top of page
Search

Leveraging Blockchain Technology to Improve Transparency and Resilience in the Humanitarian Sector - Chapter 3 - Methodology


This chapter details the qualitative, interpretivist multiple-case study approach (Yin, 2018; Creswell and Poth, 2018) for examining blockchain in humanitarian coordination, focusing on WFP's Building Blocks, with UNICEF's CryptoFund and IFRC's Digital Identity pilot as comparators. Guided by the integrated conceptual framework developed in Chapter 2, the study centres on four mechanisms—information processing, trust, adoption, and user behaviour—within three enabling conditions. Data were collected through document analysis, interviews, and surveys, analysed thematically (Braun and Clarke, 2006) and triangulated for rigour (Patton, 2015). The study structure and rationale are outlined in the following sections.


Research Philosophy and Approach


Guided by an interpretivist paradigm, this study explores how humanitarian organisations implement blockchain in decentralised settings (Saunders et al., 2019). It employs an inductive, qualitative approach to allow themes to emerge from interviews, documents, and surveys (Creswell and Poth, 2018), suitable for analysing early-stage blockchain initiatives.


A multiple-case strategy (Yin, 2018) underpins the research, with cases chosen for maturity and diversity to enable analytical, not statistical, insights (Flyvbjerg, 2006).


The methodology is structured using the Research Onion framework (Saunders et al., 2019), clarifying research decisions and supporting applied humanitarian research (Borg Ellul, 2023).



Research Design


A qualitative multiple-case study design was chosen to examine blockchain adoption in humanitarian settings, focusing on WFP's Building Blocks as the main case, with UNICEF's CryptoFund and IFRC's Digital Identity pilot as comparators (Yin, 2018; Flyvbjerg, 2006). These cases were selected for their diversity in blockchain applications and organisational contexts—cash assistance, funding distribution, and digital identity management—enabling structured comparative analysis (Coppi, 2020; IFRC, 2021; Dubey et al., 2020).


Cross-case analysis deepened understanding of blockchain's effects on coordination, trust, user acceptance, and innovation diffusion. Each case was bounded by clear criteria such as timeframe, function, and stakeholder scope for rigorous comparison (Baxter and Jack, 2008). Data collection involved semi-structured interviews and document analysis, with methodological triangulation ensuring credibility (Patton, 2015; Bowen, 2009).


The analytical framework centred on information processing, trust, adoption, and user behaviour, while considering operational needs, stakeholder alignment, and ethics (Sandvik et al., 2017; Baharmand et al., 2021). Recognised limitations include potential sampling bias due to a focus on UN-affiliated respondents and limited NGO or frontline beneficiary perspectives (Moshtari, 2016; Sandvik et al., 2017).


Data Collection Methods


This study applies a qualitative, multi-method approach combining document analysis, semi-structured interviews, and an online survey to examine blockchain's influence in humanitarian contexts (Creswell and Poth, 2018; Patton, 2015). Each method is selected to ensure analytical rigour and triangulation (Yin, 2018; Maxwell, 2012).


Document analysis draws from official reports and evaluations by UN agencies and NGOs to identify organisational patterns and validate context (Bowen, 2009; Corbin and Strauss, 2015). Semi-structured interviews with humanitarian professionals provide in-depth insights into operational implications (Kvale and Brinkmann, 2009; King and Horrocks, 2010). An online survey extends findings by capturing sector-wide perspectives from diverse humanitarian stakeholders (Fink, 2013; Bryman, 2016). The table below summarises the three methods.

Method

Data Source

Purpose

Analytical Focus

Document Analysis

Reports and evaluations from UN agencies, INGOs, and implementing partners

To contextualise findings and triangulate primary data

Coordination; Trust; User behaviours

Semi-Structured Interviews

Humanitarian professionals from UN agencies, INGOs, and implementing partners

To explore in-depth operational experiences and perceptions of blockchain in coordination

Information processing; Trust-building; System use

Online Survey

Humanitarian professionals from UN agencies, INGOs, and implementing partners

To capture broader sectoral perspectives on blockchain adoption

Adoption dynamics; Usability; Behavioural intention


Notably, focusing on UN-affiliated respondents may introduce organisational bias due to differences in resources and expertise when compared to smaller NGOs or local actors (Moshtari, 2016; Kovács and Spens, 2009). Constraints in accessing frontline and local perspectives also affect representativeness (Sandvik, Jacobsen and McDonald, 2017; Fast, 2020). These limitations are acknowledged and further addressed in the detailed method sections (Braun and Clarke, 2006; Maxwell, 2012).


