Diffusion of Blockchain

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1741-0398.htm
Diffusion of
Diffusion of blockchain blockchain
technology technology
Insights from academic literature and

social media analytics 735
Purva Grover and Arpan Kumar Kar Received 26 June 2018
Department of Management Studies, Revised 13 February 2019
Accepted 15 March 2019
Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, Delhi, India, and
Marijn Janssen
Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management,
Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands
Abstract
Purpose – Although blockchain is often discussed, its actual diffusion seems to be varying for different
industries. The purpose of this paper is to explore the blockchain technology diffusion in different industries
through a combination of academic literature and social media (Twitter).
Design/methodology/approach – The insights derived from the academic literature and social media have
been used to classify industries into five stages of the innovation-decision process, namely, knowledge,
persuasion, decision, implementation and confirmation (Rogers, 1995).
Findings – Blockchain is found to be diffused in almost all industries, but the level of diffusion varies. The
analysis highlights that manufacturing industry is at the knowledge stage. Further public administration is at
persuasion stage. Subsequently, transportation, communications, electric, gas and sanitary services and
trading industry had reached to the decision stage. Then, services industries have reached to implementation
stage while finance, insurance and real estate industries are the innovators of blockchain technologies and
have reached the confirmation stage of innovation-decision process.
Practical implications – Actual implementations of blockchain technology are still in its infancy stage for
most of the industries. The findings suggest that specific industries are developing specific blockchain
applications.
Originality/value – To the best of the authors’ knowledge this is the first study which is using social media
data for investigating the diffusion of blockchain in industries. The results show that the combination of
Twitter and academic literature analysis gives better insights into diffusion than a single data source.
Keywords Technology adoption, Systematic literature review, Blockchain, Diffusion of innovation,
Social media analytics
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
A blockchain is an open, distributed, peer-validated, transparent, write-only and
time-stamped ledger (Aste et al., 2017; Di Pierro, 2017). Blockchain does not provide
administrator rights for editing or deleting of data, instead the change of transactions is
based on a consensus making protocol (Nakamoto, 2008). Blockchain supports public,
private, permissioned and permisionless models of blockchains (Dai and Vasarhelyi, 2017;
Huckle and White, 2016). Permission blockchain are the best way to protect client privacy
(Nordrum, 2017) and for satisfying regulation standards (Yeoh, 2017). The technical
structure of blockchain has been highlighted in the literature (Aste et al., 2017; Ying et al.,
2018), where every new entry gets appended to the end of the ledger, by linking to the
Journal of Enterprise Information
previous block through a hash value. If something is changed in the block, the hash Management
value of the block changes resulting in breakage of the chain (Aste et al., 2017; Magazzeni Vol. 32 No. 5, 2019
pp. 735-757
et al., 2017). Also, every node has a copy of the ledger which prevents the tampering © Emerald Publishing Limited
1741-0398
of a single node (Nakamoto, 2008). The transaction can be a trade or a legal contract. DOI 10.1108/JEIM-06-2018-0132
JEIM The latter are created by using smart contracts (Buterin, 2014). Blockchain has the
32,5 potential of bringing a major transformation in economic (Kshetri, 2017a; Manski, 2017;
Seidel, 2018; Umarovich et al., 2017), political (Kshetri, 2017a) and social context (Kshetri,
2017a; Scott et al., 2017).
Blockchain was first introduced by Satoshi Nakamoto in October 2008, for Bitcoin, a
peer-to-peer software for transfer of digital cash without any financial intermediaries. It is
736 surprising to note that first software based on the blockchain, Bitcoin came out in 2009 and
first journal research paper based on blockchain came out in 2015 ( for the search of the
article refer to Section 3.1). Blockchain has gained a lot of attention, but its main application
field and largest diffusion seem to be limited to the finance industry (Cuccuru, 2017;
Yli-Huumo et al., 2016), although there is much discussion about the potential of blockchain
in other industries, its benefits and disruptive effects (Cognizant, 2017; Sharma, Moon and
Park, 2017; Shermin, 2017; White, 2017; Ølnes et al., 2017).
Diffusion is a process of an innovation adoption by individuals, society or organizations
over the span of time (Rogers, 1995). In this study, the diffusion of blockchain technology in
various industries will be determined. To address blockchain diffusion in different
industries we attempt to explore the following four research questions (RQs):
RQ1. Which industries are exploring blockchain technology applications?
RQ2. How has blockchain been adopted in different industries?
RQ3. How can blockchain contribute to different industries in the future?
RQ4. Have people posting about blockchain on social media, also have blockchain expertise?
Typical methods which can be used for determining the diffusion of technology in different
industry are: empirical research like surveys, focus groups interviews and qualitative case
studies; academic literature review; and social media analytics (Fan and Gordon, 2014;
Grover and Kar, 2018; Joseph et al., 2017). Rogers (1995) highlighted interpersonal channels
are more important at persuasion stage. Surveys, focus groups interviews and qualitative
case studies are interpersonal channels in which respondents have to be identified.
Therefore, among these methods, academic literature review and social media analytics
methods had been used in this study for determining the diffusion stage of blockchain
across various industries. The systematic literature review (Hart, 1998) help us in: tracing
technology progress from its birth; identifying the main subjects and themes; presents the
big picture of the technology in terms of benefits, challenges and characteristics; derives
useful information from already available resources; and identifies practical implementation
and conceptual frameworks from the literature.
Social media (Twitter) was considered as a second source for the study because:
Twitter is a valuable source of voluntary information disclosure (Lischke and Fabian,
2016); online conversations are easy and cost effective way for measuring word of mouth
(Godes and Mayzlin, 2004); previous studies shows that Twitter data can be used for
predicting value in all phases of a technology lifecycle (Fan and Gordon, 2014; Tempini,
2017); and Rogers (1995) highlighted that mass media channels are more important at the
knowledge stage. In today’s internet age, social media platforms are considered as mass
media channels. Therefore, Twitter analytics were used for determining the blockchain
diffusion in industries. In this study systematic literature review depicts the evolution
trajectory of the technology whereas social media help us in showing and presenting
technological frame of the users.
The remaining sections are organized as follows. Section 2 is dedicated to theoretical
basis of each of the RQs. Section 3 explains the research methodology adopted for the study.
Section 4 presents the insights from the literature review and social media analytics.
Section 5 explains and illustrates discussions of blockchain diffusion in different industries
on the basis of academic literature and social media analysis along with discussion on Diffusion of
method followed and theoretical contributions of the study. Subsequently, this is followed blockchain
by a conclusion section which discusses the limitations of the study along with future technology
research directions.
2. Theoretical basis and research questions (RQ)

Diffusion is a process which alters the structure and functioning of social systems by 737
introducing an innovation within a system (Rogers, 1995). An innovation can be an idea,
object or practice which is new to the members of the society. According to Rogers (1995),
adoption of innovation is determined by five attributes: relative advantage; compatibility;
complexity; trialability; and observability. Relative advantage refers to the perceived degree
of the betterment of an innovation to the idea replaced by it. Relative advantage can be
measured in economic terms, social prestige, convenience and satisfaction. Compatibility is
a significant predictor of using a service (Carter and Bélanger, 2005) whereas complexity
had been negatively related to using a service (Lean et al., 2009). Trialability refers to a
degree of an innovation experimentation on a limited basis. Observability is related to
outcome visibility of an innovation implementation. Trialability and observability are
positively related to the rate of adoption. This study tries to map diffusion of blockchain
among different industries. In short, RQ1 investigates the industries which are considering
blockchain at present in their ecosystem:
Diffusion of innovation theory had been used in the literature for determining diffusion
and adoption of information technology such as cloud computing (Oliveira et al., 2014),
green IT (Bose and Luo, 2011), virtual technology (Fuller et al., 2007) and Web 2.0 services
(Corrocher, 2011). Diffusion theory suggests that technology can have different levels of
diffusion in a different industry (Zhu et al., 2012). Furthermore, industries can cross-fertilize
each other.
The innovation-decision process is the process through which an individual acquires the
knowledge about the innovation leading to forming of an attitude toward the innovation
(persuasion), followed by a decision whether to accept or reject the innovation, followed by
implementing the innovation and whether to continue using innovation or not (confirmation)
(Rogers, 1995). The literature suggests that during the knowledge phase people build their
technological frame about the new technology and that social context plays a significant role
in influencing the people throughout the process (Karsten and Laine, 2007). Therefore, RQ2
tries to investigate the depth of blockchain diffusion across industries:
Innovativeness refers to the degree to which an individual, group or organization is
relatively quick in adopting new innovation as compared to others in the society. On the
basis of the innovativeness, adopters can be classified into five categories such as
innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority and laggards (Rogers, 1995). People
had used a particular system more when other in the neighborhood had used it (Kraut et al.,
1998). Diffusion process can be accelerated or decelerated in early and later parts of the
diffusion curve by the influential and imitators (Van den Bulte and Joshi, 2007). Therefore,
RQ3 tries to investigate which industries might adopt blockchain in future:
Using this study we want to showcase the diffusion of blockchain technology among
different industries through academic literature and social media analytics by exploring the
answers to RQ1–RQ3. The study assumes that the authors writing research papers are
JEIM experts in blockchain area, but this assumption does not hold for social media users, who
32,5 are tweeting about blockchain. The literature suggests information on Twitter is of low
quality (Lee et al., 2016; Wang et al., 2013). Therefore, there is a need to check the quality of
tweets posted on Twitter regarding blockchain. RQ4 investigates the expertise of the users
tweeting on Twitter related to the blockchain. RQ4 was only applicable to social media data:
738 Users’ expertise in blockchain network on social media cannot be validated. In our approach
we will assume that if users are posting about blockchain extensively than if his/her post are
valid when other users will follow up posts by having further queries. Therefore to test this,
H1 states that users posting on blockchain (activity) have got visibility on the blockchain
topic leading to queries of other users. So, if the users which are tweeting about blockchain
are experts than there will be strong association between their activity and visibility.
Expertise of users on social media is directly proportional to association between activity
and visibility on the “#blockchain”:
H1. There is (monotonic) association between activity and visibility on “#blockchain.”
3. Research methodology
The study tries to give an overview of diffusion of blockchain in different industries by
investigating academic literature and content on Twitter. Both systematic literature review
and social media analytics are complementary approaches. Figure 1 briefly outlines the
research methodology. The systematic literature review will explain the need for the
technology, features, challenges, conceptual frameworks and practical implementation
whereas social media analytics tries to showcase the technological frame of the users
regarding innovation along with popular players in the field and conceptual concepts which
can be taken forward in future. Scopus was used to study the diffusion of blockchain from
the academic literature.
Scopus is the most extensive database for engineering and management focused literature.
The relevant research studies were searched on January 8, 2018. For searching the articles, the
search term “blockchain” had been searched for in “Article Title,” “Keywords” and “Abstract.”
Diffusion of Blockchain across various industries
Academic Literature Review (Scopus database: Figure 3) Social Media Analytics (Twitter data: Figure 4)
(a) Tracing technology progress from birth; (b) identifying the main subject and themes; (a) Valuable source of voluntary information disclosure; (b) online conversations are
(c) presents big picture in terms of benefits, challenges and characteristics; (d) derives easy and cost effective way for measuring word of mouth; (c) mass media channels are
useful information from already available resources; and (e) presents real and conceptual more important at the knowledge stage (d) diffusion of blockchain in a society can be
frameworks suggested in literature predicted
Variable Mapping and Analysis Variable Mapping and Analysis

