Can Blockchain Technology Facilitate

the Unbundling of Higher Education

Ira Sood

, Henri Pirkkalainen

and Anthony F. Camilleri

Unit of Information and Knowledge Managment, Tampere University, PO Box 541, 33101 Tampere, Finland

Knowledge Innovation Centre, 119, Triq il-Qasam, Swieqi SWQ3027, Malta

Keywords: Higher Education, Unbundling, Blockchain Technology.

Abstract: Higher education is in dire need of reform in order keep up with the rapidly advancing technology and student

needs surrounding it. Unbundling of higher education has been discussed as one of the potential directions of

reform. Prior research has suggested that blockchain technology has the potential to play an essential role in

facilitating such change in higher education. However, the ways in which blockchain can facilitate unbundling

remains missing in literature. We specifically address this gap. This study reports on a qualitative study with

17 respondents in the field of higher education as well as blockchain technology. Our findings indicate three

specific areas of unbundling that can be facilitated with blockchain technology, namely new governance

model, modular student experience and enhanced faculty roles. We explain how four key characteristics of

blockchain (i.e., decentralization, immutability, pseudonymity and self-sovereignty) facilitate those three

areas of unbundling in specific. The findings of this study can aid both the universities and the blockchain

community in understanding how the concept of blockchain can be embedded effectively in the unbundling

of higher education.

1 INTRODUCTION

Higher education institutions (HEIs) are facing

increasing pressure to change for the benefit of the

students. For example, the diploma supplements

commonly used today do not clearly convey the

competences developed by a student over the course

of his/her education. Due to this lack of transparency,

major companies have made active efforts to remove

the requirement of degree certificates from their

hiring policy (Glassdoor, 2018). Moreover, the ‘one

size fits all’ model of learning does not correspond

with the needs of lifelong personalized learning (Bass

& Eynon, 2017). However, HEIs have attempted to

transform their traditional models by unbundling

(Israel, 2015). Many institutions have made efforts to

unbundle, for example, by extending their curricula

by collaborating with MOOC providers (Davis et al.,

2014; EADTU, 2018).

Blockchain has been touted as a potential

technology for transforming higher education

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6172-6428

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5389-7363

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0235-1499

(Camilleri & Grech, 2017). Some of the major efforts

in the area have come in the form of storing and

issuing of blockchain based credentials by higher

education institutions such as MIT, UK Open

University, University of Malta and University of

Nicosia among others (Camilleri & Grech, 2017;

Nascimento et. al, 2019). This stream of literature

suggests that the decentralized and immutable nature

of blockchain offers possibilities to unbundle the

traditional structure of higher education. Despite the

potential, the current theoretical and empirical

understanding of the use for blockchain for education

is limited. To our best knowledge, there is no research

that specifically links the use of blockchain

technology to unbundling of higher education. This

paper is an attempt to bridge this research gap.

The main research question that this study

attempts to answer is: How does blockchain

technology facilitate unbundling of higher

education? We adopted a qualitative study with 17

semi structured interviews with experts in the field of

228

Sood, I., Pirkkalainen, H. and Camilleri, A.

Can Blockchain Technology Facilitate the Unbundling of Higher Education.

DOI: 10.5220/0009339202280235

In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU 2020) - Volume 2, pages 228-235

ISBN: 978-989-758-417-6

higher education and blockchain technology. The

qualitative study aimed at examining specific

characteristics of blockchain and linking them to

areas of unbundling where these characteristics could

be utilized to facilitate change.

2 THEORETICAL

BACKGROUND

2.1 Unbundling of Higher Education

Unbundling can be simply defined as the process of

breaking something into smaller and modular

fragments (McCowan, 2017). A modular education

splits the different aspects of a traditional degree into

separate modules so that it can best serve the interests

of the consumer that they were designed for in the

first place: students. In higher education, the

incoming of modularization has been much slower as

compared to other industries, largely driven by the

for-profit sector (Robertson & Komljenovic, 2016;

McCowan, 2017). Universities have more or less

continued to exist within the traditionally established

models and it is hard to measure the economic impact

of their services on society and industry in general

(McCowan, 2017; Bok, 2003).