Document Analysis


Document analysis played a central role in this study, involving the purposive review of 27 documents—internal reports, pilot summaries, meeting minutes, and briefs—related to blockchain initiatives in humanitarian contexts. Only documents addressing core analytical themes such as coordination, trust-building, stakeholder roles, operational challenges, or lessons learned were included (Bowen, 2009; Patton, 2015; Corbin and Strauss, 2015), while materials lacking analytical depth were excluded (Yin, 2018; Bowen, 2009).

The analysis used Braun and Clarke's (2006, 2019) six-phase reflexive thematic method:

  • Familiarisation with data

  • Generation of initial codes

  • Searching for themes

  • Reviewing themes

  • Defining and naming themes

  • Producing the report



Coding combined inductive and deductive strategies, guided by the study's conceptual framework (Fereday and Muir-Cochrane, 2006; Dubey et al., 2020; Saberi et al., 2019; Baharmand, Comes and Lauras, 2021). Rigour was ensured by documenting the coding process and triangulating with interview and survey data for credibility and confirmability (Lincoln and Guba, 1985; Maxwell, 2012; Patton, 2015).


Documents were treated as socially situated texts, critically examined for organisational perspectives, power dynamics, and ethical contexts (Corbin and Strauss, 2015; Sandvik, Jacobsen and McDonald, 2017; Fast, 2020). However, the predominance of documents from major humanitarian organisations, especially UN agencies, may introduce bias and limit access to frontline or smaller NGO perspectives (Moshtari, 2016; Kovács and Spens, 2009).


Despite these limitations, document analysis was methodologically integrated, informing the development of interview and survey tools and providing empirical grounding for the study (Creswell and Poth, 2018; Yin, 2018).


Semi-Structured Interviews


Semi-structured interviews were conducted to gather in-depth insights from stakeholders involved in WFP's Building Blocks initiative. Participants (N=10) were purposively chosen for their operational experience in blockchain initiatives, seniority, and engagement with coordination and technology adoption processes (Ritchie et al., 2014; Bryman, 2016; Palinkas et al., 2015). This sampling ensured thematic saturation and diverse perspectives across roles such as project managers, ICT specialists, and humanitarian staff (Guest, Bunce and Johnson, 2006; Mason, 2010).


The interview protocol was grounded in the conceptual framework and informed by literature, pre-tested with humanitarian professionals to ensure clarity and relevance (King and Horrocks, 2010; Kvale and Brinkmann, 2009; Flick, 2018). Interviews (30–45 minutes) were conducted in person or virtually, following ethical guidelines for consent and confidentiality (Orb, Eisenhauer and Wynaden, 2001; Wiles, 2013). Interview questions are directly linked to theoretical constructs, as shown in table below.

Interview Question

Theoretical Link (Literature Review) and Citations

What are the main coordination challenges faced?

Organisational Information Processing Theory (Galbraith, 1973; Tushman and Nadler, 1978; Moshtari, 2016; Thomas and Kopczak, 2005)

How has blockchain improved information-sharing?

Organisational Information Processing Theory (Dubey et al., 2020; Baharmand, Comes and Lauras, 2021; Saberi et al., 2019)

How has blockchain influenced inter-agency trust?

Relational View (Dyer and Singh, 1998; McEvily and Zaheer, 2006; Cao and Zhang, 2011; Baharmand, Comes and Lauras, 2021)

Has blockchain facilitated collaboration?

Relational View (Moshtari, 2016; Nurmala, de Leeuw and Dullaert, 2017; Francisco and Swanson, 2018; Kouhizadeh, Saberi and Sarkis, 2021)

What influenced initial perceptions of blockchain?

Diffusion of Innovation (Rogers, 2003; Greenhalgh et al., 2004; Tomasini and Van Wassenhove, 2009; De Vries, Bekkers and Tummers, 2016)

How compatible was blockchain with existing systems?

Diffusion of Innovation (Rogers, 2003; Tornatzky and Fleischer, 1990; Kouhizadeh, Saberi and Sarkis, 2021; Zwitter and Boisse-Despiaux, 2020)

How usable was blockchain for field staff?

Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (Venkatesh et al., 2003; Dwivedi et al., 2019; Williams, Rana and Dwivedi, 2015; Ahmad and Huvila, 2019)

What technical or managerial support was provided?

Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (Venkatesh et al., 2003; Dwivedi et al., 2019; Greenhalgh et al., 2004; Coppi, 2020)

While this approach maximised relevance and depth, it also introduced bias by focusing on participants from large humanitarian organisations, especially UN agencies (Moshtari, 2016; Kovács and Spens, 2009). Limited access to smaller NGOs and frontline actors may have constrained representativeness (Sandvik, Jacobsen and McDonald, 2017; Fast, 2020). These limitations are acknowledged, and triangulation with document analysis and survey data supports the credibility and robustness of insights (Braun and Clarke, 2006; Maxwell, 2012; Creswell and Poth, 2018).


Survey


The online survey formed the final phase of data collection, designed to triangulate insights from document analysis and interviews (Fink, 2013; Bryman, 2016; Creswell and Poth, 2018). Purposive sampling targeted humanitarian professionals involved in digital or blockchain initiatives, yielding 28 valid responses—most (78.6%) from UN agencies, ensuring organisational diversity (Robson and McCartan, 2016; Tomasini and Van Wassenhove, 2009; Sandvik, Jacobsen and McDonald, 2017).


Survey items used Likert scales and ranking questions, grounded in validated frameworks from the literature (Saunders et al., 2019; Rogers, 2003; Venkatesh et al., 2003), ensuring conceptual coherence. Survey questions are directly linked to theoretical constructs, as shown in Table 7 below.

Survey Question

Theoretical Link (Literature Review) and Citations

What challenges hinder transparency?

OIPT and Coordination Literature (Moshtari, 2016; Dubey et al., 2020; Van Wassenhove, 2006; Nurmala, de Leeuw and Dullaert, 2017)

What is your organisation's readiness to adopt blockchain?

Diffusion of Innovation (Rogers, 2003; Greenhalgh et al., 2004; De Vries, Bekkers and Tummers, 2016; Ahmad and Huvila, 2019)

Which blockchain features do you value most?

Diffusion of Innovation and RV (Francisco and Swanson, 2018; Saberi et al., 2019; Baharmand, Comes and Lauras, 2021; Kouhizadeh, Saberi and Sarkis, 2021)

What barriers to blockchain adoption exist in your context?

DOI and UTAUT (Rogers, 2003; Venkatesh et al., 2003; Tornatzky and Fleischer, 1990; Greenhalgh et al., 2004; Ahmad and Huvila, 2019)

How usable do you find blockchain technology?

UTAUT (Venkatesh et al., 2003; Williams, Rana and Dwivedi, 2015; Dwivedi et al., 2019; Coppi, 2020)

What level of training or support has your organisation provided?

UTAUT and Digital Readiness (Venkatesh et al., 2003; Ahmad and Huvila, 2019; Greenhalgh et al., 2004; Dwivedi et al., 2019)

However, purposive sampling and recruitment through professional networks led to overrepresentation of large, well-resourced organisations—especially UN entities—creating potential biases and limited input from smaller NGOs and frontline actors (Moshtari, 2016; Kovács and Spens, 2009; Sandvik, Jacobsen and McDonald, 2017; Fast, 2020). These constraints are acknowledged when interpreting results. Despite this, triangulation with other methods reinforces the robustness and credibility of insights into blockchain adoption in humanitarian settings (Braun and Clarke, 2006; Maxwell, 2012; Creswell and Poth, 2018).


Data Analysis Strategy


Thematic analysis guided interpretation of interviews and documents, consistent with the study's interpretivist case study approach (Braun and Clarke, 2006; Nowell et al., 2017). Analysis centred on information coordination, inter-agency trust, adoption trajectories, and system use, considering context, stakeholder alignment, and ethics.


A hybrid coding strategy combined inductive and deductive codes (Fereday and Muir-Cochrane, 2006). Coding was manual, tracked in Excel, and supported by a codebook and cross-case matrix for transparency (Miles, Huberman and Saldaña, 2014). Braun and Clarke's six-phase model ensured rigour and comparability (Braun and Clarke, 2006; 2019).


Survey data were analysed with descriptive statistics to identify trends by role and function (De Vaus, 2014; Fowler, 2014), while qualitative coding excluded survey items. Triangulation across interviews, documents, and surveys strengthened validity (Denzin, 1978; Patton, 2015). Themes, detailed in Chapter 4, are grounded in participant experience and contextual evidence.


