How do I handle conflicting findings or literature?
If your findings contradict each other, or other studies found something different from what you found, mention it!
Conflicting evidence is interesting. It means there is more to learn.
But won’t disagreeing with my own findings diminish them?
No. Not if you’re honest about it. Because finding something that’s contradictory is a finding in and of itself. Think of it like this: the purpose of your paper, and particularly the Discussion, is contribute new knowledge. Knowledge doesn’t have to a datapoint. It can also be a new question: we’ve uncovered a new unknown. And known unknowns are easier to study than unknown unknowns.
The challenge is to write in such a way that you don’t devalue your own research. In other words, don’t think:
We found this, but others found this, so our research is basically useless
That’s simply not true. You found something, and it’s useful. So instead, think of it like this:
We found this, and others found this, so there is a question here to be further uncovered.
Ask why
When findings conflict, the question to ask is: why do they conflict?
- Did the studies use different methodologies?
- Did they measure slightly different things? Like a different population, location, etc.?
- Did they use a different experimental design?
The same applies when your own findings point in different directions: try to figure out what could be causing it. That’s where the really interesting stuff is.
Suggest future research
Once you know what new question the conflict raises, you can suggest avenues for further research. To make this a valuable addition, the trick is not to write:
We need more research.
But to explain what type of research is needed. Here is an example from a paper I wrote during my PhD:
Ideally, a much larger flume that can encapsulate entire tree canopies would be used to generate realistic currents and waves under variable storm surge heights or up to the point of branch or tree breakage.
Notice what it specifies:
- What method to use (a much larger flume)
- What object to study (entire tree canopies), and
- Which conditions to test (realistic currents and waves, variable storm surge heights, up to breakage).