Unbundling in higher education has been driven

by change drivers some of which are technological in

nature while others can be linked to the changes

occurring in the socio-political and cultural

environment and the opportunities arising from that.

First, the digital content space has been

revolutionized, hence, the number of non-traditional

knowledge providers (Udacity, Coursera, edX and

others) has increased enormously

, moving students

towards personalized study pathways (Horn, 2014).

Second, the student demographics and faculty roles

have rapidly evolved over the years with increased

emphasis on lifelong learning. The demographical

composition of students today is much different and

as such the ‘one size fits all’ model fails to provide

for every sub section of learners (Mintz, 2015). Third,

universities constantly struggle between trying to

control costs while maintaining high quality among

all of its different elements, which is not a sustainable

business model (Christensen et al., 2011).

Many private entities are increasingly involved in

planning curriculum alongside universities in order to

create offerings that focus on general cognitive ability

A review by Class Central states that by 2017 there were 81

million registered users studying online courses with at least

800 universities participating

and soft skills instead of grades and seat time

(Friedman, 2014). Lastly, due to a clear lack of trust

and consensus among most international institutions,

recognition of prior learning is still a complex and

difficult process in spite of tools such as European

Credit Transfer and Accumulation System (ECTS)

(Karran, 2004).

2.2 Blockchain Technology

Blockchain technology is based on the concept of a

shared, decentralized and distributed ledger that can

be used to record any form of transactions across

several computers (also called a peer-to-peer

network). The information related to transactions on

a blockchain is stored in blocks where each

proceeding block contains a reference to the hash

(identifier) of the previous block, thus connecting

them in a chain (Lansiti & Lakhani, 2017; Gupta,

2017). Each entry made on a blockchain is

permanent, transparent and searchable and can be

used to record anything including contracts, assets,

identities or any other information that can be

represented digitally (Camilleri & Grech, 2017).

The characteristics of blockchain overlap with

each other to a certain extent. In conventional

databases, all the information is kept and controlled

by a centralized system that is usually owned by third

parties (e.g. Facebook, Google, NASDAQ,

Universities). Blockchain enables decentralization,

which refers to the creation of a decentralized

management where data and information are in a peer

to peer network containing multiple nodes (Hence,

multiple points of failure) (Turkanovic et al., 2017;

Chen et al., 2018). Immutability refers to the property

of being unchanged over time. Immutability of

blockchain offers increased transparency, data

consistency and integrity meanwhile preventing data

forgery and theft (Boucher et al., 2017). Blockchain

attempts to ensure anonymity by employing a public-

private key mechanism (Nakamoto, 2008). Most

researchers have maintained that blockchain offers

Pseudonymity instead of complete anonymity

(Lansiti & Lakhani, 2017; Boucher et al., 2017;

English et al., 2016, Reid & Harrigan, 2013). In other

words, all transactions are visible but it is not easy to

link the information to individual identities.

Blockchain inherently promotes data owners’ right to

own their data without the need to go through an

intermediary (Camilleri & Grech, 2017). Self-

Can Blockchain Technology Facilitate the Unbundling of Higher Education

229

sovereignty enables the creation of self-sovereign

identities that would allow learners to take ownership

of their data and control how, when and who accesses

their data (Lilic, 2015).

3 METHOD AND RESULTS

3.1 Methods

The data was collected using semi-structured

interviews. Semi structured interviews were chosen

as they offer a way to identify areas of interest and

viewpoints to which literature does not point to (Berg,

2007). We interviewed 17 respondents who were in a

position to answer questions that are both related to

unbundling and blockchain. The respondents were

from Europe and represented a diversity of roles in

higher education (E.g. Executives from universities,

consultancies and non-profits). Semi structured in

depth interviews were conducted either in person or

via online conferencing, using tools such as Skype for

Business. The length of the interviews was between

35 minutes to 70 minutes. The interviews were

recorded, manually transcribed and iteratively

analysed to find commonalities.