Ethical Considerations


The study engaged with institutional actors and sensitive themes like data governance in humanitarian contexts. Ethical safeguards included obtaining informed consent from all participants, anonymising data, and securely storing all data in compliance with GDPR requirements (University of Salford guidelines; Orb, Eisenhauer and Wynaden, 2001; Wiles, 2013). Participants' roles were abstracted (e.g., "ICT Officer") to ensure confidentiality, and they were explicitly informed of their right to withdraw from the research at any stage without repercussion. No vulnerable groups were involved; however, the study recognised and carefully managed reputational sensitivities around blockchain technology, maintaining neutrality and impartiality throughout (Patton, 2015; Fast, 2020). The research fully complied with the University of Salford's formal ethical approval process, with ethical clearance formally obtained before data collection commenced.


Limitations and Delimitations


This study's methodological approach is shaped by both limitations and explicit delimitations, each transparently acknowledged to ensure careful interpretation (Maxwell, 2012; Lincoln and Guba, 1985; Creswell and Poth, 2018).


Limitations:

  • Sampling bias: Respondents were predominantly from large, well-resourced UN agencies, potentially introducing organisational bias and limiting perspectives from local NGOs and frontline staff (Moshtari, 2016; Sandvik, Jacobsen and McDonald, 2017; Fast, 2020).

  • Access constraints: Institutional and logistical barriers restricted the diversity of stakeholders, narrowing the range of operational viewpoints (Kovács and Spens, 2009).

  • Self-reporting bias: Findings rely on self-reported data, which may be subject to recall or social desirability effects, despite mitigation through methodological triangulation and anonymisation (Patton, 2015; Maxwell, 2012).

  • Remote data collection: Time, security, and resource limits reduced opportunities for in-depth engagement with smaller, local organisations (Moshtari and Gonçalves, 2017).


Delimitations:

  • The focus is restricted to blockchain's effect on humanitarian coordination, transparency, and resilience, deliberately excluding topics such as cryptocurrency or broader digital innovations for analytical clarity.

  • The analysis emphasises organisational and system-level dynamics, not national policy or direct community and beneficiary perspectives, aligning with the study's objectives.


These boundaries and constraints are deliberately integrated into the research design, providing a clear rationale for the scope and interpretation of findings (Creswell and Poth, 2018; Braun and Clarke, 2006).


Summary


Chapter 3 details the qualitative multiple-case methodology for analysing blockchain adoption in humanitarian coordination, focusing on coordination, transparency, and resilience, while excluding broader blockchain topics for clarity. Data collection combined document analysis, interviews, and surveys, with triangulation and ethical safeguards to ensure rigour (Patton, 2015; Creswell and Poth, 2018). Limitations included a respondent pool skewed toward major organisations, limited input from local actors, and reliance on self-reported, remotely collected data (Sandvik et al., 2017; Moshtari, 2016). Thematic analysis, using both inductive and deductive coding, centred on key mechanisms such as information coordination and inter-agency trust (Braun and Clarke, 2006; Fereday and Muir-Cochrane, 2006), establishing a robust foundation for the findings discussed in Chapter 4.


References

  • Ahmad, M. and Huvila, I. (2019) 'Organisational digital readiness: A literature review', Journal of Documentation, 75(6), pp. 1353–1380.

  • Baharmand, H., Comes, T. and Lauras, M. (2021) 'Developing a framework for designing humanitarian blockchain projects', Computers in Industry, 131, 103487. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2021.103487

  • Baxter, P. and Jack, S. (2008) 'Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and implementation for novice researchers', The Qualitative Report, 13(4), pp. 544–559. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2008.1573

  • Borg Ellul, D. (2023) Exploring the depths of research design: Revealing the layers of the research onion. LinkedIn. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/exploring-depths-research-design-revealing-layers-onion-borg-ellul/

  • Bowen, G.A. (2009) 'Document analysis as a qualitative research method', Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), pp. 27–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027

  • Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2006) 'Using thematic analysis in psychology', Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), pp. 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

  • Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2019) 'Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis', Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 11(4), pp. 589–597. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806

  • Bryman, A. (2016) Social Research Methods. 5th edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Cao, M. and Zhang, Q. (2011) 'Supply chain collaboration: Impact on collaborative advantage and firm performance', Journal of Operations Management, 29(3), pp. 163–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2010.12.008

  • Coppi, G. (2020) 'The humanitarian blockchain: Can distributed ledgers improve aid effectiveness?', Humanitarian Innovation Project Briefing Note. University of Oxford.

