Sofie Hvitved is a Futurist as well as Director of MediaFutures & Innovation at the Copenhagen Institute for Futures Studies (CIFS). One of her focus areas is the convergence of physical and virtual realities and how this trend potentially impacts society, businesses, and our everyday lives. More recently, she has been researching the future of liquid content and the changing dynamics of an AI-mediated information ecosystem.
With a strategic background in the media industry, Sofie previously worked at DR (Danish Broadcasting Corporation) as a Project Lead for New Media Days. Beyond her role as a futurist, she contributes as a member of the Danish Media Board under the Ministry of Culture, serves on the Advisory Board for Future Media Hubs and Member of the International Advisory Committe, SFI MediaFutures. She is also an experienced keynote speaker, moderator, and host, having presented at events such as SXSW, TechBBQ, Global Media Congress, Cannes Next and The Summit.
In late 2022, Sofie and her team conducted a Delphi study to assess a series of hypothesis and propositions around the future of the metaverse towards 2030: “What it is, what will it become, when it will be implemented, how impactful it will be and what it will be used for”. The study featured a panel of 66 metaverse experts with diverse backgrounds, perspectives and opinions, including artists and designers, writers, developers, academics and strategists. The resulting report was published in early 2023 and is considered one of the seminal and most influential studies in the field.
We sat down to discuss her work, the results of the Delphi study and what happened since then.
[Disclosure: I was one of the participating experts in the study]
On Studying the Metaverse
Dirk Songuer: Sofie, good to see you, thank you so much for taking the time!
Sofie Hvitved: Hello! Good to see you!
Dirk Songuer: Why is the metaverse interesting to the Copenhagen Institute for Futures Studies?
Sofie Hvitved: At CIFS, our aim is to explore possible futures so people and organisations can make more “future-informed” choices. We have been researching the convergence of the virtual and physical space for a long time, regardless how you want to call that megatrend. To us, it’s just natural that whenever we see something that has the potential to change how we work, how we interact, and the way we communicate through media and technology, that we want to examine it.
I was part of initiating both the first report that we did, one on possible scenarios of the metaverse and the other being the Delphi study. Both had the goal to diversify the understanding of the concept, because we felt that the existing polls and surveys didn’t really show any common ground in regards to what the metaverse really was. And that’s still the case today. Ask five people what the metaverse is, and you’ll likely get five different answers. That’s exactly why we decided to go deeper.
Both the scenarios and the Delphi study were fully self-financed, with no external stakeholders. That gave us the freedom to approach the topic as objectively as possible. We’re not a normative institute, but we do work for the betterment of society. Our focus is on creating a better tomorrow and making sure people take the long-term future seriously. And with metaverse being this umbrella term for a megatrend, we thought it was important to dive into it and take it more seriously.
A Delphi study is a method used to gather expert opinions and reach a group consensus on specific hypothesis or around defined topics, especially when there’s uncertainty or not much clear data available.
In a Delphi study, a selected group of experts are confronted with the hypothesis and a set of questions. After answering independently, the organizers summarize and anonymize the answers and send them back so that the participants can reflect and further refine their own answers. After multiple rounds, trends emerge amongst the participants.
Dirk Songuer: Why did you decide to conduct the study using the Delphi method?
Sofie Hvitved: The study was led by me and my colleague, Bugge Holm Hansen, who is the Director of Tech & Innovation at the institute, and of course we had a great team that worked on the project with us.
The reason we did the study as a Delphi is that we were very aware of our own biases and our own Western privileged perspective about this technology. So we really wanted to see if we could gather a group of experts that had a broader, more diverse view. Bringing together a broad and diverse panel of experts allowed us to challenge our assumptions and see whether our views held up across different contexts. It was interesting to see where the participants agreed and where they diverged.
Dirk Songuer: As a participant, one thing that stood out to me was that you and the team chose to provide a baseline definition of the metaverse. Why was that necessary?
Sofie Hvitved: It wouldn’t have made sense to ask questions if everyone worked from their own definition. Without a baseline, we could have never compared the answers. Some people see the metaverse only as Web3, others think of gaming or VR experiences. A Delphi study needs more structure than that.
So we opened with a definition and asked: “Do you agree with this, or do you have any other definition in mind?” I think that this was definitely one of the weaknesses of the study, since we couldn’t be sure that the respondents answered based on their own definition or our definition but I just can’t see how it could have been done differently.
Dirk Songuer: How did you come up with that definition? Reflecting on it, I thought it seemed very deliberate.
Sofie Hvitved: It was carefully crafted in the sense that we do not believe that there is one technology or way how to define the metaverse. Also, if you constrain it too much, or make it too narrow, you don’t have the explorative mindset of diving into possible futures. For us, it was more about the directionality.
