hd id="AN0186991656-22">Privacy</hd> <p>Privacy remains a contested issue in BC adoption. Some researchers (Han et al. [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref113">36</reflink>]) argue that privacy presents a major challenge in HEIs, whereas others (Al Harthy et al. [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref114">3</reflink>]) claim that BC's cryptographic design inherently enhances security. Raimundo and Rosário ([<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref115">63</reflink>]) suggest that BC contributes to protecting user records in HE, but concerns remain regarding compliance with data protection regulations such as GDPR.</p> <p>Our findings indicate that privacy concerns persist in the short term but may diminish over time as BC evolves. One primary challenge is GDPR compliance, particularly the Right to be Forgotten, which contradicts BC's immutable nature. Institutions must ensure that students have control over how their data is stored, processed and accessed (I‐7, I‐10 and I‐16).</p> <p>However, emerging privacy‐enhancing cryptographic techniques, such as zero‐knowledge proofs, homomorphic encryption and stealth addresses, may help address these concerns. These innovations enable selective data disclosure, allowing institutions to comply with privacy regulations while maintaining BC's security benefits.</p> <p>Another challenge is the lack of real‐world BC applications in HEIs. Without demonstrated use cases, it remains difficult to assess BC's effectiveness in ensuring privacy and security within HE. Pilot implementations and regulatory sandboxes could help institutions test BC adoption while ensuring compliance with data protection laws.</p> <p>Additionally, BC's approach to privacy differs significantly from that of other sectors. In healthcare and finance, privacy regulations are tightly controlled, requiring permissioned BC models with strong access controls. In contrast, HEIs may benefit from hybrid approaches where student data is hashed or anonymised on‐chain, while more sensitive information is stored off‐chain in compliance with GDPR.</p> <hd id="AN0186991656-23">Summary of Technological Considerations</hd> <p>Our findings suggest that immutability and scalability are largely enablers for BC adoption in HEIs, while privacy remains a short‐term barrier but a long‐term enabler. Unlike other sectors, HEIs face unique challenges related to regulatory compliance, integration with legacy systems and interoperability. However, solutions such as hybrid storage models and cloud‐based scalability solutions can help institutions mitigate these concerns. Future research should focus on practical case studies of BC adoption in HEIs to assess how these technological factors function in real‐world implementations.</p> <hd id="AN0186991656-24">Organisational Considerations</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0186991656-25">Usability</hd> <p>Raimundo and Rosário ([<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref116">63</reflink>]) identified usability as a major barrier to BC adoption in HEIs, citing challenges such as the complexity of handling public and private keys. However, our findings contradict this perspective, revealing that BC does not require extensive expertise to use and can be effectively integrated into administrative processes without significant technical knowledge.</p> <p>Our study indicates that usability is not a fundamental barrier, provided that user interfaces and accessibility features are designed to be intuitive. Interviewees confirmed that BC platforms can be developed similarly to other digital applications, allowing users to interact with them without needing to understand the underlying technology, systems, or programming languages. This suggests that, with proper interface design, BC could be implemented seamlessly across HEI administrative tasks, making it as accessible as mobile applications.</p> <p>The perception of BC complexity among non‐experts and decision‐makers in HEIs may contribute to its classification as a barrier in the literature (e.g., Raimundo and Rosário [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref117">63</reflink>]). Many decision‐makers associate BC with financial sector terminology, such as 'mining,' 'proof of work,' and 'eliminating the third party,' which can create misconceptions about its usability. However, our findings suggest that these concerns are misplaced in an HEI context, as the level of technical expertise required for BC adoption is minimal. Thus, usability should be reconsidered as an enabler rather than a barrier, as it is more dependent on system design than inherent technological limitations.</p> <hd id="AN0186991656-26">Cost</hd> <p>Previous research has reported conflicting views on the cost of BC adoption. Some studies (Haugsbakken and Langseth [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref118">38</reflink>]) suggest that BC can reduce operational costs for universities by improving efficiency and minimising administrative overheads. In contrast, others (Awaji et al. [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref119">8</reflink>]) argue that the cost of implementation is a significant barrier due to expenses associated with training, transaction fees, system maintenance, infrastructure upgrades and data preparation.</p> <p>Our findings align with both perspectives, indicating that while initial implementation costs are high, long‐term benefits could outweigh these expenses. One potential solution is for HEIs to contract with BC service providers to manage the sorting and verification processes, which could significantly reduce direct costs for institutions. Additionally, our research identified further infrastructure‐related costs, including system maintenance, upgrades and licensing fees. However, these costs primarily arise during the initial adoption phase and decrease over time. In the long run, BC adoption could lead to substantial savings in administrative effort, resource utilisation, and overall operational efficiency for HEIs.</p> <p>Thus, while cost presents a short‐term barrier, it is likely to act as a long‐term enabler, particularly if HEIs adopt strategic partnerships, shared BC platforms, and consortia‐based models to distribute costs across institutions.</p> <hd id="AN0186991656-27">Management Commitment</hd> <p>Our research highlights management commitment as a crucial enabler of BC adoption within HEIs. Interestingly, none of the reviewed studies explicitly discussed the role of senior leadership in influencing BC adoption in academic institutions. However, our findings suggest that strong management commitment can significantly impact institutional readiness for BC adoption by ensuring alignment among directors, administrators and system users.</p> <p>Farooque et al. ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref120">30</reflink>]) argue that management commitment is critical in shaping organisational policies and technology adoption strategies. Similarly, Chan et al. ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref121">19</reflink>]) suggest that senior leadership involvement is a prerequisite for the successful implementation of new technologies. Our study supports this, demonstrating that HEI leadership plays an essential role in facilitating interdepartmental collaboration, resource allocation and policy development for BC adoption.</p> <p>Furthermore, strong management commitment can extend beyond individual institutions by initiating consortia, inter‐organisational collaborations and BC alliances. HEI leaders could work with other universities, technology providers and regulatory bodies to develop common BC standards, shared platforms and region‐wide systems. Such initiatives could result in significant cost reductions and resource‐sharing opportunities, making BC adoption more feasible across multiple institutions.