  • Corbin, J. and Strauss, A. (2015) Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. 4th edn. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

  • Creswell, J.W. and Poth, C.N. (2018) Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches. 4th edn. Thousand Oaks: Sage. https://collegepublishing.sagepub.com/products/qualitative-inquiry-and-research-design-4-246896

  • De Vaus, D. (2014) Surveys in Social Research. 6th edn. London: Routledge.

  • De Vries, H., Bekkers, V. and Tummers, L. (2016) 'Innovation in the public sector: A systematic review and future research agenda', Public Administration, 94(1), pp. 146–166. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12209

  • Denzin, N.K. (1978) The Research Act: A Theoretical Introduction to Sociological Methods. 2nd edn. New York: McGraw-Hill.

  • Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A., Bryde, D.J., Dwivedi, Y.K. and Papadopoulos, T. (2020) 'Blockchain technology for enhancing swift-trust, collaboration and resilience within a humanitarian supply chain setting', International Journal of Production Research, 58(11), pp. 3381–3398. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2020.1722860

  • Dwivedi, Y.K., Rana, N.P., Jeyaraj, A., Clement, M. and Williams, M.D. (2019) 'Re-examining the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT): Towards a revised theoretical model', Information Systems Frontiers, 21(3), pp. 719–734. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-017-9774-y

  • Dyer, J.H. and Singh, H. (1998) 'The relational view: Cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage', Academy of Management Review, 23(4), pp. 660–679. https://www.jstor.org/stable/259056

  • Fast, L. (2020) 'Power, control and humanitarian technology: Reasserting the politics of humanitarian innovation', Journal of Humanitarian Affairs, 2(3), pp. 72–82.

  • Fereday, J. and Muir-Cochrane, E. (2006) 'Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: A hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development', International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1), pp. 80–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690600500107

  • Fink, A. (2013) How to Conduct Surveys: A Step-by-Step Guide. 5th edn. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

  • Flick, U. (2018) An Introduction to Qualitative Research. 6th edn. London: Sage.

  • Flyvbjerg, B. (2006) 'Five misunderstandings about case-study research', Qualitative Inquiry, 12(2), pp. 219–245. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800405284363

  • Fowler, F.J. (2014) Survey Research Methods. 5th edn. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

  • Francisco, K. and Swanson, D. (2018) 'The supply chain has no clothes: Technology adoption of blockchain for supply chain transparency', Logistics, 2(1), 2. https://www.mdpi.com/2305-6290/2/1/2

  • Galbraith, J.R. (1973) Designing Complex Organizations. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

  • Greenhalgh, T., Robert, G., Macfarlane, F., Bate, P. and Kyriakidou, O. (2004) 'Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: Systematic review and recommendations', The Milbank Quarterly, 82(4), pp. 581–629. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0887-378X.2004.00325.x

  • Guest, G., Bunce, A. and Johnson, L. (2006) 'How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability', Field Methods, 18(1), pp. 59–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X05279903

  • IFRC (2021) Digital Identity: An Analysis for the Humanitarian Sector. Geneva: International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. https://www.ifrc.org

  • King, N. and Horrocks, C. (2010) Interviews in Qualitative Research. London: Sage.

  • Kouhizadeh, M., Saberi, S. and Sarkis, J. (2021) 'Blockchain technology and the sustainable supply chain: Theoretically exploring adoption barriers', International Journal of Production Economics, 231, 107831. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2020.107831

  • Kovács, G. and Spens, K.M. (2009) 'Identifying challenges in humanitarian logistics', International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 39(6), pp. 506–528. https://doi.org/10.1108/09600030910985811

  • Kvale, S. and Brinkmann, S. (2009) InterViews: Learning the Craft of Qualitative Research Interviewing. 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

  • Lincoln, Y.S. and Guba, E.G. (1985) Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills: Sage.

  • Mason, M. (2010) 'Sample size and saturation in PhD studies using qualitative interviews', Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 11(3), Article 8. https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-11.3.1428

  • Maxwell, J.A. (2012) Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach. 3rd edn. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

  • McEvily, B. and Zaheer, A. (2006) 'Does trust still matter? Research on the role of trust in inter-organizational exchange', in Handbook of Trust Research. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 280–300.