3.2 Unbundling of Higher Education

Our findings revealed three key aspects that drive the

need for unbundling, namely, new governance

models, modular student experience and enhanced

faculty roles. Next, each of these are examined

individually

3.2.1 New Governance Models

Respondents pointed out the need for universities to

abandon outdated business models and focus on their

core competence. One respondent raised a legitimate

concern regarding the incentive models as well as

evaluation models that drive the universities in

general.

“From a higher education management perspective,

depending on the country, a university in public

sector might get incentives based on something like

the number of students they enrol” - Director

(Consultancy)

The need for governance models to evolve in the

interests of students and educators was pointed out as

an important move in developing new models.

“There is a huge case to make when arguing about

the indicators for teaching excellence. If you are an

excellent teacher but an average researcher you will

not progress in an institution even if you are the top

rated teacher that there is, at least in most places in

Europe. This is a good system for producing

researchers but it is also a holdover from the time

when universities' higher level of academia meant

you were going to become a researcher. In today’s

era of degree inflation, where master's degree is

nearly table stakes to an entry level job, these types

of indicators start to seem a little outdated”- Director

(Consultancy)

Furthermore, the respondents stated that there is a

need to re-recognize student as the customer when it

comes to higher education. The limitations imposed

on universities when it comes to their ability to

innovate also arises from the fact that they are usually

evaluated and funded based on the number of

graduates produced by organizations such as

ministries who are less in touch with the ground

reality as opposed to the universities themselves.

“In the current system the customer is not the student

but it is the ministry of education because they have

the money and hence, have control. The laws from

ministry of education forbid some changes that

universities would themselves like to implement.”-

Vice dean for education (Technical University)

Some respondents highlighted the need for

universities to be enabled to trust other universities

through a network of secure and trustworthy

credentials.

“We have produced a barrage of tools: ECTS,

diploma supplement, qualification frameworks, 3

cycle systems, multi lingual translation databases etc.

to build equivalence among universities. But all of

that is still based around the idea that ‘we will trust

your institution but not completely’. Everybody wants

to keep autonomy over their institution, where

institutions collaborate with other institutions but do

not fully trust them”-Director (Consultancy)

3.2.2 Modular Student Experience

The need to provide for lifelong learning has been one

of the key driving factors for unbundling. One

respondent shed some light on the need to

acknowledge learning that happens outside the

context of a traditional classroom.

“A basic university degree is not enough for your life

time. We see more need for lifelong learning and

CSEDU 2020 - 12th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

230

different kinds of solutions to provide for that. Mainly

because learning does not just happen in a classroom,

it keeps happening everywhere, but what we don't

have right now is a system that gives us credit for the

learning we do everywhere”- Continuing Education

Specialist (Technical University)

Other respondents similarly echoed their views on

the importance of flexible learning models that are

personalized in nature and offer recognition

mechanisms for students meanwhile, keeping in mind

the different learning pathways that might be suited

to specific learners. These mechanisms would then

make student mobility easy by default.

“It is important to understand that people learn in

different ways. Some people are going to take a huge

leap while some will learn gradually. Another thing

is to understand the motivation behind learning and

in some cases the personality of the learner itself. We

need to cater to these needs. The popularity of

something like badges and MOOCs is a clear

indication that students need means of learning that

are well suited and personalized to their needs

” -eLearning Specialist (University of Applied

Sciences)

One respondent pointed out the far-reaching

socio-political aspects involving higher education

and how a modular educational offer could advantage

those who need it the most.

“We usually talk about a European middle class

background, where you graduate high school,

go to university and get a job. But majority of students

in the world do not fit into that bracket. For them the

idea of pursuing a full time educational degree might

just be impossible. So the idea of breaking down a

qualification into modules, some of which might even

be free is very useful for them. Imagine the

opportunity”- Pro vice chancellor (Distance

Education University)

The massive disconnect between university

learning and the needs of the labour market has also

been identified as one of the aspects facilitating the

move towards unbundling. One of the respondents

summed it up as follows

“The emphasis should be towards quick responses for

industrial demands and hence fulfil the lack of

competent workers. There is the question that to what

extent can we fulfil that with our traditional degree

programmes due to a lack of flexible learning

pathways and slow speed of response”- Vice dean

(Technical University)

One of the respondents identified the same

disconnect using a highly relevant example of an

event similar to Brexit.