If anyone hashtag related to industry in a sample than it signifies industry is
If anyone one research article is related to a particular industry, than it signifies considering blockchain for their applications and also discussing about it on social
industry is considering blockchain media platform
The number of the research articles and practical implementations in each industry The number of the tweets containing industry hashtag and number of the practical
indicates the extent of blockchain diffusion within an industry implementations in an industry indicates the extent of blockchain diffusion
The number of the conceptual frameworks in a industry help us in predicting The number of the conceptual concepts tag with industry hashtag help us in
blockchain diffusion in an industry predicting blockchain diffusion in an industry
Users Expertise Overview

Insights and Results Capture, Understand and Present
Figure 1. Finding presented using Diffusion of Innovation Theory (Rogers, 1995)

Research approach Innovation Attributes – Relative advantage, Observability, Compatibility, Complexity and Trialability
Innovation – diffusion process
followed for Industry wise innovation – diffusion stages
blockchain diffusion
in different industries Theoretical Contributions Limitations and Future Research Directions
The query resulted in 770 articles. Given the volume of publications we decided to investigate Diffusion of
journal publications only. The second round had fetched around 193 studies. The distribution blockchain
of research articles across different subject area is shown in Figure 2. Among all subject areas technology
business, management and accounting had occupied the third position with 42 articles. Out of
193 research studies, 116 research studies were selected on the basis of the abstract. Among
116 studies, 54 studies included the industry applications. The “Strategic Change” journal
published the most research articles, 10 in total from 54 research articles. Among authors 739
Kshetri, N. had published four articles (highest in number) followed by Nordrum, A., Wang, F.
Y. and Yuan, Y. from which each had published three articles. Figure 3 explains the selection
process followed for selecting research articles for the systematic literature review. These 54
research articles had been divided into the various industries. Industries include consumer
discretionary, financials, healthcare, industrials, information technology, management of
companies and enterprises, transportation, supply chain, energy sector and public
administration. These industries had been defined in various industry classification reports
such as Global Industry Classification Standard (MSCI, Inc., Standard & Poor’s Financial
89
57
42
33 31
12 10 10
8 7 6 5 5 4 4 3 2 2 2 1 1
Engineering
Economics, Econometrics and Finance
Decision Sciences
Mathematics
Environmental Science
Health Professions
Earth and Planetary Sciences
Computer Science
Business, Management and Accounting
Arts and Humanities

Energy
Medicine
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
Materials Science
Psychology
Agricultural and Biological Sciences

Physics and Astronomy
Immunology and Microbiology
Social Sciences
Chemistry
Figure 2.
Distribution of
blockchain articles per
subject area
Search term
“blockchain” Limited to After Limited to
Database 54 articles for
in Title, Journal Abstract Domain
“Scopus” Final review
Keyword Articles Screening Application
and Abstract Figure 3.
Stages for selection of
the articles for a
770 193 116 54 literature review
articles articles articles articles
JEIM Services LLC (S&P), 2016) and North American Industry Classification System. For this study,
32,5 North American Industry Classification System had been used. For this study the assumption
was made that if an academic article mentions an industry then it signifies particular industry
is considering blockchain at present. The number of the studies and practical implementations
in each industry was used as an indicator for determining the extent of blockchain adoption
within an industry. The number of conceptual frameworks with respect to various industries
740 helps us in predicting blockchain adoption in an industry in near future.
Social media analytics is an interdisciplinary research field which can help in decision
making by reviewing computer-mediated communication on social media platforms (Al-Yafi
et al., 2018; Hamouda, 2018; Odoom et al., 2017; Rathore et al., 2016; Sunday, 2018). Social
media had been used for various purposes such as: for identifying the reasons for the
customer dissatisfaction (Fan and Gordon, 2014; He et al., 2015); for capturing spatial
patterns across the city (Brandt et al., 2017); for modeling and predicting dynamic user
interests (Feng et al., 2015); and learning and knowledge sharing (Leonardi, 2017).
To the best of our knowledge this is the first study which is using social media data for
investigating the diffusion of blockchain in different industries. Social media analytics is a
three-stage process of capturing social media data, understanding the extracted data and
presenting the insights using the CUP framework (Fan and Gordon, 2014). For deriving the
insights from Twitter data for blockchain diffusion within industries CUP framework had
been adopted, elaborated in Figure 4. Step 1 extracts the data from Twitter using search
API, by searching the term “#blockchain.” The data had been extracted on daily basis for
two months starting from January 1 2018 to February 28, 2018. After extraction is over,
extracted data had been prepared for further analysis by performing data cleaning,
stemming, tagging and classifying. Step 2 tries to examine the data through descriptive
analysis (Chae, 2015), where ever found necessary the descriptive statistics had been noted.
For finding the top 100 dominant hashtags descriptive analysis was used. The activity and
visibility of each user in a sample were computed using descriptive analysis.
The information flow within the network had been mapped for network analysis ( for
RQ4). The content of the tweets had been analyzed through content analysis (Kassarjian,
1977) using word clouds and hashtag analysis (Chae, 2015). Word clouds help in visualizing
the popular words within the tweets. For mapping, the hashtags to industries lexicon based
analysis were used. Content analysis was used for identifying the practical implementations
and conceptual concepts related to industries. The statistical test Spearman’s rank-order
correlation was applied to the activity and visibility of the user for testing the authenticity
and credibility of the information tweeted on social media platform. Step 3 presents the
results. In the study results had been presented using dominant hashtags, practical
implementation, conceptual concepts, activity, visibility and information flow diagram.
4. Results and analysis

This section is divided into the three subsections. The first subsection presents the
insights from the literature review. The second subsection presents insights from social
Capture Understand Present