We wanted to encourage a discussion that could include virtual worlds, VR and AR, IoT, AI, digital twins, blockchains, even brain-computer-interfaces. These things are part of the metaverse that we see. And I know that there are many people that see these technologies and how they relate to the metaverse in a different way. So we wanted to look at the directionality of the metaverse and how it might impact our lives in the future. What are its implications? What are the large uncertainties surrounding it? This is what we wanted to explore further.
Dirk Songuer: That said, you must have been aware that the participants would just challenge the definition, ignore it, or just fill in the blanks themselves. Do you feel the study led to a coherent image of the metaverse as a concept or direction?
Sofie Hvitved: It’s true, people fill in the blanks. But I think that’s actually a good thing. We don’t know what the metaverse will become, so how would we know what the metaverse is right now?
There was consensus among 63% of the experts that the metaverse already exists in some form. Sure, you could then argue what that meant depending on your definition. The point is that all these perspectives uncover the diversity of perspectives and sharpen our understanding what to pay attention to. I still don’t believe that we have a coherent image yet, and that’s fine. We need to stay explorative.
Dirk Songuer: Do you think there would have been more consensus between participants if you would have structured it differently or provided even more directionality?
Sofie Hvitved: We didn’t want the study to be normative or predictive. Consensus wasn’t the goal. I mean, it was nice to see that experts were agreeing on some of the uncertainties around the metaverse, for example its impact. Because with the study, we also wanted to test the scenarios we had created for the Future of the Metaverse whitepaper.
One of our questions was if the metaverse was proprietary or whether it was an open and free platform. The trend right now leans strongly towards proprietary systems, with large language models and major tech players shaping the infrastructure. But still, it was interesting to see consensus on the level of uncertainty around these key issues. The goal for our Delphi was to explore these uncertainties and to become more knowledgeable about the field. Ultimately, we wanted to ensure that we don’t have any blind spots, that we are not missing out on some important aspect.
Dirk Songuer: Where then do you see the limitations of the study?
Sofie Hvitved: The biggest limitation was probably some bias towards optimism, even though we really tried to also find experts that were negative towards the metaverse. We included people skeptical of the possibilities and those with ethical or moral concerns, but overall there was still an optimistic tilt. And due to the suggested definition, we also had a confirmation bias. Whenever you ask a question, you nudge people in a certain direction. That’s also something that we were very aware of. And then of course, the diverse individual understandings of the metaverse itself.
Those are the three biggest limitations, but I’m not sure that we could have addressed them in any other way. Solving for one made the other ones much worse. Our goal was to encourage exploration, while still providing enough direction. And that balance always comes with limitations.
But the written responses were full of valuable insights. The participants took their time to explain their different ways of looking at the metaverse. It was a really interesting read, with many different positions and opinions from different parts of the world, different cultural views and individual takes.
Dirk Songuer: I felt that the detailed responses revealed three different lenses through which someone can approach the metaverse. The first being technical, defining the metaverse as a list of technical requirements to achieve a certain threshold of immersion, for example virtual reality, digital twins, blockchains. The second being descriptive, outlining specific properties that are seen as a conceptual requirement for the metaverse, for example persistence or interoperability. And the third being ideological, describing the metaverse as the enabler for societal concepts, like liquid democracy, libertarianism or anarcho-capitalism.
Sofie Hvitved: That’s exactly why we wanted a panel with diverse expertise. So people could approach the questions from different angle. We also tried to broaden the discussion by not just talking about technical things, but also cover societal implications, things that affect us in our everyday life and work.
Looking at something like interoperability, for example the ability to take your avatar from one place and move it into another place or using the currency of one metaverse in another metaverse. That’s very technical. But the underlying wish for interoperability is also ideological. The desire for freedom of movement across virtual spaces.
At the institute, even within our own team, we had different perspectives. Some more philosophical, others more practical. That made the whole process even more complex. In our analysis, we didn’t sort things into “technical vs ideological.” We looked at specific assumptions and hypotheses, and participants could interpret them in their own ways.
That’s something I find valuable about Delphi studies: participants may approach questions differently than we anticipated, and that sparks the discussions we actually want. After all, that is something that a Delphi study can do: broaden our perspective on a topic. And I think that worked.
Dirk Songuer: Something that that stuck out to me is that the report opened with the concession that the metaverse might be something undefinable, describing it as a contested future vision claimed by different perspectives and motivations.
Sofie Hvitved: To comment on that, we used the word “contested”, but we could also have used “controversial” or “challenging”. The point was simply that this is an area with very different views – not necessarily conflict, but no clear agreement either.
Dirk Songuer: The Delphi study was conducted in late 2022 and the report came out in early 2023, almost exactly at the height of the latest metaverse hype cycle. Now that the hype has subsided, do you think it still holds up in 2025? What has changed since then?
Sofie Hvitved: The way people react to the term metaverse certainly has changed since, so the study is very much a product of it’s time.
At the institute, we’re having a lot of conversations about how to describe the current technological direction – and what to call it. Because the way I see it, there still is no better word for it than “metaverse” at the moment. I mean, the term just encompasses so much. It’s itself on a very “meta” level, It’s not tied to a single technology. “Spatial computing,” for instance, implies a certain tech stack. There is also “ambient computing”, but do people really understand what that term means? The problem is also that Meta as a company colonised the word, even renaming themselves after it.