“If you live in a society where one day something like

Brexit happens, that will change your life a lot in the

coming 5 years. The knowledge being developed at

universities does not teach students to deal with

uncertainties of such kind with which we are very

surrounded right now”- Vice President (HEI

association)

3.2.3 Enhanced Faculty Roles

Some of the respondents have pointed out that

unbundling certain aspects of HE for instance, the

curriculum could reduce the workload of the

educators. They could then focus on their own

personal development needs and move towards

mentorship roles for students.

“In the current model teachers have a lot of burden

on them. For e.g. they have to do a lot of research in

order to get more funding for the university and

themselves. Besides that, they have to divide time with

teaching activities and other personnel work. There

is hardly any time for personal development”-

Researcher (Consultancy)

Some respondents hinted towards the emergence

of new roles such as that of a ‘co-curator’ whose

purpose would be to direct students in finding the

pathways that fit their needs and interests in a

balanced way. That would be made possible in an

unbundled scenario where teachers have the

resources to devote for guiding students.

“There will be a need for replicating this function

from the world of art, which we call ‘co-curation’.

The function of a curator will be very important and

will be needed to orient and guide students in their

efforts of studying in a modularized ecosystem so

that they can bring these modules together in larger

sense-making experience. This guided experience is

very necessary”- President (HEI association)

Can Blockchain Technology Facilitate the Unbundling of Higher Education

231

3.3 Role of Blockchain Technology in

Unbundling Higher Education

3.3.1 Blockchain Facilitating New

Governance Models

Our findings point out that when the question of trust

between universities arises, blockchain technology

holds some answers. Blockchain could provide a

system of governance that is based on decentralized

trust. In the paper-based credential world, we are

currently working in a very decentralized ecosystem

already. There is no central educational network that

makes decisions on defining and storing credentials,

research or content. Almost everything is agreed upon

by consensus among the educational community. The

way that consensus is achieved is interesting to note,

because usually it is based on personal relationships.

“The whole concept of academic freedom is

predicated on the idea that there should be no single

central source of truth for these things. Blockchain is

a technology that is built with these principles inside

the technology itself. So instead of saying we have a

fully decentralized human network but we are going

to need a centralized computer network, we can

actually have a computer network that can reflect the

reality of how our education system actually works”-

Director (Consultancy)

The same views were supported by other

respondents who pointed out the need for a

blockchain based credential system using non

fungible tokens which are in alignment with the non-

fungible nature of credentials themselves.

“If you have a house you usually cannot split it into

half, similarly, in our physical wallet, we have money

which is fungible and then other things such as our

credit cards, driver license etc. that are non-fungible.

With non-fungible tokens we are just upgrading the

system to something we know already occurs in the

real world”- CEO (Blockchain startup)

The characteristics of blockchain make way for a

possibility to build a digital credential storage and

verification system that universities can trust

unanimously.

“Once a trust network is created it will be technically

possible for learners to use their credentials as a

valid currency anywhere in the world by making it

possible for universities to verify their authenticity.

The universities may still not place the same kind of

value on credentials obtained from outside their own

university but they would nevertheless, be able to

verify them securely over the blockchain network that

they are a part of”- COO (Open Education Non-

profit)

3.3.2 Blockchain Facilitates Modular

Student Experience

The respondents stated that the issue of linking the

digital credentials to their rightful owner has remained

largely unacknowledged. A digital identity wallet

owned by a student which is encrypted via the public

key infrastructure possible in a blockchain could serve

as an immutable record of a learner’s academic

credentials across multiple institutions as well as those

earned outside an institution. Thus, enabling learners

to build a portfolio of traditional and stackable

credentials. Easily verifiable credentials could also

reduce cost burden and create a seamless verification

process not just for the universities but also for

students and their future employers.

“In education blockchain could play the role, firstly of

verification, so verifying that learning has really

happened, all claims by learners and workers are real

(and verifiable). Secondly, blockchain could also help

on any management and reputational support related

to student identity. Thus, allowing students to keep

their data personal while releasing various elements

for verification” –Director (Open University R&D

Lab

Some respondents stated that verifiable

educational wallets or even digital CVs could help

enhance student mobility both within the educational

and employment context. This would also contribute

to providing increased flexibility when it comes to

learners.