Data was extracted for two months Descriptive analytics Results
Figure 4. from January 1 to February 28, Network analysis ○ Dominant hashtags
CUP framework 2018 Content analysis ○ Real time implementation
(Fan and Gordon, Followed by: ○ Word cloud ○ Conceptual concepts
2014) for deriving ○ Data cleaning and Stemming ○ Hash tag analysis ○ Activity
○ Tagging Statistical testing ○ Visibility
insights from Twitter
○ Classifying ○ Rank-order correlation ○ Information flow diagram
media analytics, whereas the third section presents an overview of Twitter users. For this Diffusion of
study, North American Industry Classification System had been used for classifying blockchain
the industries. technology
4.1 Insights from the literature review
The brief overview of blockchain industry applications had been presented in academic
literature in Table I. Each is represented using first four letters, manufacturing (MANU); 741
transportation, communications, electric, gas and sanitary service (TRAN); finance,
insurance and real estate (FINA); services (SERV ); public administration (PUBL); trading
(TRAD); the first column of table contains the industry name followed by the practical
implementation and conceptual evidence from the literature. In the industry classification,
wholesale and retail had been considered under one industry, trading:
Table I depicts industries like MANU, TRAN, FINA, SERV and PUBL is considering
blockchain for various applications. Among 54 studies only one study had talked about
retail trade. The industries like agriculture, forestry, fishing, mining and construction do not
Industry (research Practical

articles in number) implementation Conceptual framework
MANU (1) Machine-to- An application of cotton spinning production process was

machine highlighted touching utilization, information security, network
communications design and solution architecture
(Yin et al., 2017)
TRAN (13) Smart meter – for Emission Trading Scheme model for Industry 4.0 integration
tracking electricity
(Khaqqi et al., 2018)
production Online shipment tracking framework (Wu et al., 2017)
(Kshetri, 2017b; Intelligent distributed electrical energy systems (Zhang et al., 2017)
Peck and OriginChain (Lu and Xu, 2017)
Wagman, 2017) Energy trading (Cai et al., 2017; Shi et al., 2017)
Firmware update for embedded devices (Lee and Lee, 2017)
Blockchain-enabled M2M electricity market (Sikorski et al., 2017)
Vehicle network architecture for transport management system
within the smart city (Sharma, Moon and Park, 2017)
FINA (12) None presented Automatic assurance system (Dai and Vasarhelyi, 2017)
Transparent accounting ecosystem (Dai and Vasarhelyi, 2017)
CoinParty (Ziegeldorf et al., 2018)
SERV (17) Digital Art Advert reporting system – for determining the authenticity of
Identification, ad-reports (Mamais and Theodorakopoulos, 2017)
Authentication Medical data sharing model (Roehrs et al., 2017; Xia et al., 2017;
and Usage rights Xue et al., 2017)
(McConaghy et al., Online taxi-hailing – with personal privacy protection (Zhang
2017) et al., 2017)
HNA E-Commerce Patient consent workflow (Benchoufi et al., 2017)
platform (Ying DistBlockNet model – for detecting attacks in IoT network
et al., 2018) (Sharma, Singh, Jeong and Park, 2017)
Table I.
FairAccess – authorization management framework (Ouaddah Industry-specific
et al., 2016) practical
Pervasive social network-based healthcare (Zhang et al., 2016) implementation and
Healthcare Data Gateway App (Yue et al., 2016) conceptual framework
PUBL (10) E-residency Backfeed (Pazaitis et al., 2017) on blockchain
(Sullivan and OfferCoin (Goertzel et al., 2017) technology insights
Burger, 2017) Property rights (Ishmaev, 2017) from literature review
JEIM contain any pieces of literature evidences of conceptual and practical implementation of
32,5 blockchain technology, therefore these industries not included in Table I. However, there are
studies in the literature which signals blockchain can create disruptive innovation in the
agriculture field (Manski, 2017):
742 The extent of the blockchain adoption in industries had been estimated using the practical
implementation in an industry. One by one we will elaborate the practical implementation
existing within industries. Let us first summarize for MANU, using blockchain expansion of
machines is possible through secure inter-communication among machines (Yin et al., 2017).
Machine-to-machine communication had been used for: for checking and validating
firmware updates (Lee and Lee, 2017); for establishing electricity markets for trading
(Sikorski et al., 2017). Popular characteristics of blockchain in TRAN pointed out in the
literature: data transparency (Cai et al., 2017; Lu and Xu, 2017); data sharing (Lu and Xu,
2017); distributed or decentralization (Cai et al., 2017); user-centricity (Cai et al., 2017); and
trustworthy and secure (Shi et al., 2017). Blockchain is suitable for smart meters (Tai et al.,
2016) and energy internet trading (Cai et al., 2017; Mengelkamp et al., 2018; Shi et al., 2017);
product traceability (Lu and Xu, 2017; Wu et al., 2017); managing public transport system
(Sharma, Moon and Park, 2017). OriginChain (Lu and Xu, 2017) software had been
suggested in the literature which improves product traceability.
Blockchain features making it popular in SERV industry: elimination of intermediaries
(Seidel, 2018; Ying et al., 2018); distributed trust (Seidel, 2018); user anonymity (Mamais and
Theodorakopoulos, 2017); user privacy (Mamais and Theodorakopoulos, 2017; Ouaddah
et al., 2016; Xia et al., 2017; Zhang et al., 2017); user mobility (Hong et al., 2017; Yue et al.,
2016; Zhang et al., 2016); time-stamped record creation and ownership (Hoy, 2017; O’Dair
and Beaven, 2017); reproducibility (Benchoufi et al., 2017; McConaghy et al., 2017; O’Dair and
Beaven, 2017); security (Benchoufi et al., 2017; Sharma, Singh, Jeong and Park, 2017;
Ouaddah et al., 2016). Hainan Airlines (HNA) group had implemented a blockchain-enabled
E-commerce platform for offering flexible benefit plans to their employees through digital
coins (Ying et al., 2018). Blockchain can provide an asset ownership layer over the internet
for digital properties (McConaghy et al., 2017).
Blockchain features making it popular in PUBL industry are: immutability (Kewell et al.,
2017; Nordrum, 2017); transparency (Nordrum, 2017) and decentralization (Pazaitis et al.,
2017). E-residency (Sullivan and Burger, 2017) is the first application of the blockchain in
PUBL by Estonia Government. The application provides a human being, living anywhere in
the world with e-residency using which a human can run businesses in Estonia. E-residency
is basically a commercial initiative of Estonia Government:
The prediction whether blockchain will be used in the future by the particular industry or
not had done on the basis of the conceptual framework that had been suggested in
academic literature. Table I depicts for MANU industry none had been presented
in academic literature related to conceptual framework. Therefore, lets us consider the
conceptual framework that has been presented in academic literature related to TRAN.
Intelligent, large-scale, distributed electrical energy systems (Zhang et al., 2017) and
transportation systems are feasible to build using blockchain technology (Sharma,
Moon and Park, 2017). Blockchain features such as transparency and immutability
had been used in emission trading scheme for improving efficiency and management
(Khaqqi et al., 2018). The industry is facing problems in integrating blockchain technology
due to the learning curve of the workers and cost of integration in present systems
(Lu and Xu, 2017).
Blockchain features making it popular in FINA: tamper resistance (Dai and Vasarhelyi, Diffusion of
2017; Püttgen and Kaulartz, 2017); strong authentication (Dai and Vasarhelyi, 2017); blockchain
disintermediation (Cohen et al., 2017; Larios-Hernández, 2017; Nordrum, 2017); reliability technology
(Khan et al., 2017; Püttgen and Kaulartz, 2017); reduction in risk (Eyal, 2017; Khan et al.,
2017; Umarovich et al., 2017). The literature suggests methodologies and products for FINA
industry based on blockchain technology for achieving: financial privacy and user
anonymity (Ziegeldorf et al., 2018); accounting information disclosure and automated 743
assurance (Dai and Vasarhelyi, 2017); financial inclusion (Larios-Hernández, 2017). There
are around 2bn citizens in developing economies that have limited or no access to formal
financial services. These citizens can find new opportunities in financial services building on
blockchain which supports disintermediation (Larios-Hernández, 2017). Investors can track
their financial assets performance on the blockchain, which can later result in
disintermediation of credit rating agencies (Cohen et al., 2017). FinTech industries can use
blockchain technology for capital markets and corporate banks which will facilitate in
reducing transaction latency and operational risk (Eyal, 2017).
The literature predicts that in near future blockchain technology will be used for
everything from medical records to library checkouts (Hoy, 2017) within SERV industry.
Medical data sharing model based on blockchain guarantees high security, tamper
resistance and collective maintenance (Roehrs et al., 2017; Xia et al., 2017; Xue et al., 2017).
Blockchain technology in the recorded music industry can provide various benefits
(O’Dair and Beaven, 2017) such as accuracy and availability of copyright data;
near-instant micropayments for royalties; and high transparency. Platforms such as Uber,
Airbnb, Google, Facebook, Kickstarter and Indiegogo had been between two parties for
building trust, as the blockchain evolves it will establish distributed trust (Seidel, 2018)
among users.
Literature indicates that blockchain can be used in public administration for the
following purposes: tackling corruption (Nicholson, 2017; Nordrum, 2017); security
(Kshetri, 2017c); empowering women (Nicholson, 2017); property rights (Ishmaev, 2017;
Herian, 2017); e-residency (Sullivan and Burger, 2017); and open and sharing economy
(Goertzel et al., 2017; Pazaitis et al., 2017). Literature indicates using blockchain technology
United Nation’s 2030 sustainable development goals can be transformed into reality
(Kewell et al., 2017). Backfeed presents a conceptual model for governance for
decentralized value creation (Pazaitis et al., 2017). Blockchain technology can empower
individuals for entrepreneurship having limited or no access to financial services
(Larios-Hernández, 2017). Relationship between the law and technology can be
represented through the four distinct phases (De Filippi and Hassan, 2016) such as
digitizing of information; bringing automation to decision-making processes;
incorporation of legal rules into code and emergence of regulation by code;
code-ification of law; the fourth phase code-ification of law is just beginning and smart
contract is leveraging the growth of the fourth phase (De Filippi and Hassan, 2016). Some
of the countries using or in trial phase of blockchain applications in public administration
are: USA, Illinois (Nordrum, 2017); United Arab Emirates, Dubai (Nordrum, 2017); Africa
(Kshetri, 2017a); Europe (Peck and Wagman, 2017) and Canada (Ducas and Wilner, 2017).
In Dubai, a blockchain-enabled pilot project regarding sale purchase of real estate is going
on. In Illinois, five blockchain projects are under trial for handling property, academic
transcripts, records, energy market credits and licenses to healthcare providers.
Overall among 54 articles 1.85 percent of academic articles talk about MANU industry;
24.07 percent of academic articles talk about TRAN industry; 22.22 percent of academic
articles talk about FINA industry; 31.48 percent of academic articles talk about SERV
industry; 18.52 percent of academic articles talk about PUBL industry; and 1.85 percent of
academic articles talk about TRAD industry.
JEIM 4.2 Insights from social media analytics
32,5 In total, 341,309 tweets were extracted on the search term “#blockchain” from Twitter
starting from January 1, 2018 to February 28, 2018. The information quality of blockchain
on Twitter was very low only small portion of tweets had contained useful information
regarding blockchain rest of the tweets were exacerbating the benefits related to blockchain
without giving any useful information. Only one-fifth of the sample tweets were tagged with
744 industry hashtag. The overview of Twitter users profile is presented in Section 4.3:
Within top 100 hashtags, there were no single hashtags found related to the industries like
agriculture, forestry and fishing; mining; construction; and public administration. Figure 5
presents the industry-specific word cloud of hashtags related to TRAN, TRAD, FINA and
SERV. Figure 5 depicts the following information regarding the blockchain technology:
Ripple and Neo are the organizations working in blockchain; popular digital currencies
bitcoin, xrp, altcoin, digibyte, tron, litecoin and edinarcoin; blockchain impacts on security,
privacy, decentralized, immutability and trust; and popular blockchain platforms are
Ethereum, Aelf, IZX, Vestarin and Experty on Twitter:
The tweets were screened according to the industries. The application which had been used
by the user, and the users are sharing their experience on Twitter, such an application had
been considered as practical implementation. The dominant hashtags for each industry are
listed in column 2 of Table II. The practical implementation based on blockchain that had
been discussed on Twitter and listed in Table II.
Table II depicts Twitter users had experienced decentralized logistics platform;
decentralized education marketplace; trading of soybeans, diamonds and natural assets;
authentic access to digital and musical contents; self-flying drone; and multilingual
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
Figure 5.
Industry-specific word
cloud of hashtags
Notes: (a) TRAN; (b) TRAD; (c) FINA; and (d) SERV
Industry
Diffusion of
(number of Top 100 hashtags with blockchain
tweets captured) “#blockchain” Practical implementation Conceptual concepts technology
TRAN (1,421) #supplychain (1,421) Self-flying drone enabled Green energy production
by blockchain Autonomous
Decentralized logistics transportation
platform Minerals traceability 745
FINA (37,246) #fintech(21,973) Bill payments Financial inclusion
#invest (6,210) Initial coin offering Instant international
#crowdfunding (2,917) Securities payments
#insurtech (2,396) National cryptocurrency
#finance (1,366) Better home-sharing
#banking (2,384) economy
Smart financial bonds
SERV (24,978) #iot (13,660) Multilingual crypto Digital signatures
#digital (5,453) networking Answering medical
#gaming (2,520) Authenticated access to dilemmas
#cloud (1,744) digital and musical Social network
#healthcare (1,601) contents Net neutrality
Enhancing patient care Improve health data
Medical training benefits
Decentralized education
marketplace
TRAD (8,610) #crowdsale (3,562) Trading soybeans to Global trading
#trading (2,672) China Digitization of trading
#diamond (1,202) Jewelry business network Paperless trading Table II.
#cedex (1,174) Natural asset exchange Industry-specific
Crowd sale practical
PUBL Not a single hashtag in top 100 Blockchain-enabled Digital identity implementation and
dominant hashtags of a sample passports Crypto tax conceptual concepts of
Blockchain Id for travelers Voting platform blockchain technology
Blockchain task force Fraud-free #elections – insights from social
Data sharing Land records media analytics
crypto networking. There is no mechanism to validate these evidence but these had been
stated by users on Twitter.
Self-flying drone had been tagged with #supplychain in the tweets. The FINA industry
hashtags #fintech, #invest, #crowdfunding, #insurtech, #finance and #banking were
containing experiences and feedbacks for the applications facilitating users in bill payments
and managing securities. Applications build on blockchain, decentralized education
marketplace and authentic access to digital and music content is popular in SERV industry
on Twitter. TRAD industry is having dominant hashtags such as #crowdsale, #trading,
#diamond #cedex. The CEDEX is a certified blockchain based diamond exchange which
facilitates global exchange and focuses on bridging the gap between traditional diamond
industry and financial markets. Trading diamond through blockchain is very popular
use-case on Twitter. For PUBL industry no dominant hashtag had been captured, but users
are talking about blockchain-enabled identities and passports.
“#blockchain” had been frequently used with other hashtags focusing on impacts, use
cases, companies, platforms, computing algorithms, start-ups and innovations. A blockchain
platform, Ethereum, developed by ConsenSys, is the most discussed platform on Twitter:
Conceptual concepts (potential applications which are not yet implemented) based on
blockchain that had been discussed on Twitter are listed in Table II, column 4. A tweet is a
JEIM message limited to 140 characters only, therefore users on Twitter were only mentioning
32,5 potential application names in their tweets. The application which had been purposed within
virtual community for the betterment of society was considered under conceptual concepts.
The practical implementation of conceptual concepts was not discussed on Twitter.
Using Twitter, users had suggested some conceptual concepts based on blockchain
technology related to various industries given in Table II, such as implementing green
746 energy production, automatic transportation system and minerals traceability within TRAN
industry; implementing instant international payments and national cryptocurrency within
FINA industry; and implementing net neutrality, paperless trading, digital identity, crypto
tax and voting platforms within PUBL. Literature suggests information from a group of
users is mostly results in the better decision as compared to a single user (Guo et al., 2015)
and indicates crowd intelligence had attracted a lot of attention from industry and
researchers (Gleasure and Feller, 2016; Li et al., 2017). These conceptual concepts can be
considered as the collective intelligent efforts of Twitter users for taking blockchain
technology to next level. These conceptual concepts can be taken forward in future by
industry and researchers for further research and implementation.
TRAN had captured 1.97 percent of industry-related post on Twitter. FINA had captured
51.55 percent of industry-related post on Twitter. SERV had captured 34.57 percent of
industry-related post on Twitter. TRAD had captured 11.92 percent of industry-related post
having dominant hashtags such as #crowdsale, #trading, #diamond #cedex. No dominant
hashtag in top 100 belongs to PUBL, MANU and other industries.
4.3 Twitter users overview