</p> <p>Additionally, the successful implementation of BC systems within pioneering HEIs could act as a catalyst for broader adoption, encouraging other institutions worldwide to integrate similar systems. This suggests that institutional leadership is not only critical for internal adoption but also for shaping the broader BC adoption landscape in HEIs globally.</p> <hd id="AN0186991656-28">Summary of Organisational Considerations</hd> <p>Our findings suggest that usability and management commitment are strong enablers of BC adoption in HEIs, while cost remains a short‐term barrier but a long‐term enabler. Unlike previous research that classified usability as a barrier, our study highlights that intuitive design and improved user interfaces can eliminate complexity concerns. Additionally, HEIs can mitigate cost‐related challenges through strategic partnerships, shared service models and phased implementation strategies. Management commitment emerges as a key driver in ensuring institutional alignment, facilitating inter‐institutional collaboration and influencing broader BC adoption trends.</p> <hd id="AN0186991656-29">Environmental Considerations</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0186991656-30">Collaboration and Coopetition</hd> <p>Our findings suggest that collaboration can play a significant role in facilitating BC adoption within HEIs by reducing legal and governance challenges. Since BC‐based certification management involves multiple stakeholders, such as universities, governments and employers, collaboration is essential to establish common credentialing and validation processes. This aligns with Alammary et al. ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref122">4</reflink>]), who argue that BC's greatest benefits lie in fostering collaboration and partnerships among educational institutions. Haugsbakken and Langseth ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref123">38</reflink>]) similarly note that effective collaboration can strengthen the HE system by enhancing trust, standardisation and interoperability.</p> <p>By working collectively, institutions can streamline BC adoption through shared infrastructure, standardised protocols and regulatory alignment. However, achieving such collaboration requires universities and government agencies to align their policies and technical frameworks, ensuring seamless data exchange and mutual recognition of credentials.</p> <hd id="AN0186991656-31">Standardisation</hd> <p>A major challenge in HEI credential management is the lack of standardisation across different countries. Current diploma storage methods vary significantly, making it difficult for institutions to exchange records efficiently (Turkanović et al. [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref124">76</reflink>]). Our findings confirm that the absence of a unified standard complicates BC adoption, as different HEIs and governments operate under separate regulatory and technological frameworks.</p> <p>This aligns with Castro and Au‐Yong‐Oliveira ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref125">16</reflink>]), who argue that a lack of operational standardisation hampers the verification process. Without a universally accepted model, BC adoption could result in fragmented systems that fail to achieve true interoperability. Mohammad and Vargas ([<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref126">54</reflink>]) further claim that inconsistent BC applications reduce compatibility and limit communication between different platforms, reinforcing the need for common data‐sharing frameworks.</p> <p>Given these challenges, our findings suggest that HEIs must establish a unified standard for BC adoption, one that ensures compatibility across institutions, regulators and employers. As BC has been described as the 'passport of education', implementing a globally recognised standard would enhance adoption and foster trust in decentralised credential management.</p> <hd id="AN0186991656-32">Regulation</hd> <p>Regulatory differences between countries present one of the biggest barriers to BC adoption in HEIs. Interviewees highlighted that some nations impose strict regulations on BC technology, preventing widespread implementation. This finding is consistent with previous studies (Turkanović et al. [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref127">76</reflink>]; Ibrahimy et al. [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref128">41</reflink>]), which demonstrate how geopolitical and legal restrictions affect BC deployment. For example, China has severely restricted BC applications, making it difficult for universities to integrate decentralised credentialing systems (I‐3, I‐6, I‐17).</p> <p>Steiu ([<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref129">71</reflink>]) further notes that GDPR regulations create legal uncertainties regarding how personal data is managed on BC networks. Our study reinforces this by raising concerns over the unclear accountability structures in BC systems. Since BC involves multiple stakeholders, it remains uncertain who holds legal responsibility for system failures, data protection compliance and dispute resolution. These regulatory ambiguities must be addressed before HEIs can confidently implement BC‐based certification models.</p> <hd id="AN0186991656-33">Governance</hd> <p>Governance was identified as a significant barrier to BC adoption in HEIs. The complexity of governance arises from the decentralised nature of BC, where different stakeholders manage varying data sets and operational frameworks. Developing an effective governance model is costly and requires institutions to redesign workflows to accommodate decentralised decision‐making (I‐6 and I‐7).</p> <p>To implement BC successfully, universities and regulatory bodies must establish shared governance structures that ensure data transparency and mutual accountability. However, achieving such agreements remains a challenge, as institutions must be willing to modify their governance models. Some scholars suggest that smart contracts and decentralised autonomous organisations (DAOs) could provide governance solutions by automating decision‐making and compliance mechanisms (Hassan and De Filippi [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref130">37</reflink>]).</p> <p>Our findings align with previous research, which has found that governance is a key inhibitor to BC adoption in various industries (Haugsbakken and Langseth [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref131">38</reflink>]). Without a well‐defined governance model, HEIs may struggle to implement BC effectively, as decentralisation conflicts with traditional university hierarchies and administrative structures.</p> <hd id="AN0186991656-34">Bureaucracy</hd> <p>Bureaucracy was identified as a major external challenge affecting BC adoption in HEIs. Since HEIs operate under government regulations and accreditation requirements, the procedural complexity of adopting BC is heightened by administrative red tape (I‐3 and I‐10).</p> <p>Haugsbakken and Langseth ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref132">38</reflink>]) report that HEIs are becoming increasingly bureaucratic, with excessive paperwork, documentation and regulatory policies slowing down innovation. Our study extends this argument by demonstrating that bureaucracy not only exists within institutions but also originates from external regulatory agencies overseeing HEIs. This finding is novel, as previous studies have primarily focused on institutional bureaucracy, whereas our research highlights how external bureaucracy acts as a BC adoption inhibitor.