“Blockchain technology can potentially solve the

problem of identity and mobility by giving students

individual wallets to use when they move from one

context to another in terms of location or setting” -

Pro vice chancellor (Distance Education University)

“If we have a blockchain network validating and

approving the trustworthiness of credentials, then on

top of that we can have multiple layers such as

content offering. Its a perfect platform to understand

and respond to the learners needs of mobility,

flexibility and verifiability.”-COO (Open Education

Non-profit)

Other respondents pointed out the enormous

reduction of costs and time consumed that an

automatic credential verification system could bring

about

CSEDU 2020 - 12th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

232

“Blockchain could cause dramatic lowering of

process costs for things like issuing certificates,

verifying certificates. It is a very resource and time

intensive process. I have heard employers complain

that they waited so long for someone's credentials to

be verified that they actually hired the person before

the process ended”- Director (Open University R&D

Lab

3.3.3 Blockchain Facilitates Enhanced

Faculty Roles

If students are able to obtain content resulting in

credentials in a trust based ecosystem from different

sources, faculty can move their focus from classroom

lectures to creation of high quality online content

which is up to date and shift to the para academic

roles.

“In today’s age where everyone is online and has

access to unlimited amount of educational content, a

blockchain enabled network could be instrumental in

efficient sharing of this content. This would not only

save money and administrative effort but will also

give educators time to reflect on their personal

development and other aspects such as student

mentorship”- Researcher (Consultancy)

At the same time, self-executing smart contracts

could take over most of the administrative work from

a university and bring down the overhead costs.

“You can build automated algorithms in the

blockchain via smart contracts. This will remove a

massive amount of administrative overhead from

universities. Smart contracts can also give

researchers notarise ownership of their self produced

content”- Researcher (Technical University)

4 DISCUSSION

Our findings indicated 1) three aspects how

unbundling can happen in higher education

institutions and 2) a way how blockchain can

facilitate each aspect of unbundling. Figure 1 sums up

the key relationships between the findings. It should

be noted that blockchain is an essential driver for each

of the three aspects of unbundling. Although the

technology itself can be broken down to several

characteristics, our findings indicate that these

characteristics collectively aid in only the three

identified aspects of unbundling. For example, in

terms of new governance models, blockchain offers

the possibility to build a digital credential storage and

verification system that universities can trust

unanimously. In terms of modular experience, the key

benefits come from the way that blockchain enables

ownership of data and automatic recognition

mechanisms, facilitating mobility and sovereign

identities for students. In terms of enhanced

faculty

roles, blockchain can potentially provide an

Figure 1: Research model on blockchain facilitating the unbundling of education.

Can Blockchain Technology Facilitate the Unbundling of Higher Education

233

ecosystem where students can go beyond their

localised faculty to access resources, thus, creating

scope for faculty to focus on para-academic roles.

4.1 Contributions

The theoretical contribution of this article is the

linking of blockchain and unbundling of education.

We identified an important opportunity for research

because the linkage of blockchain and its key

characteristics has not been addressed in prior

literature. Our approach breaks down an unbundled

higher education into distinct units for better

understanding and analyses each unit with respect to

the ability of blockchain technology to tackle it based

on its theoretical strengths. Our study indicated four

key characteristics that are essential to blockchain in

general, decentralization, immutability,

pseudonymity and self-sovereignty. Further,

according to Acheampong (2018) & Camilleri &

Grech (2017), advancements in blockchain

technology have not yet been employed when it

comes to higher education. Although many

interesting pilots seem to be ongoing, there have not

yet been any concrete results in education to the same

extent as in other industries. We believe our findings

are an important step forward in the literature in order

to steer the ongoing adoption of blockchain in higher

education.