There were around 96,497 unique users. The sample had accounted: 37,372 tweets from top
100 active users; 1,997 tweets from top 100 visible users; and 16,928 tweets from top 100
users which are present in the list of active users and visible users. Top 10 users having
highest activity, visibility and both highest activity and visibility are listed in Figure 6.
Twitter handles operated by bloggers (@Remi_Vladuceanu and @insidestat) are high in
their number of Tweets including blockchain. Twitter mention such as @startupcrunch and
@earnbtcwork are sharing latest opportunities related to digital currency. From the
visibility count, it is evident users on Twitter are querying organizations working on
blockchain such as @ceek, @fortknoxster, @aelfblockchain, @izx, @vestarin and
@digibytecoin. Some of Twitter handles having high activity and visibility includes news
channels focusing on cryptocurrency such as @cryptocurrent, @coinspectator,
@bitcoinagile and @dumbwire; and influencers such as @kuriharan, @evankirstel,
@bourseettrading, @sachinlulla and @mclynd:
Top users in Activity Top users in Visibility Top users in Activity and
Visibility
cryptobserver24 digibytecoin
earnbtcwork ipfconline dumbwire
mclynd
Openblockchains edinarworldwide
bitcoinagile
startupcrunch cointelegraph
eotcoin
TheBeyondersLTD vestarin
sachinlulla
coinspectator izx
coinspectator
UtarSystems fisher
bourseettrading
insidestat aelfblockchain evankirstel
Figure 6.
CryptoCurrent fortknoxster cryptocurrent
Top users in activity,
visibility and both Remi_Vladuceanu ceek kuriharan
0 500 1,000 1,500 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 0 500 1,000 1,500
To test H1, the Spearman’s rank-order correlation (Page, 1963) was applied. There were Diffusion of
around 96,497 unique users were identified in the sample. For all the 96,497 users blockchain
were rank according to activity on Twitter. There were around 32,800 users who had technology
been queried on Twitter using @mention facility on Twitter. For all 32,800 users were
ranked according to a number of the times they had been queried on Twitter. Thereafter,
the users which are present in both lists were selected. There were around 9,937 users
were present in both activity and visibility list. These users were re-ranked according to 747
their position in the combined list for applying Spearman’s rank-order correlation
n ¼ 9,937:
H1. There is (monotonic) association between activity and visibility on “#blockchain.”
di is the difference in paired ranks. In this case, d2 equals to 96,854,464,442. When all the
values applied to Spearman’s rank-order correlation, rs ¼ 0.407 was computed. The rs value
indicates there is a very weak association between activity and visibility on blockchain
discussions. Expertise of users on social media is directly proportional to association
between activity and visibility on “#blockchain.” Therefore from rs ¼ 0.407 it can be
concluded users are not posting valid tweets, if they had association between activity and
visibility on “#blockchain” had been greater. This signifies more of speculation on
blockchain rather than based on expertise which is in line with the literature that indicates
information on Twitter is of low quality (Lee et al., 2016; Wang et al., 2013).
To study the impact of high activity and visibility in a social network on blockchain
discussions, the affiliation networks among the users were drawn. The network is shown in
Figure 7. The red nodes indicate users having high activity. The yellow nodes indicate users
having high visibility. The green users indicate high activity and visibility. The size of a
node represents the frequency of user’s participation in discussion. The edge weight
indicates the frequency of interaction between the users. The color of the edge is based on
their source node color.
From the affiliation network of Figure 7, it is evident that posts posted by high active
users are impacting users more (red edges are more in terms of number and weight both)
within a virtual community. Users who are ranking high in activity and visibility (green
nodes) are potential cues for the discussion on blockchain technology but the speculation
around the blockchain is introduced in the network by high active users.
5. Discussion and implications