</p> <p>Some scholars suggest that DAOs could streamline compliance processes by automating decision‐making and reducing regulatory inefficiencies (Hassan and De Filippi [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref133">37</reflink>]). However, our study indicates that HEIs are not yet ready to transition to fully decentralised governance models, making it unlikely that DAOs will fully replace traditional bureaucratic structures in the short term.</p> <p>Turnip et al. ([<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref134">77</reflink>]) argue that bureaucracy is a common inhibitor of technological innovation, reinforcing our findings that regulatory red tape and procedural inefficiencies make BC adoption more complex. Future research should explore how institutional theories, such as those proposed by Teo et al. ([<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref135">73</reflink>]), explain HEI adoption of BC under compliance pressure.</p> <hd id="AN0186991656-35">Language</hd> <p>Language emerged as a previously underexplored barrier to BC adoption in HEIs. Certification management and verification processes require clear, standardised communication, yet variations in terminology and documentation procedures across different countries create misinterpretations.</p> <p>Our study confirms that language inconsistencies can negatively impact BC adoption, as decision‐makers may struggle to align credentialing processes due to semantic differences in diploma structures and grading systems. This challenge has only been briefly discussed in prior research, with Turkanović et al. ([<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref136">76</reflink>]) being one of the few studies to identify language as a BC inhibitor. They argue that when HEIs attempt to use BC for global credit transfer systems, linguistic differences complicate standardisation efforts.</p> <p>Our findings reinforce this argument by demonstrating that HEIs must establish a common terminology and metadata framework to ensure that BC adoption does not create further inconsistencies. Without such agreements, BC adoption risks exacerbating, rather than resolving, administrative inefficiencies in HEIs.</p> <hd id="AN0186991656-36">Summary of Environmental Considerations</hd> <p>Our findings suggest that collaboration and standardisation serve as key enablers, while regulation, governance, bureaucracy and language act as significant barriers to BC adoption in HEIs. This reflects prior literature noting the importance of interoperability and shared data frameworks for secure credential exchange (Turkanović et al. [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref137">76</reflink>]; Budhiraja and Rani [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref138">15</reflink>]). Collaboration between institutions and regulatory bodies can improve the feasibility of BC implementation, while standardisation efforts are crucial to ensuring interoperability.</p> <p>However, regulatory complexities, governance challenges and bureaucratic inefficiencies remain substantial obstacles. As noted by Belahouaoui and Attak ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref139">12</reflink>]), BC systems offer opportunities for automating financial reporting and tax compliance –yet unclear governance structures within HEIs can undermine their effective application. Similarly, environmental regulations, including those related to energy consumption, present real constraints to adoption, especially in regions with high electricity costs (Mzoughi et al. [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref140">56</reflink>]) Additionally, language inconsistencies pose a previously underexplored challenge that could affect global BC adoption in HE. The development of multilingual, standardised BC metadata models would enhance international recognition of academic credentials (Delgado‐von‐Eitzen et al. [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref141">24</reflink>]).</p> <p>Given the decentralised nature of BC, HEIs must establish clear guidelines for record sharing, data validation and decision‐making authority. A well‐defined framework will enable institutions to align BC adoption with existing policies while fostering seamless collaboration across universities and regulatory bodies. This echoes Di Vaio et al. ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref142">26</reflink>]), who emphasise that transparent governance models enabled by BC can promote institutional accountability and alignment with sustainability objectives, including SDG 5.</p> <p>Furthermore, engaging policymakers and regulatory authorities is crucial for clarifying legal and compliance issues surrounding BC adoption. As noted by Stefan‐Robert and Butincu ([<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref143">70</reflink>]), integration with legal standards, such as GDPR, requires a well‐defined data rights and certificate revocation mechanism. By working closely with government agencies, accreditation bodies and international education consortia, HEIs can advocate for policies that support BC innovation while ensuring compliance with data privacy regulations. Establishing clear legal accountability will provide institutions with greater confidence to invest in BC without the risk of regulatory conflicts.</p> <p>Figure 2 presents the final list of enablers and barriers influencing BC adoption within HEIs. The following section offers the conclusion, recommendations and directions for future research.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/D85/01jul25/hequ70034-fig-0002.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="hequ70034-fig-0002.jpg" title="2 Enablers and barriers impacting BC adoption within HEIs." /> </p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0186991656-38">Conclusion, Contributions and Future Work</hd> <p>Our study highlights that BC is a promising technology for HEIs, offering multiple opportunities to enhance institutional efficiency, security and transparency. However, despite its potential benefits, BC has yet to be widely adopted across HEIs. This research examined the enablers and barriers influencing BC adoption using the TOE framework and is among the first studies to apply adoption theory to BC research in HEIs.</p> <hd id="AN0186991656-39">Theoretical Contributions</hd> <p>The study's theoretical implications are fourfold. First, we identified six environmental factors, three organisational factors and three technological factors (see Figure 2) that can both enable or inhibit BC adoption in HEIs. While the TOE framework has been widely applied to various technology adoption studies since its inception by Tornatzky and Fleischer ([<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref144">74</reflink>]), our contribution lies in contextualising TOE for the HEI sector (Hong et al. [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref145">39</reflink>]). This research demonstrates how BC adoption differs in HEIs compared to other industries, such as finance (Kajla et al. [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref146">44</reflink>]) and supply chain (Chittipaka et al. [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref147">21</reflink>]).</p> <p>Contextualising TOE within HEIs is particularly relevant given the increasingly complex institutional environment. HEIs face significant pressure to reduce costs, streamline operations and remain competitive, particularly in response to changing student expectations, technological advancements and funding constraints. Gen Z students, for example, prefer digital‐first, efficient solutions, whereas many legacy HEI systems remain outdated, slow and incompatible with newer technologies. Additionally, declining financial resources, a highly competitive landscape, and the need for operational efficiency make BC adoption a strategic consideration for HEIs.