# Social Media, Quo Vadis? Prospective Development and Implications
## 5 Discussion
### Limitations and Future Research  
As with every research, the results of this study are subject to several limitations. First, it has to be stressed again that man-made futures cannot be predicted with certainty [159]. Based on expert assessments, Delphi studies try to identify the most probable development, but cannot guarantee it. As social media is a fast-paced medium, developments can change rapidly, suggesting that forecasting of foresight studies on social media should be repeated regularly with current matters. Future research might also consider employing other forecasting methods, such as prediction markets [160; 161].  
Second, several critical issues regarding the methodology of Delphi studies have been addressed in literature. For example, exposing the first round results to the respondents interferes with independent judgments [162; 163]. However, this procedure aims at increasing the group consensus and might therefore be acceptable. In general, decision-making in groups is not independent, when experts are present simultaneously. Also, the desirability bias [164; 142] has to be kept in mind when interpreting the results of a Delphi study. It addresses the risk that the experts to not rate the projections regarding the likelihood of their occurrence but to the extent they would prefer this outcome. As many experts in the panel earn their income from social media, their further flourishing would be pleasant. Future research might include more experts which are independent from social media-related income. Another critique of Delphi studies is that the iterative study design does only lead to a pseudo-consensus that is not based on a better consideration of the statements but in fact be induced by group pressure [134; 165; 166; 134]. The media shifts and IQR increases which occurred in this study, however, show that the experts were not too much impressed by the previous group ratings. Another general issue of Delphi studies is that they generate a future scenario as an outcome in the future but do not theorize about the antecedents and path that leads to that scenario. Future research might employ theories of future social change [167] to explain the emergence of the identified scenario.  
Third, the broad scope of this study did not allow examining each thematic section thoroughly. However, 50 projections were already a quite high number and could only be further increased at the expense of lower response and repetition rates. However, future research could decrease the scope and focus on only one of the sections we addressed and dig deeper with more detailed projections.  
Fourth, the number of participants in the second round was rather small. It is unclear if the median shifts would have occurred with a higher repetition rate. Also, some IQR reductions might not have taken place. Unfortunately, repetition rates can hardly be increased. Future research might consider presenting a smaller number of projections as the high number of 50 projections might have demotivated several respondents to do their second, too time-consuming assessment [146].  
Fifth, the majority of participants came from western countries. Thus, opinions from other regions might be underrepresented. Future research might consider focusing on other regions to find out about different expectations. Sixth, this study was conducted during the economic crisis caused by COVID-19, which caused a high level of uncertainty among economic agents [168]. In that sense, the same study conducted earlier or later could have led to other results. However, as seen in the discussion, all rejections of projections are plausible and do not seem to correlate to the pandemic.