First, we will discuss the difference in the findings of the systematic literature review and
social media analytics, followed by a discussion of the research approach.
5.1 Comparing systematic literature review and social media analytics insights
The blockchain is a new form of technology that has the potential of transforming
commerce operations by making it more transparent, accountable, responsible and safer
(Lee and Pilkington, 2017). Diffusion is a process which alters the structure and functioning
of social system by introducing an innovation within a system (Rogers, 1995), let us examine
to what extent blockchain had altered the various industry by referring to the results
presented in Sections 4.1 and 4.2. Industry-specific insights on blockchain from academic
literature and social media had been contrasted in Table III.
Now let us examine the insights presented in Table III on the adoption of innovations
attributes: relative advantage; compatibility; complexity; trialability; and observability.
The relative advantage of blockchain depends on application laid on the technology.
Blockchain applications had been highlighted in the literature (Table I) and on Twitter
(Table II). The analysis indicates blockchain is beneficial for industries and many
industries are considering blockchain for various applications. The insights show that
JEIM
32,5
748
Figure 7.
Affiliation network
between users having
high activity (red
nodes), high visibility
(yellow nodes) and Notes: Node size indicates the occurrence of users in blockchain discussions; edge
both high activity and
visibility (green nodes) weight indicates the frequency of interaction between the users. Edge color is based
on source node color
blockchain implementation is complex because of the mining process and knowledge