</p> <p>Our research contributes by highlighting the importance of environmental factors, particularly the role of cooperation and inter‐organisational consortia in enabling BC adoption. Unlike previous studies that examined only a few TOE factors (e.g., Kajla et al. [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref148">44</reflink>]), this study captures the broader institutional complexity, reporting six environmental factors that significantly impact BC adoption. The TOE framework has thus proven to be a suitable and flexible conceptual model for understanding BC adoption in HEIs.</p> <p>In terms of organisational factors, our study underscores the role of management commitment in influencing environmental factors, such as initiating collaboration with stakeholders to establish consortia for BC adoption. Given that HEIs have been slow to adopt BC, senior leadership can play a critical role in advancing adoption by fostering partnerships, allocating resources and guiding implementation strategies. This study empirically demonstrates how interactions between environmental and organisational factors influence technology adoption intentions (Cenfetelli and Schwarz [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref149">17</reflink>]; Ramdhony et al. [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref150">64</reflink>]).</p> <p>Unlike prior research, which often categorised factors as either enablers or barriers (e.g., dos Santos and Chaczko [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref151">28</reflink>]), our study identifies conditions under which a factor may act as both an enabler and a barrier. This dual role adds complexity for HEI decision‐makers and highlights the need for strategic planning when adopting new technologies.</p> <p>Additionally, our findings challenge previous studies that classified usability, scalability and immutability as barriers to BC adoption (Raimundo and Rosário [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref152">63</reflink>]; Steiu [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref153">71</reflink>]; Juricic et al. [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref154">43</reflink>]). In contrast, our study finds that these factors function as enablers when considered within the specific context of HEIs. This further confirms the value of contextualising TOE (Oliveira and Martins [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref155">57</reflink>]; Hong et al. [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref156">39</reflink>]) and demonstrates how sector‐specific factors influence BC adoption.</p> <p>Moreover, this study's comprehensive analysis, which includes multiple adoption constructs (see Table 1) and the final framework (Figure 2), contributes to ongoing research calls (e.g., Mohammad and Vargas [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref157">54</reflink>]; Ibrahimy et al. [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref158">41</reflink>]) for further exploration of institutional and organisational barriers that may negatively impact BC adoption in HEIs.</p> <hd id="AN0186991656-40">Managerial Contributions</hd> <p>Beyond HEIs, the institutional environment‐related factors identified in this study (see Figure 2) may also be relevant to other industries considering BC adoption. Unlike the adoption of other emerging technologies, such as artificial intelligence, which presents significant ethical and privacy challenges (Bates et al. [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref159">10</reflink>]), BC adoption may be more straightforward due to its inherent security and transparency features. However, as our study reveals, privacy concerns remain complex, and decision makers must carefully evaluate regulatory compliance requirements.</p> <p>By understanding the various enablers and barriers, HEI leaders and other industry decision‐makers can better plan for BC adoption, mitigating potential challenges through strategic collaboration, governance frameworks and stakeholder engagement.</p> <hd id="AN0186991656-41">Limitations and Future Research</hd> <p>This study has several limitations. First, our findings are based on qualitative interviews, which, while providing in‐depth insights, limit generalisation. Future research should employ both qualitative and quantitative methods to broaden the scope and strengthen the theoretical foundation of BC adoption studies.</p> <p>Additionally, future studies could further explore complex environmental factors, particularly in relation to regulation, governance and bureaucracy. Understanding how HEIs can navigate regulatory challenges and streamline bureaucratic processes will be critical for ensuring widespread BC adoption.</p> <p>Another area for future research is the impact of BC on organisational structures and processes. Our study does not examine how HEIs may need to adapt their traditional hierarchical structures when implementing decentralised BC‐based systems. Future research could investigate how BC adoption influences HEI governance models, potentially shifting toward less bureaucratic, more decentralised administrative structures. Since many university leaders remain unaware of BC's organisational implications, examining how BC impacts decision‐making, resource allocation, and process efficiency would provide valuable insights.</p> <p>Furthermore, regulatory differences across countries may pose significant challenges for BC implementation. While our study identified collaboration as a key enabler, future research should explore the antecedents and consequences of BC alliances within HEIs. This includes examining how cross‐border regulations, cryptocurrency exchange laws and data privacy policies affect BC adoption.</p> <p>Lastly, future research could investigate how students perceive BC adoption in HEIs. Given that Gen Z students have different expectations regarding digital technologies, exploring their attitudes toward BC‐based credentialing, transparency and decentralisation would provide further insights into the long‐term sustainability of BC adoption in higher education.</p> <hd id="AN0186991656-42">Recommended Strategies for Decision‐Makers in HEIs</hd> <p>BC technology offers significant potential for HEIs by enhancing smart contracts, administrative record management, digital badges and certification systems. However, decision‐makers must develop a deep understanding of the enablers and barriers influencing BC adoption within their institutions. A strategic and well‐informed approach can mitigate challenges, foster acceptance and accelerate implementation.</p> <hd id="AN0186991656-43">Establishing Collaboration and Consortia</hd> <p>Collaboration is a critical factor in the successful implementation of BC within HEIs. Universities should prioritise joint initiatives and standardised BC networks rather than operating in isolation, as a shared BC infrastructure would reduce costs, streamline operations and improve system interoperability.</p> <p>A key strategy is for top management to take the initiative in forming BC consortia at the regional or national level. Such collaborations could bring together HEIs, industry partners and policymakers to develop common BC standards, governance models and operational frameworks. This approach would not only reduce the high initial investment costs, identified in this study as a short‐term barrier, but also enable institutions to share expertise, resources and technological infrastructure.</p> <p>A successful example of HEI collaboration is UCAS, which was developed by UK universities as a centralised application management system for undergraduate admissions. A similar BC‐based consortia model could be developed to manage certifications, academic records, credit transfers, procurement, funding grants, scholarships, copyright protection, employee relations and supply chain functions. Such collaboration, although still in its early stage, is promoted by the European Commission through the initiative EU Blockchain Observatory and Forum (EUBOF), aimed at fostering dialogue, monitoring developments and promoting understanding of BC technologies across Europe. Many European universities, including Lucerne and University College London, are part of this collaboration. These examples suggest that initiating BC adoption with a limited set of functions and gradually expanding its scope could make implementation more manageable and cost‐effective.