Chapter 1 — Research question and literature method
Lesson map
Lesson 01 published. Map, example, EX001.
flowchart TD
N0["Learning outcomes"]
N1["1.1 The case"]
N2["1.2 Sharpening the question"]
N3["1.3 Search method"]
N4["1.4 Screening and recording"]
N5["1.5 What the literature says"]
N6["Synthesis"]
N0 --> N1 --> N2 --> N3 --> N4 --> N5 --> N6
N6 --> EX["Worked example"]
EX --> Q["Exercise EX001"]
Logical drawing
flowchart LR
N0["Learning outcomes"]
N1["1.1 The case"]
N2["1.2 Sharpening the question"]
N3["1.3 Search method"]
N4["1.4 Screening and recording"]
N5["1.5 What the literature says"]
N6["Synthesis"]
N0 --> N1 --> N2 --> N3 --> N4 --> N5 --> N6 --> Q["EX001"]
[Learning outcomes]
|
v
[1.1 The case]
|
v
[1.2 Sharpening the question]
|
v
[1.3 Search method]
|
v
[1.4 Screening and recording]
|
v
[1.5 What the literature says]
|
v
[Synthesis]
|
v
[Worked example] --> [Exercise EX001]
Learning outcomes
You will (1) frame a master's question about privileged control of smart contracts; (2) design a systematic literature search; (3) record search decisions reproducibly.
1.1 The case
Tariq Haddad is a master's student at the fictional Northmoor University, supervised by Dr Ingrid Larsen. His partner is the fictional Lumen Analytics, a small firm that monitors blockchain protocols for its clients. Many protocols keep privileged functions, such as upgrading contract code or pausing transfers, controlled by administrator keys. Tariq asks whether the way those privileges are controlled, a single key, a multi-signature wallet, or a multi-signature wallet with a timelock delay, is associated with fewer key-related incidents. All protocols and data in this book are synthetic.
1.2 Sharpening the question
A good dissertation question is narrow enough to answer in a year. Tariq defines privileged control as any function that can change contract code, parameters or funds without a user's own transaction. He defines a key-related incident as an unauthorised or mistaken use of such a function that harmed users, according to a public post-incident report. He limits the population to Ethereum-compatible protocols with published administrative arrangements. Precise definitions prevent the question drifting as he reads, and make it clear which cases count.
1.3 Search method
Tariq designs a systematic search. He lists databases and venues, including IEEE and ACM digital libraries, and grey literature such as the EEA EthTrust Security Levels, the OWASP Smart Contract Top 10 and ConsenSys best practices. He writes search strings combining terms for smart contracts, upgradeability, administrator keys, multi-signature and timelock, and he sets inclusion criteria: peer-reviewed or standards-body sources, published in English, addressing privileged control or its failures. A written method lets others repeat the search and judge what might be missing.
1.4 Screening and recording
Search results are screened in two passes: title and abstract, then full text. Tariq records every decision with a reason in a spreadsheet, and Dr Larsen screens a random ten percent independently to check consistency. Of 212 records, 31 are included after full-text review. He draws a flow diagram showing how many were excluded at each stage and why. Recording screening decisions turns a reading list into evidence that the review was systematic rather than selective. The spreadsheet is kept with the dissertation appendices.
1.5 What the literature says
Included sources agree on principles but offer little measurement. The EthTrust specification notes that a malicious actor with a privileged key can cause harm that code review cannot prevent, and recommends timelock delays for sensitive operations. ConsenSys best practices discuss upgradeability risks. Atzei and colleagues (2017) classify attacks by cause but focus on code rather than key governance. Tariq finds no study comparing incident rates across control types with explicit attention to confounding, which shapes his contribution. He summarises each included source in a structured table.
Worked example
Tariq defines privileged control and key-related incidents, searches six sources with written strings, and screens 212 records to 31 included, with a flow diagram and a 10% double-screen.
Synthetic case. Tariq Haddad, Ingrid Larsen, Northmoor University, Lumen Analytics and all data are synthetic; EEA EthTrust, OWASP Smart Contract Top 10, ConsenSys best practices and Atzei et al. (2017) are real sources.
Errors and limits
Reading only well-known blog posts without a search method produces a biased picture of the evidence.
Exercises
- EX001 — Control types. Which three control types does Tariq compare? Rubric: 3 = single key, multisig, multisig with timelock;; 2 = three;; 1 = two;; 0 = none.
- EX002 — Incident definition. How is a key-related incident defined? Rubric: 3 = unauthorised or mistaken privileged use that harmed users per public report;; 2 = privileged misuse;; 1 = any bug;; 0 = none.
- EX003 — Grey literature. Name one grey-literature source searched. Rubric: 3 = EEA EthTrust;; 2 = OWASP;; 1 = novels;; 0 = none.
- EX004 — Screening check. How was screening consistency checked? Rubric: 3 = supervisor double-screened a random 10%;; 2 = 10%;; 1 = vague;; 0 = none.
- EX005 — Included count. How many records were included? Rubric: 3 = 31 of 212;; 2 = 31;; 1 = 212;; 0 = none.
- EX006 — EthTrust recommendation. What does EthTrust recommend for sensitive operations? Rubric: 3 = timelock delays;; 2 = timelock;; 1 = single key;; 0 = none.
- EX007 — Literature gap. What gap did Tariq find? Rubric: 3 = no comparison of incident rates across control types with confounding;; 2 = measurement;; 1 = vague;; 0 = none.
Synthesis
A narrow question, a written search method and recorded screening decisions make a literature review reproducible.