The Productive Power of Doubt

Doubt serves as an interface between knowledge, trust, and action: it points to structural problems in information and regulatory systems while simultaneously constituting a key resource for critical judgment in a complex digital public sphere. As part of the HBI Open House, we conducted a Research Clinic on the topic of doubt. The findings are summarized in this blog post.

By Katharina Mosene, Matthias C. Kettemann, Leonie Alatassi, and Judith Möller

Background and Aim

At the beginning of the year, the Leibniz Institute for Media Research | Hans-Bredow-Institut (HBI) established a team for agile formats. The team plans and implements academic and knowledge-transfer formats that are used both to generate knowledge and to disseminate it more widely.

These new formats include so-called Research Clinics: interactive, research-oriented formats in which participants from different disciplines or with diverse backgrounds work together on a specific question. The focus is on exchanging perspectives, discussing theses, and developing new insights or approaches to solutions. Unlike conventional workshops, a Clinic combines academic input with collaborative working phases, enabling a focused, practice-oriented engagement with complex topics.

As part of the HBI Open House, we invited neighbors and colleagues from academia, politics, and civil society to engage in a productive process of “doubting” with us as part of a mini-Clinic. Dr. Leonie Alatassi, Prof. Dr. Judith Möller, and Prof. Dr. Matthias C. Kettemann contributed very different disciplinary insights and perspectives on doubt to the discussion. Our guests and participants received input from the perspectives of media-use research, legal studies, and communication studies. This interdisciplinary Clinic explored what (young) people doubt and what these doubts reveal about current information and social orders.

The aim of the Clinic was to sharpen our institute’s perspective on the topic of doubt and, together with citizens and relevant stakeholders, to consider what role the HBI as a research institution can play in the future in the tension between doubt and facts.

Findings

The findings of the Clinic make clear that doubt is not a marginal phenomenon but a structuring element of digital public spheres.

From the perspective of communication studies, doubt is increasingly directed at media information environments. Opaque sources, algorithmic selection processes, and platform logics make it difficult to assess relevance: Who actually decides what becomes visible, and what role does journalism still play? Trust is not fundamentally abandoned in this process but rather negotiated situationally.

The legal perspective additionally shows that doubt is also directed at institutional structures. Many perceive a gap between technological development and legal regulation. It often remains unclear who bears responsibility—states, platforms, or individuals. This gives rise not only to skepticism about the effectiveness of the law but also to a broader question: Is there perhaps even a right, or even a duty, to doubt and to express one’s doubts, particularly in complex digital environments?

Research on young people’s media use, in turn, makes clear that doubt is a central component of everyday orientation. Young people navigate “between facts and feelings,” shaped by social media, peers, and individual experiences. Here, doubt functions not merely as uncertainty but as an active practice of making sense of information. At the same time, new competency requirements are emerging: in the context of generative AI, certain skills are being eroded (deskilling) while new competencies are being developed (upskilling). At the same time, growing competency gaps are emerging.

Across all perspectives, four central themes emerged from the discussions:

• Trust: Doubt about institutions is widespread, but not absolute—the crucial question is how trust can be reestablished.
• Relevance: The question of who determines visibility and significance is becoming central to the formation of public opinion. Marginalized groups in particular are more likely to doubt information because their perspectives are too rarely represented; this finding also applies to young people with lower levels of formal education and an immigration background and is closely linked to the question of social relevance.
• Basic research: Understanding doubt requires analyses of the underlying dynamics, including individual dispositions.
• Competence: Dealing with uncertainty is itself becoming a key competence in digital knowledge systems.

One point became particularly clear: doubt is not merely a problem but can also be understood as a productive force. It acts as a disruptive force by challenging existing orders, while at the same time opening up spaces for reflection and critique. This gives rise to a new challenge: rather than reducing doubt, we should consciously encourage and shape it—as a technique that can be learned and taught.

The central question, therefore, is not how doubt can be overcome, but rather: How can we foster a reflective, informed, and empowered form of doubt?

Background

From 2027 onwards, the HBI plans to make doubt a guiding theme for the Institute and to explore connections from a range of academic perspectives. The findings from the mini-Clinic serve as one starting point.

Photo: (c) Leibniz Institute for Media Research / Jann Wilken