</p> <p>Small universities, particularly those with limited financial and technical resources, would greatly benefit from strategic alliances that promote BC adoption. For instance, the Canada‐based start‐up Educhain has begun providing digital academic credentials, ranging from letters and transcripts to diplomas and degrees, to universities in Dubai, UAE, demonstrating how third‐party providers can support HEIs with limited internal capacity.</p> <hd id="AN0186991656-44">Strengthening Management Commitment and Organisational Readiness</hd> <p>Strong management commitment is essential for overcoming resistance to BC adoption. HEI leadership must play a proactive role in communicating the benefits of BC, mobilising skilled personnel and fostering an organisational culture that embraces innovation. Successful BC adoption will require clear leadership, training initiatives and an internal shift toward digital transformation. While environmental factors such as governance and government regulations may act as barriers, collaboration among HEIs and strong management commitment could help reduce bureaucratic challenges, address GDPR compliance concerns and establish standardised policies aligned with both national and international regulations.</p> <p>To support these leadership efforts, the BC Playbook, produced by the American Council for Technology‐Industry Advisory Council ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref160">6</reflink>]), could be a valuable starting point for HEI decision‐makers. It provides detailed guidance on assessing organisational readiness, selecting appropriate BC tools, managing implementation and integration processes, and addressing change management, governance and regulatory considerations. Such structured guidance can enhance informed decision‐making and strengthen institutional readiness for adoption.</p> <p>With adequate leadership commitment and institutional readiness, HEIs have the potential to establish BC‐based systems and academic records as a globally recognised digital passport for students, ensuring secure, transparent and verifiable credentials. By doing so, HEIs can position themselves at the forefront of digital innovation in higher education, enhancing institutional efficiency and reinforcing trust in academic qualifications worldwide.</p> <hd id="AN0186991656-45">Author Contributions</hd> <p> <bold>Buddhi Pathak:</bold> conceptualization, methodology, writing – review and editing, formal analysis, data curation, validation, project administration, investigation, visualization, resources. <bold>Mhd Fadi Alakkad:</bold> conceptualization, investigation, writing – original draft, methodology, validation, software, formal analysis, data curation, resources, visualization, project administration. <bold>Vikas Kumar:</bold> writing – review and editing, validation, supervision, methodology.</p> <hd id="AN0186991656-46">Ethics Statement</hd> <p>The authors have nothing to report.</p> <hd id="AN0186991656-47">Conflicts of Interest</hd> <p>The authors declare no conflicts of interest.</p> <hd id="AN0186991656-48">Data Availability Statement</hd> <p>The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.</p> <ref id="AN0186991656-49"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref56" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Funding: The authors received no specific funding for this work.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0186991656-50"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibtext> Agerskov, S., A. B. Pedersen, and R. Beck. 2023. "Ethical Guidelines for Blockchain Systems." In Proceedings of Thirty‐first European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS 2023), April, Kristiansand, Norway.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref23" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Akanfe, O., D. Lawong, and H. R. Rao. 2024. " Blockchain Technology and Privacy Regulation: Reviewing Frictions and Synthesizing Opportunities." International Journal of Information Management 76 : 102753.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref4" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Al Harthy, K., F. Al Shuhaimi, and K. K. Juma Al Ismaily. 2019. "The Upcoming Blockchain Adoption in Higher‐Education: Requirements and Process." In 4th MEC International Conference on Big Data and Smart City, ICBDSC 2019, pp. 1–5.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref122" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Alammary, A., S. Alhazmi, M. Almasri, and S. Gillani. 2019. " Blockchain‐Based Applications in Education: A Systematic Review." Applied Sciences 9, no. 12 : 2400.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref27" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> AlHinai, Y. S. 2020. " Disaster Management Digitally Transformed: Exploring the Impact and Key Determinants From the UK National Disaster Management Experience." International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 51 : 101851.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref160" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> American Council for Technology‐Industry Advisory Council. 2018. "Blockchain Playbook Online – Beta." Accessed April 14, 2025. https://blockchain‐working‐group.github.io/blockchain‐playbook/welcome/.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref26" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Awa, H. O., and O. U. Ojiabo. 2016. " A Model of Adoption Determinants of ERP Within T‐O‐E Framework." Information Technology and People 29, no. 4 : 901 – 930.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref16" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Awaji, B., E. Solaiman, and A. Albshri. 2020. "Blockchain‐Based Applications in Higher Education: A Systematic Mapping Study." In ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, pp. 96–104.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref81" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Baker, J. 2012. " The Technology–Organization–Environment Framework." In Information Systems Theory: Explaining and Predicting Our Digital Society, vol. 1, 231 – 245. Springer New York.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bates, T., C. Cobo, O. Mariño, and S. Wheeler. 2020. " Can Artificial Intelligence Transform Higher Education? " International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education 17, no. 1 : 1 – 12.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Behl, A., B. Sampat, J. Zhang, and V. Pereira. 2024. " The Dark Side of Blockchains: Threats, Risks, Ethics and Biases in Blockchain Adoption." Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society 22, no. 1 : 1 – 5.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Belahouaoui, R., and E. H. Attak. 2024. " Digital Taxation, Artificial Intelligence and Tax Administration 3.0: Improving Tax Compliance Behavior – A Systematic Literature Review Using Textometry (2016–2023)." Accounting Research Journal 37, no. 2 : 172 – 191.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Braun, V., and V. Clarke. 2006. " Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology." Qualitative Research in Psychology 3, no. 2 : 77 – 101.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brinkmann, S., and S. Kvale. 2014. Interviews: Learning the Craft of Qualitative Research Interviewing. Sage Publications.