Understanding accountability in blockchain systems

IF 4.6 3区 管理学 Q1 BUSINESS, FINANCE Accounting Auditing & Accountability Journal Pub Date : 2022-02-04 DOI:10.1108/aaaj-07-2020-4713
Bridget Tyma, Rina Dhillon, P. Sivabalan, B. Wieder
{"title":"Understanding accountability in blockchain systems","authors":"Bridget Tyma, Rina Dhillon, P. Sivabalan, B. Wieder","doi":"10.1108/aaaj-07-2020-4713","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"PurposeThe purpose of this study is to examine how accountability is constructed for blockchain systems. With the aim of increasing knowledge on accountability across three different types of blockchains (public, private and consortium), the researchers ask: how do blockchain systems construct accountability?Design/methodology/approachThis study draws on theorising in the accountability literature to study how blockchains relate to our construction and understanding of accountability. A qualitative field study of the Australian blockchain technology landscape is conducted, with insights garnered from 18 blockchain experts.FindingsFindings reveal that different types of blockchains employ different forms and mechanisms of accountability and in novel ways previously less acknowledged in the literature. Importantly, this study finds that accountability does not require a principal–agent relation and can still manifest in less pure applications of blockchain technology across a wide range of stakeholders, contrary to that espoused in earlier exhortations of blockchain use in interdisciplinary literature. This study also finds that similar subtypes of accountability operate very differently across public, private and consortium blockchains and there exists an inverse relation between trust and consensus building through transparency as blockchains progress from public to private types. Overall, this study offers novel explanations for the relevance of greater accountability in blockchains, especially when the assumptions of public blockchains are softened and applied as private and consortium blockchains.Originality/valueThis study contributes to the accountability literature by addressing how different blockchain systems reshape the understanding of traditional accounting and accountability practices. This study questions the very need for a principal–agent relation to facilitate accountability and offers an additional perspective to how trust and transparency operate as key mechanisms of accountability.","PeriodicalId":48311,"journal":{"name":"Accounting Auditing & Accountability Journal","volume":"2 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accounting Auditing & Accountability Journal","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/aaaj-07-2020-4713","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

PurposeThe purpose of this study is to examine how accountability is constructed for blockchain systems. With the aim of increasing knowledge on accountability across three different types of blockchains (public, private and consortium), the researchers ask: how do blockchain systems construct accountability?Design/methodology/approachThis study draws on theorising in the accountability literature to study how blockchains relate to our construction and understanding of accountability. A qualitative field study of the Australian blockchain technology landscape is conducted, with insights garnered from 18 blockchain experts.FindingsFindings reveal that different types of blockchains employ different forms and mechanisms of accountability and in novel ways previously less acknowledged in the literature. Importantly, this study finds that accountability does not require a principal–agent relation and can still manifest in less pure applications of blockchain technology across a wide range of stakeholders, contrary to that espoused in earlier exhortations of blockchain use in interdisciplinary literature. This study also finds that similar subtypes of accountability operate very differently across public, private and consortium blockchains and there exists an inverse relation between trust and consensus building through transparency as blockchains progress from public to private types. Overall, this study offers novel explanations for the relevance of greater accountability in blockchains, especially when the assumptions of public blockchains are softened and applied as private and consortium blockchains.Originality/valueThis study contributes to the accountability literature by addressing how different blockchain systems reshape the understanding of traditional accounting and accountability practices. This study questions the very need for a principal–agent relation to facilitate accountability and offers an additional perspective to how trust and transparency operate as key mechanisms of accountability.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
理解区块链系统中的问责制
本研究的目的是研究如何为区块链系统构建问责制。为了增加对三种不同类型的区块链(公共、私人和财团)的问责制的了解,研究人员提出了这样一个问题:区块链系统如何构建问责制?本研究借鉴了问责制文献中的理论,研究区块链与我们对问责制的构建和理解之间的关系。对澳大利亚区块链技术领域进行了定性实地研究,并从18位区块链专家那里获得了见解。研究结果表明,不同类型的区块链采用了不同的问责形式和机制,并且采用了以前文献中较少承认的新颖方式。重要的是,本研究发现,问责制不需要委托代理关系,并且仍然可以在区块链技术在广泛利益相关者中的不太纯粹的应用中表现出来,这与早期跨学科文献中对区块链使用的劝告所支持的相反。本研究还发现,在公共、私人和财团区块链中,类似的问责子类型的运作方式非常不同,随着区块链从公共类型发展到私人类型,通过透明度建立信任和共识之间存在反比关系。总的来说,这项研究为区块链中更大的问责制的相关性提供了新的解释,特别是当公共区块链的假设被软化并应用于私人和财团区块链时。独创性/价值本研究通过解决不同的区块链系统如何重塑对传统会计和问责制实践的理解,为问责制文献做出了贡献。本研究对委托代理关系促进问责制的必要性提出了质疑,并为信任和透明度作为问责制的关键机制如何运作提供了额外的视角。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
9.50
自引率
14.30%
发文量
77
期刊介绍: Dedicated to the advancement of accounting knowledge, the Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal publishes high quality manuscripts concerning the interaction between accounting/auditing and their socio-economic and political environments, encouraging critical analysis of policy and practice in these areas. The journal also seeks to encourage debate about the philosophies and traditions which underpin the accounting profession, the implications of new policy alternatives and the impact of accountancy on the socio-economic and political environment.
期刊最新文献
Exploring a Soccer Society: dreams, themes and the beautiful game Reporting controversial issues in controversial industries AAAJ Literature and Insights 36.7/8 Editorial The accounting profession is undergoing a change An autistic in postgraduate accounting
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1