scarcity among IT and general managers. Blockchain innovation had been led by start-
ups like Ripple, Neo, R3 and ConsenSys, whereas the activity of the multinational
corporations in blockchain experimentation seems to be limited. Government and
dominant software players are observing start-ups. Governments of developed countries
are collaborating with start-ups for blockchain experimentation. Now let us summarize at
which stage of innovation-decision process (Rogers, 1995) each industry had reached on
the basis of the results presented in Sections 4.1 and 4.2. The results had been mapped to
five levels of innovation-decision process: first stage is the knowledge, which indicates
whether an industry has got the initial knowledge related to blockchain. The second stage
is the persuasion which indicates whether an industry has a favorable or unfavorable
attitude toward blockchain. The third stage is the decision, it occurs when an industry
thinks about developing an application with blockchain and an industry decides whether
to adopt or reject the technology. The fourth stage is the implementation, when the
industry puts an application based on blockchain into use; and the last stage is
confirmation, which signals blockchain had replaced the system before in use and
working better than previous system. An overview of the comparative analysis of
blockchain diffusion is presented in Figure 8.
Industry Academic literature Social media analysis
Diffusion of
blockchain
TRAN 24.07% of academic articles talk about TRAN 1.97% of industry-related buzz on Twitter was technology
Popular features: Data transparency; Data about TRAN
sharing; Distributed or Decentralization; User- Dominant hashtags: #supplychain
centricity Popular features: Digital information; Security;
Challenges: Cost of integration; Learning curve Transparency
of professionals Challenges: Hardware cost; Trust 749
Popular players: Syncfab; IBM
FINA 22.22% of academic articles talk about FINA 51.55% of industry-related buzz on Twitter was
Popular features: Tamper resistance; about FINA
Authentication; Disintermediation; Reliability; Dominant hashtags: #banking; #insurtech;
Reduce risk #finance; #fintech; #invest; #crowdfunding;
Challenges: Hardware cost; Ransomware risk Popular features: Security;
(Kshetri and Voas, 2017); Energy consumption Challenges: Power consumption
Popular players: Ethereum
SERV 31.48% of academic articles talk about SERV 34.57% of industry-related buzz on Twitter was
Popular features: Disintermediation; Distributed about SERV
trust; User anonymity; User privacy; User Dominant hashtags: #gaming; #cloud; #digital;
mobility; Time-stamped record; Ownership; #iot; #healthcare
Reproducibility; Security; Popular features: Security; Efficiency; Digital
Challenges: Knowledge is lacking among information; Automation
business managers regarding blockchain Challenges: Power consumption;
technology Interoperability;
Popular players: Ethereum
PUBL 18.52% of academic articles talk about PUBL No dominant hashtag in top 100, but practical
Popular features: Immutability; Transparency; implementation and conceptual concepts
Decentralization highlighted in Table II
Challenges: Fewer experts
TRAD 1.85% of academic articles talk about TRAD 11.92% of industry-related buzz on Twitter was
Popular features: Transparent; Accountable about TRAD
Dominant hashtags: #trading; #crowdsale;
#cedex; #diamond
Popular features: Product history details;
Standardization; Transparency
Challenges: Not mentioned Table III.
Popular players: Ripple; Ethereum Industry-specific
MANU 1.85% of academic articles talk about MANU No dominant hashtag in top 100 insights on blockchain
Popular features: Sandwiched between the from systematic
public network areas and private areas for literature review and
sending and receiving query packets social media analytics
This comparative analysis provides industry-specific insights about the nature of diffusion
across these industries:
(1) 22.22 percent of academic articles talk about FINA industry and FINA had captured
51.55 percent of industry-related post on Twitter. Therefore, it seems from the
insights that FINA is at the confirmation stage of the innovation-decision process.
(2) 31.48 percent of academic articles talk about SERV industry and SERV had
captured 34.57 percent of industry-related post on Twitter. Therefore, it seems
from the insights that SERV is at the implementation stage of the innovation-
decision process.
(3) 24.07 percent of academic articles talk about TRAN industry and TRAN had
captured 1.97 percent of industry-related post on Twitter. Table I shows many
conceptual frameworks and Table II shows very less real-time framework. Therefore
JEIM Blockchain diffusion across domains
32,5
I – Knowledge MANU 0%1.85%
II – Persuasion 18.52%
PUBL 0%
TRAD 1.85%
750 III – Decision
11.92%
TRAN 24.07%
1.97%
IV – Implementation 31.48%
SERV 34.57%
Figure 8.
Comparison of IV – Confirmation 22.22%
FINA
diffusion in social 51.55%
discussions and
0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00%
academic research
Academic research Social presence
from this evidence, it can be concluded TRAN is at the decision stage of the
innovation-decision process.
(4) 1.85 percent of academic articles talk about TRAD industry and TRAD had
captured 11.92 percent of industry-related post. Therefore from this evidence, it can
be concluded TRAD is at the decision stage of the innovation-decision process.
(5) 18.52 percent of academic articles talk about PUBL industry; no dominant hashtag
in top 100 belongs to PUBL industry, but real-time implementation and conceptual
concepts highlighted in Table II. Therefore from this evidence, it can be concluded
PUBL is at the persuasion stage of the innovation-decision process.
(6) 1.85 percent of academic articles talk about MANU industry; no dominant hashtag
in top 100 belongs to MANU industry. Therefore, we conclude MANU is at the
knowledge of the innovation-decision process.
(7) For other industries there are very fewer evidence in the academic literature and
Twitter, therefore other industries may be at knowledge stage of the innovation-decision
process or maybe not considering blockchain for their industry. The diffusion in other
industry is an open question and can be undertaken in future by other researchers.
As the industries are in different diffusion stages they can learn from each other
experiences. Industries lagging behind can avoid the making of mistakes and benefit from
the learnings of the frontrunner industries. In the view of the above findings, it seems like
FINA and SERV had reached to the critical mass. According to Rogers (1995), critical mass
is the point at which enough individuals in an ecosystem have adopted an innovation and
further adoption of the innovation is self-sustaining. Therefore, by focusing on people in the
FINA and SERV can facilitate the further adoption of blockchain in the domain. Each
additional adoption within in FINA and SERV industries will increase the utility of
blockchain adoption for all the adopters. For TRAN and PUBL industries, both academic
research and social presence had shown the favorable attitudes toward blockchain use.
Therefore, academician and start-ups have the potential of becoming lead users within
TRAN and PUBL industries. Lead users are the types of users who create the innovation
prototypes subsequently convince the company to produce and sell something similar
(Rogers, 1995). TRAD is having higher social presence as compared to academic research,
therefore industry sponsored project, from organizations such as CEDEX can be beneficial
in accelerating blockchain within the domain. For MANU and other industries, there is a
need for setting the agenda, in order to find the contexts and scenarios where blockchain can Diffusion of
be beneficial in the domain. blockchain
technology
5.2 Discussion of the method and theoretical contribution
The study purposes two complementary approaches for determining diffusion of
blockchain within industries. The similar methodology can be used by future researchers
in exploring diffusion of new technologies. The study points out industry-specific features, 751
challenges and players related to blockchain through the academic literature and social
media data (Table III). The study depicts information quality is low on Twitter (Lee et al.,
2016; Wang et al., 2013). The study depicts crowd intelligence on Twitter can be used for
briefing conceptual concepts (green energy production; autonomous transportation;
minerals traceability; home-sharing economy; voting platform; and fraud-free elections)
which can be implemented on blockchain in future. This study suggests manpower is
needed in blockchain technology. To trace features and challenges industry specific, the
literature review is a better approach, whereas for tracing practical implementation social
media is a better approach.
6. Conclusion
Blockchain has been defined as an open, distributed, peer-validated, transparent, write-only
and time-stamped ledger (Aste et al., 2017; Dai and Vasarhelyi, 2017; Di Pierro, 2017; Huckle
and White, 2016; Magazzeni et al., 2017; Nakamoto, 2008; Yeoh, 2017). Blockchain has the
potential of transforming society in the economic, political and social contexts and had been
used in various applications such as cryptocurrency, smart contracts, machine-to-machine
communication, asset management, online identification, public procurement and many
more. Blockchain had been considered in various subject areas other than computer science,
engineering and business management such as social sciences, decision sciences, arts,
energy and many more.
This study had used the literature review and social media analytics complementary
methods for exploring the diffusion of blockchain across different industries. Insights
signals, finance, insurance and real estate is at confirmation stage of the innovation-decision
process; services is at implementation stage of the innovation-decision process;
transportation, communications, electric, gas, and sanitary service and trading is at
decision stage of the innovation-decision process; public administration is at persuasion
stage of the innovation-decision process; manufacturing is at knowledge stage of the
innovation-decision process; and for the other industries there were very fewer evidence in
the academic literature and Twitter, therefore it can assume other industries may be at
knowledge stage of innovation-decision process or may be not considering blockchain for
their industry. The diffusion in other industries is open for further research. By
understanding the differences in diffusions, industries can use this to learn from other
industry experiences at the different stages of diffusion.
Industry-specific features, challenges, conceptual framework (through the literature
review insights), conceptual concepts (through social media analytics insights), practical
implementation (through the literature review and social media analytics insights) and
popular players of blockchain have been highlighted in the study. The benefits of the
blockchain technology had not been amplified in the academic literature and had been
justified by suggesting conceptual frameworks, whereas on Twitter benefits had been
amplified a lot without focusing on real-time implementation and just touching on
conceptual concepts. H1 suggests that on Twitter there is more speculation on blockchain
rather than deep expertise. There were only a few tweets which had highlighted industry-
specific characteristics and challenges on Twitter. More conceptual frameworks have been
suggested in the academic literature, whereas on Twitter more practical use cases have
JEIM been discussed. The study reveals blockchain can be used for machine-to-machine
32,5 communications in manufacturing industry. Transportation, communications, electric, gas
and sanitary service can use blockchain for energy trading through smart meters.
Blockchain can revolutionized finance, insurance and real estate by bringing transparency
in financial systems. Service industry look up to blockchain for providing authentication,