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Budhiraja, S., and R. Rani. 2020. " TUDocChain‐Securing Academic Certificate Digitally on Blockchain." In Inventive Computation Technologies. ICICIT 2019. Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems, edited by S. Smys, R. Bestak, and Á. Rocha, vol. 98. Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Castro, R. Q., and M. Au‐Yong‐Oliveira. 2021. " Blockchain and Higher Education Diplomas." European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education 11, no. 1 : 154 – 167.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cenfetelli, R. T., and A. Schwarz. 2011. " Identifying and Testing the Inhibitors of Technology Usage Intentions." Information Systems Research 22, no. 4 : 808 – 823.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chainalysis. 2024. "$2.2 Billion Stolen From Crypto Platforms in 2024, But Hacked Volumes Stagnate Toward Year‐End as DPRK Slows Activity Post‐July, Report December 19, 2024." Accessed February 2, 2025. https://<ulink href="http://www.chainalysis.com/blog/crypto‐hacking‐stolen‐funds‐2025/">www.chainalysis.com/blog/crypto‐hacking‐stolen‐funds‐2025/</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chan, H. L., T. M. Choi, and D. M. De la Torre. 2023. " The "SMARTER" Framework and Real Application Cases of Blockchain." Technological Forecasting and Social Change 196 : 122798.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chhina, S., M. Chadhar, S. Firmin, and A. Tatnall. 2024. " Navigating Blockchain Adoption: An Examination of Actor Alignment With the Diffusion of Innovation Principles." Blockchain: Research and Applications 5, no. 4 : 100228.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chittipaka, V., S. Kumar, U. Sivarajah, J. L. H. Bowden, and M. M. Baral. 2023. " Blockchain Technology for Supply Chains Operating in Emerging Markets: An Empirical Examination of Technology‐Organization‐Environment (TOE) Framework." Annals of Operations Research 327, no. 1 : 465 – 492.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Clohessy, T., T. Acton, and N. Rogers. 2019. " Blockchain Adoption: Technological, Organisational and Environmental Considerations." In Business Transformation Through Blockchain, edited by H. Treiblmaier and R. Beck. Palgrave Macmillan.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Deenmahomed, H., M. Didier, and R. Sungkur. 2021. " The Future of University Education: Examination, Transcript, and Certificate System Using Blockchain." Computer Applications in Engineering Education 29 : 1234 – 1256.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Delgado‐von‐Eitzen, C., L. Anido‐Rifón, and M. J. Fernández‐Iglesias. 2024. " NFTs for the Issuance and Validation of Academic Information That Complies With the GDPR." Applied Sciences 14 : 706.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. 2024. "Cyber Security Breachers Survey 2024: Education Institutions Annex." Accessed February 2, 2025. https://<ulink href="http://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/cyber‐security‐breaches‐survey‐2024/cyber‐security‐breaches‐survey‐2024‐education‐institutions‐annex">www.gov.uk/government/statistics/cyber‐security‐breaches‐survey‐2024/cyber‐security‐breaches‐survey‐2024‐education‐institutions‐annex</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Di Vaio, A., R. Hassan, and R. Palladino. 2023. " Blockchain Technology and Gender Equality: A Systematic Literature Review." International Journal of Information Management 68 : 102517.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dinh, T. T. A., R. Liu, M. Zhang, G. Chen, B. C. Ooi, and J. Wang. 2018. " Untangling Blockchain: A Data Processing View of Blockchain Systems." IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 30, no. 7 : 1366 – 1385.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> dos Santos, A. P., and Z. Chaczko. 2018. " Blockchain: Status‐Quo, Enablers and Inhibitors." In 2018 26th International Conference on Systems Engineering (ICSEng), 1 – 6. IEEE.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> El Koshiry, A., E. Eliwa, T. Abd El‐Hafeez, and M. Y. Shams. 2023. " Unlocking the Power of Blockchain in Education: An Overview of Innovations and Outcomes." Blockchain: Research and Applications 4, no. 4 : 100165.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Farooque, M., V. Jain, A. Zhang, and Z. Li. 2020. " Fuzzy DEMATEL Analysis of Barriers to Blockchain‐Based Life Cycle Assessment in China." Computers & Industrial Engineering 147 : 106684.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Galvin, R. 2015. " How Many Interviews Are Enough? Do Qualitative Interviews in Building Energy Consumption Research Produce Reliable Knowledge? " Journal of Building Engineering 1 : 2 – 12.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gan, Q., and R. Y. K. Lau. 2024. " Trust in a 'Trust‐Free' System: Blockchain Acceptance in the Banking and Finance Sector." Technological Forecasting and Social Change 199 : 123050.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gates, M. 2017. Blockchain: Ultimate Guide to Understanding Blockchain, Bitcoin, Cryptocurrencies, Smart Contracts and the Future of Money. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Guest, G., E. Namey, J. Taylor, N. Eley, and K. McKenna. 2017. " Comparing Focus Groups and Individual Interviews: Findings From a Randomized Study." International Journal of Social Research Methodology 20, no. 6 : 693 – 708.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hamdan, A., A. E. Hassanien, T. Mescon, and B. Alareeni. 2022. Technologies, Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Learning Post‐COVID‐19. Springer International Publishing.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Han, M., D. Wu, Z. Li, Y. Xie, J. He, and A. Baba. 2018. "A Novel Blockchain‐Based Education Records Verification Solution, SIGITE 18: Proceedings of the 19th Annual SIG Conference on Information Technology Education."</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hassan, S., and P. De Filippi. 2021. " Decentralized Autonomous Organization." Internet Policy Review 10, no. 2 : 1 – 11.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Haugsbakken, H., and I. Langseth. 2019. " The Blockchain Challenge for Higher Education Institutions." European Journal of Education 2, no. 3 : 24 – 29.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hong, W., F. K. Chan, J. Y. Thong, L. C. Chasalow, and G. Dhillon. 2014. " A Framework and Guidelines for Context‐Specific Theorizing in Information Systems Research." Information Systems Research 25, no. 1 : 111 – 136.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hughes, L., Y. K. Dwivedi, S. K. Misra, N. P. Rana, V. Raghavan, and V. Akella. 2019. " Blockchain Research, Practice and Policy: Applications, Benefits, Limitations, Emerging Research Themes and Research Agenda." International Journal of Information Management 49 : 114 – 129.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ibrahimy, M. M., A. Norta, and P. Normak. 2024. " Blockchain‐Based Governance Models Supporting Corruption‐Transparency: A Systematic Literature Review." Blockchain: Research and Applications 5, no. 2 : 100186.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jackson, K., and P. Bazeley. 2019. Qualitative Data Analysis With NVivo. SAGE Publication.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Juricic, V., M. Radoševic, and E. Fuzul. 2019. "Creating Student's Profile Using Blockchain Technology." In 42nd International Convention on Information and Communication Technology, Electronics and Microelectronics, MIPRO 2019 ‐ Proceedings, pp. 521–525.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kajla, T., K. Sood, S. Gupta, S. Raj, and H. Singh. 