Dirk Songuer: Why do you think it’s such a powerful term?
Sofie Hvitved: The entire metaverse space stems from fictional concepts by Gibson, Stephenson and the likes, but I think it has matured away from being a fantasy and a product of science fiction. I struggle to think about them as being imaginary, I rather like to talk about the physical reality and the virtual reality being equally real. Experiences in the digital space can feel as real – or even more real – than in the physical world. Especially when you combine them through, let’s say, something like AR glasses or other AI enabling devices. Maybe it’s more of a synthetic reality, being created by zeros and ones, but it is more than pure data. That’s how I see the metaverse. It’s equally real.
The same applies when people talk about generative AI and its impact. And a common understanding of the metaverse would be helpful in expressing these things. Maybe it could even lead to some kind of framework that could help us better understand the complexity and guide the very nuanced discussion that we need to have about it.
Dirk Songuer: Speaking of discussions, one of the conclusions of the study was the need to establish a common vocabulary around the metaverse. Do you see that happening right now?
Sofie Hvitved: Not really. I would say that the discussion of the metaverse and the convergence of the physical and digital has stepped into the background, being replaced by generative AI, large language models, and now moving towards agentic AI and ambient AI. I think today you could do the same study, but focus on generative AI instead. Or AGI, artificial general intelligence.
Still, the debate hasn’t disappeared. The EU, for example, frames it as Web 4 which is one of the words they use to describe the development. The EU also has the Digital Services Act and the Digital Markets Act, all these new regulations around the Internet. But if the digital-physical convergence continues, will those frameworks hold up?
The big question is: how do we stay ahead of this trend and prepare for it? And we can’t prepare unless we first understand what we’re preparing for. In Asia and the Middle East, the term metaverse is still used. As well as in certain parts of Europe, especially when it comes to the industrial metaverse. I’m not sure about the US. But I don’t think that there is any consensus around creating a shared vocabulary. Maybe that’s impossible, given how broad the spectrum is.
Dirk Songuer: Now looking back at the results and assumptions of the participants, what is something that surprises you now?
Sofie Hvitved: One big surprise has been the difference in pace between the consumer metaverse and the industrial metaverse. We even published a report with Business Finland on the consumer side of the metaverse about a year ago. It seems that the industrial metaverse, including digital twins and other technologies in work-related environments, is moving much faster than the metaverse for consumers. Which is interesting, because when we asked the participants in the Delphi study, they answered that work-related uses would see later adoption than entertainment. And I think that has shifted.
Another thing that surprised me is how much the development of generative AI is pushing the development forward. Back in 2022 I wrote an article on what implications it would have if 99% of the Metaverse is generated by AI, and those considerations became even more relevant in the discussions we have today with e.g. liquid content.
Dirk Songuer: Isn’t defining a market or segment for the metaverse equally challenging. As there is no shared definition of what the metaverse it, defining a “consumer metaverse” should be equally arbitrary. Or do you think it helps to clarify the term?
Sofie Hvitved: Having a common understanding has always been difficult. Narratives shape the way people see it, and that influences everything. With the Delphi report the idea was to focus what the metaverse is and how we talk about it. I just participated in an interview with a group of XR & AI developers from Meta recently. We were around 12 people and spent a lot of time discussing what the metaverse is and what it meant to different people.
What I find most problematic when it comes to our understanding of the metaverse is that we often only dive into utopian or dystopian narratives. If we look at polls and surveys, we rarely talk about nuances. A Delphi study is essentially about polarities, but also about diving into the different shades of grey.
We also don’t talk enough about how technology and society are constantly changing. All that has an impact on where the metaverse is heading and I don’t think we are paying enough attention to its direction.
Dirk Songuer: Now that the metaverse has stepped into the background, what’s next for you and your group?
Sofie Hvitved: Well, at the institute we organized the 2024 AI and Metaverse Summit. It was first called the Metaverse Summit in 2023, then we added AI. And since 2025, we’ve simplified it, just calling it “The Summit”. We still have a strong focus on the convergence of our virtual and physical worlds. And naturally, AI plays a huge role as well. Dropping the word from the title doesn’t mean the metaverse is “in” one year and “out” the next. It’s not about trends, it’s a direction, this ongoing merge between digital and physical.
What I find curious is the need some people feel to declare it either dead or alive. Or that some ask if the metaverse was “still a thing”. I hope that we can follow up on the study maybe five years from now and analyse what changed. Did the narratives change or the direction it’s taking? You’ve also been in this industry for a long time, following the ups and downs, with people getting super excited about some technology trend and then leaving the scene.
The concept of the metaverse has evolved over a long time. So how do we talk about this concept and ensure that we have some informed understanding and knowledge of what it might eventually become?
Leave a Reply