  • Miles, M.B., Huberman, A.M. and Saldaña, J. (2014) Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook. 3rd edn. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

  • Moshtari, M. (2016) 'Inter-organizational fit, relationship management capability, and collaborative performance within a humanitarian setting', Production and Operations Management, 25(9), pp. 1542–1557. https://harisportal.hanken.fi/en/publications/inter-organizational-fit-relationship-management-capability-and-c/

  • Moshtari, M. and Gonçalves, P. (2017) 'Factors influencing interorganizational collaboration within a disaster relief context', VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 28(4), pp. 1673–1694. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-016-9767-3

  • Nowell, L.S., Norris, J.M., White, D.E. and Moules, N.J. (2017) 'Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria', International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917733847

  • Nurmala, N., de Leeuw, S. and Dullaert, W. (2017) 'Humanitarian–business partnerships in managing humanitarian logistics', Supply Chain Management, 22(1), pp. 82–94. https://research.wur.nl/en/publications/humanitarianbusiness-partnerships-in-managing-humanitarian-logist/

  • Orb, A., Eisenhauer, L. and Wynaden, D. (2001) 'Ethics in qualitative research', Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 33(1), pp. 93–96. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1547-5069.2001.00093.x

  • Palinkas, L.A., Horwitz, S.M., Green, C.A., Wisdom, J.P., Duan, N. and Hoagwood, K. (2015) 'Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research', Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 42(5), pp. 533–544. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-013-0528-y

  • Patton, M.Q. (2015) Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. 4th edn. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

  • Ritchie, J., Lewis, J., McNaughton Nicholls, C. and Ormston, R. (2014) Qualitative Research Practice: A Guide for Social Science Students and Researchers. 2nd edn. London: Sage.

  • Robson, C. and McCartan, K. (2016) Real World Research. 4th edn. Chichester: Wiley.

  • Rogers, E.M. (2003) Diffusion of Innovations. 5th edn. New York: Free Press. https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Diffusion-of-Innovations-5th-Edition/Everett-M-Rogers/9780743258234

  • Saberi, S., Kouhizadeh, M., Sarkis, J. and Shen, L. (2019) 'Blockchain technology and its relationships to sustainable supply chain management', International Journal of Production Research, 57(7), pp. 2117–2135. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2018.1533261

  • Sandvik, K.B., Jacobsen, K.L. and McDonald, S.M. (2017) 'Do no harm: A taxonomy of the challenges of humanitarian experimentation', International Review of the Red Cross, 99(904), pp. 319–344. https://www.prio.org/publications/10752

  • Saunders, M.N.K., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. (2019) Research Methods for Business Students. 8th edn. Harlow: Pearson. https://books.google.com/books/about/Research_Methods_for_Business_Students.html?id=TMGYDwAAQBAJ

  • Thomas, A.S. and Kopczak, L.R. (2005) From Logistics to Supply Chain Management: The Path Forward in the Humanitarian Sector. San Francisco: Fritz Institute. https://alnap.org/help-library/resources/from-logistics-to-supply-chain-management-the-path-forward-for-the-humanitarian-sector/

  • Tomasini, R.M. and Van Wassenhove, L.N. (2009) Humanitarian Logistics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

  • Tornatzky, L.G. and Fleischer, M. (1990) The Processes of Technological Innovation. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

  • Tushman, M.L. and Nadler, D.A. (1978) 'Information processing as an integrating concept in organizational design', Academy of Management Review, 3(3), pp. 613–624. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1978.4305791

  • Van Wassenhove, L.N. (2006) 'Humanitarian aid logistics: Supply chain management in high gear', Journal of the Operational Research Society, 57(5), pp. 475–489. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jors.2602125

  • Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B. and Davis, F.D. (2003) 'User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view', MIS Quarterly, 27(3), pp. 425–478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540

  • Wiles, R. (2013) What Are Qualitative Research Ethics? London: Bloomsbury.

  • Williams, M.D., Rana, N.P. and Dwivedi, Y.K. (2015) 'The unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT): A literature review', Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 28(3), pp. 443–488. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEIM-09-2014-0088

  • Yin, R.K. (2018) Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods. 6th edn. Thousand Oaks: Sage. https://uk.sagepub.com/en-gb/eur/case-study-research-and-applications/book250150

  • Zwitter, A. and Boisse-Despiaux, M. (2020) 'Blockchain for humanitarian action and development aid', Journal of International Humanitarian Action, 5(16), pp. 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41018-018-0044-5

 
 
 

Comments

bottom of page