authorization, disintermediation and traceability to their customers.
752
7. Limitations and future research directions
The systematic literature review in the study only focused on journal articles; therefore
future researchers can consider conferences, white paper and other gray literature for
tracing the diffusion of the blockchain. The data from Twitter for determining the diffusion
of blockchain in different industries was only collected for two months future researchers
can explore the same with larger data set. In future, researchers use the method for
visualizing the blockchain or any technology adoption among industries. Blockchain
industry-specific analysis can be conducted using social media analytics in future. Future
study can be used for mapping user level adoption for various stages in the innovation-
decision process. Longitudinal studies can be beneficial for tracing the diffusion of
blockchain in various industries. The study list some of the conceptual concepts such as
green energy production; autonomous transportation; minerals traceability; home-sharing
economy; voting platform; and fraud-free elections; suggested by the crowd on Twitter. The
future researchers can investigate whether these conceptual concepts are feasible with
blockchain technology or not.
References
Al-Yafi, K., El-Masri, M. and Tsai, R. (2018), “The effects of using social network sites on academic
performance: the case of Qatar”, Journal of Enterprise Information Management, Vol. 31 No. 3,
pp. 446-462.
Aste, T., Tasca, P. and Di Matteo, T. (2017), “Blockchain technologies: the foreseeable impact on society
and industry”, Computer, Vol. 50 No. 9, pp. 18-28.
Benchoufi, M., Porcher, R. and Ravaud, P. (2017), “Blockchain protocols in clinical trials: transparency
and traceability of consent”, F1000Research, Vol. 6 No. 66, doi: 10.12688/f1000research.10531.4.
Bose, R. and Luo, X. (2011), “Integrative framework for assessing firms’ potential to undertake Green
IT initiatives via virtualization – a theoretical perspective”, Journal of Strategic Information
Systems, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 38-54.
Brandt, T., Bendler, J. and Neumann, D. (2017), “Social media analytics and value creation in urban
smart tourism ecosystems”, Information & Management, Vol. 54 No. 6, pp. 703-713.
Buterin, V. (2014), “Ethereum white paper: a next-generation smart contract and decentralized
application platform”, available at: www.weusecoins.com/assets/pdf/library/Ethereum_white_
paper-a_next_generation_smart_contract_and_decentralized_application_platform-vitalik-
buterin.pdf (accessed May 5, 2018).
Cai, J., Li, S., Fan, B. and Tang, L. (2017), “Blockchain based energy trading in energy internet”, Dianli
Jianshe/Electric Power Construction, Vol. 38 No. 9, pp. 24-31.
Carter, L. and Bélanger, F. (2005), “The utilization of e-government services: citizen trust, innovation
and acceptance factors”, Information Systems Journal, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 5-25.
Chae, B.K. (2015), “Insights from hashtag# supplychain and twitter analytics: considering twitter and
twitter data for supply chain practice and research”, International Journal of Production
Economics, Vol. 165, pp. 247-259.
Cognizant (2017), “Blockchain in Europe: closing the strategy gap”, available at: www.cognizant.
com/whitepapers/blockchain-in-europe-closing-the-strategy-gap-codex3320.pdf (accessed
April 12, 2018).
Cohen, L.R., Samuelson, L. and Katz, H. (2017), “How securitization can benefit from blockchain Diffusion of
technology”, Journal of Structured Finance, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 51-54. blockchain
Corrocher, N. (2011), “The adoption of Web 2.0 services: an empirical investigation”, Technological technology
Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 78 No. 4, pp. 547-558.
Cuccuru, P. (2017), “Beyond bitcoin: an early overview on smart contracts”, International Journal of
Law and Information, Technology, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 179-195.
Dai, J. and Vasarhelyi, M.A. (2017), “Toward blockchain-based accounting and assurance”, Journal of 753
Information Systems, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 5-21.
De Filippi, P. and Hassan, S. (2016), “Blockchain technology as a regulatory technology: from code is
law to law is code”, First Monday, Vol. 21 No. 12, available at: https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/
1801/1801.02507.pdf (accessed January 16, 2018).
Di Pierro, M. (2017), “What is the blockchain?”, Computing in Science & Engineering, Vol. 19 No. 5,
pp. 92-95.
Ducas, E. and Wilner, A. (2017), “The security and financial implications of blockchain technologies:
regulating emerging technologies in Canada”, International Journal: Canada’s Journal of Global
Policy Analysis, Vol. 72 No. 4, pp. 538-562.
Eyal, I. (2017), “Blockchain technology: transforming libertarian cryptocurrency dreams to finance and
banking realities”, Computer, Vol. 50 No. 9, pp. 38-49.
Fan, W. and Gordon, M.D. (2014), “The power of social media analytics”, Communications of the ACM,
Vol. 57 No. 6, pp. 74-81.
Feng, H., Tian, J., Wang, H.J. and Li, M. (2015), “Personalized recommendations based on time-weighted
overlapping community detection”, Information & Management, Vol. 52 No. 7, pp. 789-800.
Fuller, M.A., Hardin, A.M. and Scott, C.L. (2007), “Diffusion of virtual innovation”, ACM SIGMIS
Database: the DATABASE for Advances in Information Systems, Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 40-44.
Gleasure, R. and Feller, J. (2016), “Emerging technologies and the democratisation of financial services:
a metatriangulation of crowdfunding research”, Information and Organization, Vol. 26 No. 4,
pp. 101-115.
Godes, D. and Mayzlin, D. (2004), “Using online conversations to study word-of-mouth
communication”, Marketing Science, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 545-560.
Goertzel, B., Goertzel, T. and Goertzel, Z. (2017), “The global brain and the emerging economy of
abundance: mutualism, open collaboration, exchange networks and the automated commons”,
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 114, pp. 65-73.
Grover, P. and Kar, A.K. (2018), “User engagement for mobile payment service providers – introducing
the social media engagement model”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, doi: 10.1016/j.
jretconser.2018.12.002.
Guo, B., Wang, Z., Yu, Z., Wang, Y., Yen, N.Y., Huang, R. and Zhou, X. (2015), “Mobile crowd sensing
and computing: the review of an emerging human-powered sensing paradigm”, ACM
Computing Surveys, Vol. 48 No. 1, p. 7.
Hamouda, M. (2018), “Understanding social media advertising effect on consumers’ responses: an
empirical investigation of tourism advertising on Facebook”, Journal of Enterprise Information
Management, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 426-445.
Hart, C. (1998), Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination, Sage,
Thousand Oaks, CA.
He, W., Wu, H., Yan, G., Akula, V. and Shen, J. (2015), “A novel social media competitive analytics
framework with sentiment benchmarks”, Information & Management, Vol. 52 No. 7, pp. 801-812.
Herian, R. (2017), “Blockchain and the (re) imagining of trusts jurisprudence”, Strategic Change, Vol. 26
No. 5, pp. 453-460.
Hong, Z., Wang, Z., Cai, W. and Leung, V. (2017), “Blockchain-empowered fair computational resource
sharing system in the D2D network”, Future Internet, Vol. 9 No. 4, p. 85.
JEIM Hoy, M.B. (2017), “An introduction to the blockchain and its implications for libraries and medicine”,
32,5 Medical Reference Services Quarterly, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 273-279.
Huckle, S. and White, M. (2016), “Socialism and the blockchain”, Future Internet, Vol. 8 No. 4, p. 49.
Ishmaev, G. (2017), “Blockchain technology as an institution of property”, Metaphilosophy, Vol. 48
No. 5, pp. 666-686.
Joseph, N., Kar, A.K., Ilavarasan, P.V. and Ganesh, S. (2017), “Review of discussions on internet of
754 things (IoT): insights from twitter analytics”, Journal of Global Information Management, Vol. 25
No. 2, pp. 38-51.
Karsten, H. and Laine, A. (2007), “User interpretations of future information system use: a snapshot
with technological frames”, International Journal of Medical Informatics, Vol. 76, pp. S136-S140.
Kassarjian, H.H. (1977), “Content analysis in consumer research”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 4
No. 1, pp. 8-18.
Kewell, B., Adams, R. and Parry, G. (2017), “Blockchain for good?”, Strategic Change, Vol. 26 No. 5,
pp. 429-437.
Khan, C., Lewis, A., Rutland, E., Wan, C., Rutter, K. and Thompson, C. (2017), “A distributed-ledger
consortium model for collaborative innovation”, Computer, Vol. 50 No. 9, pp. 29-37.
Khaqqi, K.N., Sikorski, J.J., Hadinoto, K. and Kraft, M. (2018), “Incorporating seller/buyer reputation-
based system in blockchain-enabled emission trading application”, Applied Energy, Vol. 209,
pp. 8-19.
Kraut, R.E., Rice, R.E., Cool, C. and Fish, R.S. (1998), “Varieties of social influence: the role of utility and
norms in the success of a new communication medium”, Organization Science, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp.
437-453.
Kshetri, N. (2017a), “Will blockchain emerge as a tool to break the poverty chain in the global South?”,
Third World Quarterly, Vol. 38 No. 8, pp. 1710-1732.
Kshetri, N. (2017b), “Can blockchain strengthen the internet of things?”, IT Professional, Vol. 19 No. 4,
pp. 68-72.
Kshetri, N. (2017c), “Blockchain’s roles in strengthening cybersecurity and protecting privacy”,
Telecommunications Policy, Vol. 41 No. 10, pp. 1027-1038.
Kshetri, N. and Voas, J. (2017), “Do crypto-currencies fuel ransomware?”, IT Professional, Vol. 19 No. 5,
pp. 11-15.
Larios-Hernández, G.J. (2017), “Blockchain entrepreneurship opportunity in the practices of the
unbanked”, Business Horizons, Vol. 60 No. 6, pp. 865-874.
Lean, O.K., Zailani, S., Ramayah, T. and Fernando, Y. (2009), “Factors influencing intention to use
e-government services among citizens in Malaysia”, International Journal of Information
Management, Vol. 29 No. 6, pp. 458-475.
Lee, B. and Lee, J.H. (2017), “Blockchain-based secure firmware update for embedded devices in an
internet of things environment”, Journal of Supercomputing, Vol. 73 No. 3, pp. 1152-1167.
Lee, J.H. and Pilkington, M. (2017), “How the blockchain revolution will reshape the consumer
electronics industry ( future directions)”, IEEE Consumer Electronics Magazine, Vol. 6 No. 3,
pp. 19-23.
Lee, K.C., Oh, H.K., Park, G., Park, S., Suh, B., Bae, W.K., Kim, J.W., Yoon, H., Kim, M.J., Kang, S.I., Son, I.
T., Kim, D.W. and Kang, S.B. (2016), “Transmissibility of the campaign for colorectal
cancer awareness in Korea among twitter users”, Annals of Coloproctology, Vol. 32 No. 5,
pp. 184-189.
Leonardi, P.M. (2017), “The social media revolution: sharing and learning in the age of leaky
knowledge”, Information and Organization, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 47-59.
Li, W., Wu, W.J., Wang, H.M., Cheng, X.Q., Chen, H.J., Zhou, Z.H. and Ding, R. (2017), “Crowd
intelligence in AI 2.0 era”, Frontiers of Information Technology & Electronic Engineering, Vol. 18
No. 1, pp. 15-43.
Lischke, M. and Fabian, B. (2016), “Analyzing the bitcoin network: the first four years”, Future Internet, Diffusion of
Vol. 8 No. 1, p. 7. blockchain
Lu, Q. and Xu, X. (2017), “Adaptable blockchain-based systems: a case study for product traceability”, technology
IEEE Software, Vol. 34 No. 6, pp. 21-27.
McConaghy, M., McMullen, G., Parry, G., McConaghy, T. and Holtzman, D. (2017), “Visibility and
digital art: blockchain as an ownership layer on the internet”, Strategic Change, Vol. 26 No. 5,
pp. 461-470.
755
Magazzeni, D., McBurney, P. and Nash, W. (2017), “Validation and verification of smart contracts: a
research agenda”, Computer, Vol. 50 No. 9, pp. 50-57.
Mamais, S.S. and Theodorakopoulos, G. (2017), “Behavioural verification: preventing report fraud in
decentralized advert distribution systems”, Future Internet, Vol. 9 No. 4, p. 88.