2024. " Identification and Prioritization of the Factors Influencing Blockchain Adoption in the Banking Sector: Integrating Fuzzy AHP With TOE Framework." International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management 41, no. 8 : 2004 – 2026.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kamisalic, A., M. Turkanović, S. Mrdovic, and M. Hericko. 2019. "A Preliminary Review of Blockchain‐Based Solutions in Higher Education." Communications in Computer and Information Science, 1011 (May), pp. 114–124.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> King, N., and J. Brooks. 2018. Thematic Analysis in Organisational Research. Vol. 1‐0. SAGE Publications Ltd.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kinkel, S., M. Baumgartner, and E. Cherubini. 2022. " Prerequisites for the Adoption of AI Technologies in Manufacturing–Evidence From a Worldwide Sample of Manufacturing Companies." Technovation 110 : 102375.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Komulainen, R., and S. Nätti. 2023. " Barriers to Blockchain Adoption: Empirical Observations From Securities Services Value Network." Journal of Business Research 159 : 113714.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kuleto, V., R. Bucea‐Manea‐Țoniş, R. Bucea‐Manea‐Țoniş, et al. 2022. " The Potential of Blockchain Technology in Higher Education as Perceived by Students in Serbia, Romania, and Portugal." Sustainability 14, no. 2 : 749.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Liyanaarachchi, G., G. Viglia, and F. Kurtaliqi. 2024. " Addressing Challenges of Digital Transformation With Modified Blockchain." Technological Forecasting and Social Change 201 : 123254.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ma, Y., and Y. Fang. 2020. " Current Status, Issues, and Challenges of Blockchain Applications in Education." International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning 15, no. 12 : 20 – 31.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Medina, M. J., C. Baudet, and J. F. Lebraty. 2024. " Blockchain and Agency Theory in Supply Chain Management: A Question of Trust." International Journal of Information Management 75 : 102747.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mihov, B., B. Pathak, S. R. Gulliver, and M. D. Dzandu. 2024. "Towards the Acceptance of Autonomous Vehicles: The Role of Government and Vehicles Manufacturers." In 30th AMCIS, American Conference on Information Systems, August 15–17, Salt Lake City, USA. https://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2024/adoptdiff/adoptdiff/20.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mohammad, A., and S. Vargas. 2022. " Challenges of Using Blockchain in the Education Sector: A Literature Review." Applied Sciences 12, no. 13 : 6380.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mohan, V. 2019. " On the Use of Blockchain‐Based Mechanisms to Tackle Academic Misconduct." Research Policy 48, no. 9 : 103805.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mzoughi, H., A. B. Amar, K. Guesmi, and R. Benkraiem. 2024. " Blockchain Markets, Green Finance Investments, and Environmental Impacts." Research in International Business and Finance 69 : 102249.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Oliveira, T., and M. F. Martins. 2011. " Literature Review of Information Technology Adoption Models at Firm Level." Electronic Journal of Information Systems Evaluation 14, no. 1 : 110 – 121.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Onjewu, A. K. E., N. Walton, and I. Koliousis. 2023. " Blockchain Agency Theory." Technological Forecasting and Social Change 191 : 122482.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pathak, B., M. Ashok, and Y. L. Tan. 2022. " Value Co‐Creation in the B2B Context: A Conceptual Framework and Its Implications." Service Industries Journal 42, no. 3–4 : 178 – 205.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pathak, B., M. D. Dzandu, and F. Barbic. 2025. "The Use of ChatGPT in Essay Writing: A Literature Review on the Role of Instructors and Institutions in Preventing Academic Misconduct." In 15th FEBST International Conference, May, Croatia.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Patton, M. Q. 2000. Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. 2nd ed. Sage Publications.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> QAA. 2022. Contracting to Cheat in Higher Education. How to Address Essay Mills and Contract Cheating. 3rd ed. Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA). Accessed December 22, 2023. https://<ulink href="http://www.qaa.ac.uk/docs/qaa/guidance/contracting‐to‐cheat‐in‐higher‐education‐third‐edition.pdf?sfvrsn=2fbfa581%5f14">www.qaa.ac.uk/docs/qaa/guidance/contracting‐to‐cheat‐in‐higher‐education‐third‐edition.pdf?sfvrsn=2fbfa581%5f14</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Raimundo, R., and A. Rosário. 2021. " Blockchain System in the Higher Education." European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education 11, no. 1 : 276 – 293.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ramdhony, D., O. Mooneeapen, M. Dooshila, and K. Kokil. 2021. " A Study of University Students' Attitude Towards Integration of Information Technology in Higher Education in Mauritius." Higher Education Quarterly 75, no. 2 : 348 – 363.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reis‐Marques, C., R. Figueiredo, and M. d. C. Neto. 2021. " Applications of Blockchain Technology to Higher Education Arena: A Bibliometric Analysis." European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education 11, no. 4 : 1406 – 1421.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Santos, L. F. 2024. " Internationalisation in the Digital Transformation: A Scoping Review." Higher Education Quarterly 78, no. 3 : 807 – 824.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Savelyeva, T., and J. Park. 2022. " Blockchain Technology for Sustainable Education." British Journal of Educational Technology 53 : 1591 – 1604.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sedlmeir, J., J. Lautenschlager, G. Fridgen, and N. Urbach. 2022. " The Transparency Challenge of Blockchain in Organizations." Electronic Markets 32 : 1779 – 1794.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Singh, A. K., V. P. Kumar, M. Shoaib, T. S. Adebayo, and M. Irfan. 2023. " A Strategic Roadmap to Overcome Blockchain Technology Barriers for Sustainable Construction: A Deep Learning‐Based Dual‐Stage SEM‐ANN Approach." Technological Forecasting and Social Change 194 : 122716.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stefan‐Robert, C., and C. N. Butincu. 2024. "Decentralized Blockchain‐Based Platform for Managing and Issuing Academic Certificates." In 28th International Conference on System Theory, Control and Computing (ICSTCC), pp. 570–575, IEEE.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Steiu, M. F. 2020. " Blockchain in Education: Opportunities, Applications, and Challenges." First Monday 25, no. 9.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Taha, A., and A. Zakaria. 2020. "Truver: A Blockchain for Verifying Credentials." In Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, pp. 346–348.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Teo, H. H., K. K. Wei, and I. Benbasat. 2003. " Predicting Intention to Adopt Interorganizational Linkages: An Institutional Perspective." MIS Quarterly 27, no. 1 : 19 – 49.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tornatzky, L. G., and M. Fleischer. 1990. The Process of Technology Innovation. Lexington Books.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tsai, C. T., J. L. Wu, Y. T. Lin, and M. K. C. Yeh. 2022. " Design and Development of a Blockchain‐Based Secure Scoring Mechanism for Online Learning." Educational Technology & Society 25, no. 3 : 105 – 121.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Turkanović, M., M. Hölbl, K. Košič, M. Heričko, and A. Kamišalić. 