This study aids universities that are exploring

their options when it comes to modularizing their

offer by providing an understanding of its numerous

implications. Unbundling might suit the needs of

some universities better than others, thus, it is

essential for universities to understand their own

needs first. The blockchain industry is rather new and

still developing, therefore, this study may contribute

in creating an understanding for businesses interested

in developing higher education sector regarding the

needs of a university when it comes to adopting any

blockchain based solution. The technical

characteristics of blockchain suit the needs of an

unbundled university, however, that cannot be put

into practice without an insight into the different

elements that make up a university structure. Thus,

this research might aid that understanding.

4.2 Research Limitations and Future

Research

There are some observable limitations which need to

be paid attention to in this research. Most of them are

linked to the scarcity of knowledge resources related

to a technology still in its infancy and those related to

the methodology used. Blockchain as a technology is

fairly new and developing continuously. As such the

literature resources available are rather limited. The

resources shrink further when blockchain technology

is studied in reference to the education sector. There

are very few blockchain experts available and people

are still trying to figure out the ins and outs of the

technology. There is also a lack of existing use cases

of blockchain technology in public sector, which

makes the process of understanding and analysing it

in a pragmatic sense difficult.

The research methodology used in this study was

qualitative semi-structured interviews which has its

own advantages and disadvantages. Qualitative

interviews can lead to reduced reliability because of

the unstructured nature of the data collected (Bryman

& Bell, 2015). Therefore, the reliability of the results

of this thesis might be affected by similar factors.

During the interviews, it was challenging for the

author to guide the conversation in the desired

direction, many times questions were left unasked.

This might lead to incomplete results. Another

challenge was to find people with common expertise

in the field of higher education as well as blockchain

technology. While there are quite a few of such

interviews included in the thesis, there were some

where the focus area was only one of those subjects.

Based on the results obtained in such interviews,

conclusions were drawn from the needs and issues

identified by interviewees in their own experience.

Qualitative interviews are also open to interpretation

and personal biases and opinions often tend to seep

in. Another major limitation of this research was the

focus on only one aspect of unbundling (curricula) in

the conducted interviews. This reduced the scope of

the study in some ways.

In the short term, more academics need to venture

into research areas tackling the immense possibilities

that arise from unbundling certain aspects of

education. Something like blockchain technology

also needs to be explored from an academic point of

view for the vast potential it offers when it comes to

benefits such as educational equality and student

centric education models. It would not be realistic to

expect something as radical as blockchain technology

to be put into practical use without the support of

policymakers. Therefore, the policy regulations

needed to be put in place both for blockchain

technology in general as well as those specific to the

education sector must be researched. In the long term,

some blockchain related pilots should be tested in live

environment to understand the implications it can

possibly cause to the current landscape.

CSEDU 2020 - 12th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

234

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This research was co-funded by Erasmus+

Programme of the European Union under the projects

MicroHE (Project Ref: 590161-EPP-1-2017-1-DE-

EPPKA3-PI-FORWARD), OEPASS (2017-1-DE01-

KA203-003546) and ECIU University (612521-EPP-

1-2019-1-NL-EPPKA2-EUR-UNIV).

REFERENCES

Bass, R. & Eynon, B. (2017). From Unbundling to

Rebundling: Design Principles for Transforming

Institutions in the New Digital Ecosystem, Change: The

Magazine of Higher Learning, 49:2, 8-17,

DOI:10.1080/00091383.2017.1286211

Berg, B. L. (2007). Qualitative research methods for the

social sciences. London: Pearson.

Bok, D. (2003). Universities in the marketplace: The

commercialization of higher education. Princeton, NJ:

Boucher, P., Nascimento, S. & Kritikos, M. (2017). How

blockchain technology could change our lives.

European Parliamentary Research Service.Scientific

Foresight Unit.

Camilleri, A. & Grech, A. (2017). Blockchain in Education.

JRC Science for Policy Report. European Commission.

Chen, G., Xu, B., Lu, M., & Chen, N.S. (2018). Exploring

blockchain technology and its potential applications for

education. Smart Learning Environments, 5(1), 1.

Christensen, C., Horn, M., Soares, L. & Caldera, L. (2011).

Disrupting College: How Disruptive Innovation Can

Deliver Quality and Affordability to Postsecondary

Education. 1st ed. Innosight Institute.