Manski, S. (2017), “Building the blockchain world: technological commonwealth or just more of the
same?”, Strategic Change, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 511-522.
Mengelkamp, E., Gärttner, J., Rock, K., Kessler, S., Orsini, L. and Weinhardt, C. (2018), “Designing microgrid
energy markets: a case study: the Brooklyn microgrid”, Applied Energy, Vol. 210, pp. 870-880.
MSCI, Inc., Standard & Poor’s Financial Services LLC (S&P) (2016), “GICS® Global Industry
Classification Standard”, available at: https://marketintelligence.spglobal.com/documents/
products/GICS-Mapbook-Brochure.pdf (accessed April 14, 2016).
Nakamoto, S. (2008), “Bitcoin: a peer-to-peer electronic cash system”, available at: https://bitcoin.org/
bitcoin.pdf (accessed June 25, 2018).
Nicholson, J. (2017), “The library as a facilitator: how bitcoin and block chain technology can aid
developing nations”, The Serials Librarian, Vol. 73 No. 3, pp. 357-364.
Nordrum, A. (2017), “Govern by blockchain Dubai wants one platform to rule them all, while Illinois
will try anything”, IEEE Spectrum, Vol. 54 No. 10, pp. 54-55.
O’Dair, M. and Beaven, Z. (2017), “The networked record industry: how blockchain technology could
transform the record industry”, Strategic Change, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 471-480.
Odoom, R., Anning-Dorson, T. and Acheampong, G. (2017), “Antecedents of social media usage and
performance benefits in small-and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs)”, Journal of Enterprise
Information Management, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 383-399.
Oliveira, T., Thomas, M. and Espadanal, M. (2014), “Assessing the determinants of cloud computing
adoption: an analysis of the manufacturing and services sectors”, Information & Management,
Vol. 51 No. 5, pp. 497-510.
Ølnes, S., Ubacht, J. and Janssen, M. (2017), “Blockchain in government: benefits and implications of
distributed ledger technology for information sharing”, Government Information Quarterly,
Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 355-364.
Ouaddah, A., Abou Elkalam, A. and Ait Ouahman, A. (2016), “FairAccess: a new blockchain-based
access control framework for the internet of things”, Security and Communication Networks,
Vol. 9 No. 18, pp. 5943-5964.
Page, E.B. (1963), “Ordered hypotheses for multiple treatments: a significance test for linear ranks”,
Journal of the American Statistical Association, Vol. 58 No. 301, pp. 216-230.
Pazaitis, A., De Filippi, P. and Kostakis, V. (2017), “Blockchain and value systems in the sharing
economy: the illustrative case of backfeed”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change,
Vol. 125, pp. 105-115.
Peck, M.E. and Wagman, D. (2017), “Energy trading for fun and profit buy your neighbor’s rooftop
solar power or sell your own-it’ll all be on a blockchain”, IEEE Spectrum, Vol. 54 No. 10,
pp. 56-61.
Püttgen, F. and Kaulartz, M. (2017), “Insurance 4.0 – use of blockchain technology and smart contracts
in the insurance sector”, ERA Forum, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 249-262.
Rathore, A.K., Ilavarasan, P.V. and Dwivedi, Y.K. (2016), “Social media content and product co-creation:
an emerging paradigm”, Journal of Enterprise Information Management, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 7-18.
JEIM Roehrs, A., da Costa, C.A. and da Rosa Righi, R. (2017), “OmniPHR: a distributed architecture model to
32,5 integrate personal health records”, Journal of Biomedical Informatics, Vol. 71, pp. 70-81.
Rogers, E.M. (1995), Diffusion of Innovations, 4th ed., Free Press, New York, NY.
Scott, B., Loonam, J. and Kumar, V. (2017), “Exploring the rise of blockchain technology: towards
distributed collaborative organizations”, Strategic Change, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 423-428.
Seidel, M.D.L. (2018), “Questioning centralized organizations in a time of distributed trust”, Journal of
756 Management Inquiry, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 40-44.
Sharma, P.K., Moon, S.Y. and Park, J.H. (2017), “Block-VN: a distributed blockchain based vehicular
network architecture in smart city”, Journal of Information Processing Systems, Vol. 13 No. 1,
pp. 184-195.
Sharma, P.K., Singh, S., Jeong, Y.S. and Park, J.H. (2017), “DistBlockNet: a distributed blockchains-
based secure SDN architecture for IoT networks”, IEEE Communications Magazine, Vol. 55
No. 9, pp. 78-85.
Shermin, V. (2017), “Disrupting governance with blockchains and smart contracts”, Strategic Change,
Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 499-509.
Shi, Q., Liu, K. and Wen, M. (2017), “Interprovincial generation rights trading model based on
blockchain technology”, Dianli Jianshe/Electric Power Construction, Vol. 38 No. 9, pp. 15-23.
Sikorski, J.J., Haughton, J. and Kraft, M. (2017), “Blockchain technology in the chemical industry:
machine-to-machine electricity market”, Applied Energy, Vol. 195, pp. 234-246.
Sullivan, C. and Burger, E. (2017), “E-residency and blockchain”, Computer Law & Security Review,
Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 470-481.
Sunday, E.Z.E. (2018), “Examining information communication technology (ICT) adoption in SMEs: a
dynamic capabilities approach”, Journal of Enterprise Information Management, Vol. 31 No. 2,
pp. 338-356.
Tai, X., Sun, H. and Guo, Q. (2016), “Electricity transactions and congestion management based on
blockchain in energy internet”, Power System Technology, Vol. 40, pp. 3630-3638.
Tempini, N. (2017), “Till data do us part: understanding data-based value creation in data-intensive
infrastructures”, Information and Organization, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 191-210.
Umarovich, A.A., Gennadyevna, V.N., Vladimirovna, A.O. and Alexandrovich, S.R. (2017), “Block chain
and financial controlling in the system of technological provision of large corporations’
economic security”, European Research Studies, Vol. 20 No. 3B, pp. 3-12.
Van den Bulte, C. and Joshi, Y.V. (2007), “New product diffusion with influential and imitators”,
Marketing Science, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 400-421.
Wang, G.A., Jiao, J., Abrahams, A.S., Fan, W. and Zhang, Z. (2013), “ExpertRank: a topic-aware expert
finding algorithm for online knowledge communities”, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 54 No. 3,
pp. 1442-1451.
White, G.R. (2017), “Future applications of blockchain in business and management: a Delphi study”,
Strategic Change, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 439-451.
Wu, H., Li, Z., King, B., Ben Miled, Z., Wassick, J. and Tazelaar, J. (2017), “A distributed ledger for
supply chain physical distribution visibility”, Information, Vol. 8 No. 4, p. 137, doi: 10.33
90/info8040137.
Xia, Q., Sifah, E.B., Asamoah, K.O., Gao, J., Du, X. and Guizani, M. (2017), “MeDShare: trust-less medical
data sharing among cloud service providers via blockchain”, IEEE Access, Vol. 5, pp. 14757-14767.
Xue, T.-F., Fu, Q.-C., Wang, C. and Wang, X.-Y. (2017), “A medical data sharing model via blockchain”,
Zidonghua Xuebao/Acta Automatica Sinica, Vol. 43 No. 9, pp. 1555-1562.
Yeoh, P. (2017), “Regulatory issues in blockchain technology”, Journal of Financial Regulation and
Compliance, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 196-208.
Yin, S., Bao, J., Zhang, Y. and Huang, X. (2017), “M2M security technology of cps based on
blockchains”, Symmetry, Vol. 9 No. 9, p. 193, doi: 10.3390/sym9090193.
Ying, W., Jia, S. and Du, W. (2018), “Digital enablement of blockchain: evidence from HNA group”, Diffusion of
International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 39, pp. 1-4. blockchain
Yli-Huumo, J., Ko, D., Choi, S., Park, S. and Smolander, K. (2016), “Where is current research on technology
blockchain technology? – a systematic review”, PloS One, Vol. 11 No. 10, p. e0163477.
Yue, X., Wang, H., Jin, D., Li, M. and Jiang, W. (2016), “Healthcare data gateways: found healthcare
intelligence on blockchain with novel privacy risk control”, Journal of medical systems, Vol. 40
No. 10, p. 218.
757
Zhang, J., Xue, N. and Huang, X. (2016), “A secure system for pervasive social network-based
healthcare”, IEEE Access, Vol. 4, pp. 9239-9250.
Zhang, N., Zhong, S. and Tian, L. (2017), “Using blockchain to protect personal privacy in the scenario
of online taxi-hailing”, International Journal of Computers, Communications & Control, Vol. 12
No. 6, pp. 886-902.
Zhang, Y., Zhang, J., Gao, W., Zheng, X., Yang, L., Hao, J. and Dai, X. (2017), “Distributed electrical
energy systems: needs, concepts, approaches and vision”, Acta Automatica Sinica, Vol. 43 No. 9,
doi: 10.16383/j.aas.2017.c160744.
Zhu, X., Mukhopadhyay, S.K. and Kurata, H. (2012), “A review of RFID technology and its managerial
applications in different industries”, Journal of Engineering and Technology Management,
Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 152-167.
Ziegeldorf, J.H., Matzutt, R., Henze, M., Grossmann, F. and Wehrle, K. (2018), “Secure and anonymous
decentralized Bitcoin mixing”, Future Generation Computer Systems, Vol. 80, pp. 448-466.
Further reading
Coindesk (2017), “A (short) guide to blockchain consensus protocols”, available at: www.coindesk.com/
short-guide-blockchain-consensus-protocols/ (accessed March 28, 2018).
Hayes, A.S. (2016), “Cryptocurrency value formation: an empirical study leading to a cost of production
model for valuing bitcoin”, Telematics and Informatics, Vol. 34 No. 7, pp. 1308-1321.
Hughes, K. (2017), “Blockchain, the greater good, and human and civil rights”, Metaphilosophy, Vol. 48
No. 5, pp. 654-665.
Peck, M.E. (2017), “Blockchain world-Do you need a blockchain? This chart will tell you if the
technology can solve your problem”, IEEE Spectrum, Vol. 54 No. 10, pp. 38-60.
Savelyev, A. (2017), “Contract law 2.0: ‘Smart’contracts as the beginning of the end of classic contract
law”, Information & Communications Technology Law, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 116-134.
Schultz, F., Utz, S. and Göritz, A. (2011), “Is the medium the message? Perceptions of and reactions to
crisis communication via twitter, blogs and traditional media”, Public relations review, Vol. 37
No. 1, pp. 20-27.
Tang, C.-B., Yang, Z., Zheng, Z.-L., Chen, Z.-Y. and Li, X. (2017), “Game dilemma analysis and
optimization of PoW consensus algorithm”, Acta Automatica Sinica, Vol. 43 No. 9, pp. 1520-1531.
Utz, S., Schultz, F. and Glocka, S. (2013), “Crisis communication online: how medium, crisis type and
emotions affected public reactions in the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster”, Public Relations
Review, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 40-46.
Zhang, Y. and Wen, J. (2017), “The IoT electric business model: using blockchain technology for the
internet of things”, Peer-to-Peer Networking and Applications, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 983-994.
Corresponding author
Purva Grover can be contacted at: groverdpurva@gmail.com
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

Diffusion of Blockchain

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Diffusion of Blockchain

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Diffusion of Blockchain

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

Insights from academic literature and

2. Theoretical basis and research questions (RQ)

Diffusion of Blockchain across various industries

Variable Mapping and Analysis Variable Mapping and Analysis

Users Expertise Overview

Figure 1. Finding presented using Diffusion of Innovation Theory (Rogers, 1995)

Economics, Econometrics and Finance

Business, Management and Accounting

Arts and Humanities

Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology

Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics

Agricultural and Biological Sciences

4. Results and analysis

Capture Understand Present

Industry (research Practical

MANU (1) Machine-to- An application of cotton spinning production process was

4.3 Twitter users overview

5. Discussion and implications

blockchain implementation is complex because of the mining process and knowledge

You might also like