2018. " EduCTX: A Blockchain‐Based Higher Education Credit Platform." IEEE Access 6 : 5112 – 5127.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Turnip, K., A. H. Lubis, S. Sutrisno, and M. S. Lubis. 2018. " A Review of ICT in Government Bureaucracy: Psychological and Technology Skill Perspectives." International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology 9, no. 9 : 1309 – 1319.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> UNCTAD. 2021. "Technology and Innovation Report 2021: Catching Technological Waves – Innovation With Equity." United Nations. Accessed April 15, 2025. https://unctad.org/system/files/official‐document/tir2020_en.pdf.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wu, J., and N. K. Tran. 2018. " Application of Blockchain Technology in Sustainable Energy Systems: An Overview." Sustainability 10, no. 9 : 1 – 22.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yeung, S. 2018. " Corporate Social Responsibility and Quality Management System in the Context of Blockchain Technology." Corporate Ownership and Control 15, no. 4–1 : 231 – 242.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Buddhi Pathak; Mhd Fadi Alakkad and Vikas Kumar</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib79" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib76" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib74" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib75" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib78" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib80" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref82"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref87"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref90"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref91"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref92"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref93"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref95"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref97"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref98"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref99"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref101"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref102"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref103"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref104"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref120"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref130"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib77" firstref="ref134"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl65" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref135"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl66" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref145"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl67" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref146"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl68" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref150"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl69" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref151"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl70" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref159"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1478695
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Institutional Environment and the Use of Blockchain Technology: Exploring the Context and Conditions of Using Blockchain in the Higher Education Institutions
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Buddhi+Pathak%22">Buddhi Pathak</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9801-642X">0000-0001-9801-642X</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Mhd+Fadi+Alakkad%22">Mhd Fadi Alakkad</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Vikas+Kumar%22">Vikas Kumar</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Higher+Education+Quarterly%22"><i>Higher Education Quarterly</i></searchLink>. 2025 79(3).
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 18
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Environment%22">Educational Environment</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Technology+Uses+in+Education%22">Technology Uses in Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Information+Technology%22">Information Technology</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Technology%22">Educational Technology</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Technology+Integration%22">Technology Integration</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Adoption+%28Ideas%29%22">Adoption (Ideas)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Usability%22">Usability</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Barriers%22">Barriers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Privacy%22">Privacy</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1111/hequ.70034
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0951-5224<br />1468-2273
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Blockchain (BC) technology is widely believed to be the next disruptive technology that can address challenges in higher education institutions (HEIs) and support resilient strategies. This study aims to contribute to the literature and inform policymakers about BC's capability and potential in HE by examining enablers, barriers and contextual factors influencing BC adoption in HEIs. Through qualitative research, including interviews with 20 BC experts, we identified 12 factors affecting BC adoption. Key enablers include immutability, scalability, usability, management commitment, collaboration and standardisation, while barriers encompass government regulations, bureaucracy, governance and language. Additionally, privacy and cost emerged as factors that could act as both enablers and barriers. Our findings highlight the critical role of the institutional environment, revealing five new enablers and barriers to BC adoption in HE. We offer several strategies for facilitating BC technology adoption, taking into account the environmental, institutional and technological in-depth insights gained from this research.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1478695
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1478695
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1111/hequ.70034
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 18
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Educational Environment
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Technology Uses in Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Information Technology
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Technology
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Higher Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Technology Integration
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Adoption (Ideas)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Usability
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Barriers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Privacy
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Institutional Environment and the Use of Blockchain Technology: Exploring the Context and Conditions of Using Blockchain in the Higher Education Institutions
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Buddhi Pathak
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Mhd Fadi Alakkad
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Vikas Kumar
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 07
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0951-5224
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1468-2273
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 79
            – Type: issue
              Value: 3
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Higher Education Quarterly
              Type: main
ResultId 1