Craig, R. & Williams, A. (2015). Data, Technology, and the

Great Unbundling of Higher Education. 50(5) Educause

Review 11.

Davis, H. C., Dickens, K., Leon U., Manuel, S. V., Maria

D.M. & White, S. (2014). MOOCs for Universities and

Learners an analysis of motivating factors. At 6th

International Conference on Computer Supported

Education 6th International Conference on Computer

Supported Education.

English, M., Domingue, J., Dimon, J., & Auer, S. (2016).

Block Chain Technologies & The Semantic Web: A

Framework for Symbiotic Development. Computer

Science Conference for University of Bonn Students

47-61

Friedman, T.L. (2014). How to Get a Job at Google.

Retrieved from New York Times: http://www.nytimes.

com/2014/02/23/opinion/sunday/friedman-how-to-get-

a-job-at-google.html?_r=0

Glassdoor. (2018). 15 More Companies That No Longer

Require a Degree. Retrieved from https://

www.glassdoor.com/blog/no-degree-required/

Gupta, V. (2017). A Brief History of Blockchain. Harvard

Business Review. Retrieved 11 October 2018, from

https://hbr.org/2017/02/a-brief-history-of- blockchain

Horn, M. (2014). Unbundling and re-bundling in higher

education. Clayton Christensen Institute [online] 10

June. Available from: http://

www.christenseninstitute.org/unbundling-and-re-

bundling-in-higher-education/

Horn, M. (2017). Will Alternative Credentials Replace

College Degrees? Forbes Retrieved 22 March 2018,

from https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelhorn/2017/

01/20/will-alternative-credentials-replace-college-

degrees/#74743eb61b0e

Israel, M.J. (2015). Effectiveness of Integrating MOOCs in

Traditional Classrooms for Undergraduate Students.

International Review of Research in Open and

Distributed Learning, v16 n5 p102-118.

Jacobs, J. (2014). Beyond the Factory Model.

Educationnect.org. Retrireved from

https://www.educationnext.org/files/ednext_XIV_4_ja

cobs.pdf

Karran T. (2004). Achieving Bologna Convergence: Is

ECTS Failing to Make the Grade? Higher Education in

Europe 29(3):411-421

Lansiti, M. & Lakhani K. (2017). The truth about

Blockchain. Harvard Business Review

Lilic, J. (2015). uPort; A Glimpse into a Next Generation

Self Sovereign Identity System. Available

at:https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/uport-glimpse-

next-generation-self- sovereign-identity-john-lilic

McCowan T. (2017). Higher education, unbundling, and

the end of the university as we know it, Oxford Review

of Education

Mintz, S. (2015). Who Are Our Students? Inside Higher Ed.

Available from: https://www.insidehighered.com/

blogs/higher-ed-beta/who-are-our-students

Nakamoto, S. (2008). Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic

Cash System. https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

Nascimento S. (ed), Pólvora A. (ed), Anderberg A.,

Andonova E., Bellia M., Calès L., Inamorato dos

Santos A., Kounelis I., Nai Fovino I., Petracco Giudici

M., Papanagiotou E., Sobolewski M., Rossetti F.,

Spirito L. (2019). Blockchain Now And Tomorrow:

Assessing Multidimensional Impacts of Distributed

Ledger Technologies, EUR 29813 EN, Publications

Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, ISBN 978-

92-76-08977-3, doi:10.2760/901029, JRC117255

Reid, F. & Harrigan, M. (2013). An analysis of anonymity

in the bitcoin system. Security and privacy in social

networks. Springer New York, pp. 197-223.

Robertson, S. L., & Komljenovic, J. (2016). Unbundling the

university and making higher education markets. In A.

Verger, C. Lubienski, & G. Steiner-Kamsi (Eds.),

World yearbook in education (Global edu). London:

Routledge

Turkanovic, M., Hölbl, M., Kosic, K., Hericko, M., &

Kamisalic, A. (2018). EduCTX: A blockchain-based

higher education credit platform. IEEE Access, 6,

5112-5127.

Can Blockchain Technology Facilitate the Unbundling of Higher Education

235