Dealing with Conflicting Information

There are many reasons why credible sources may present different findings or views. These include:

Differences in:

• Methodology — e.g. surveys vs lab experiments
  
  
• Sample size or scope — e.g. local study vs global review
  
  
• Publication date — newer sources may challenge older work
  
  
• Disciplinary perspective — different fields focus on different aspects of an issue
  
  
• Author bias or values — especially in grey literature or opinion pieces

Different disciplines use different types of evidence and may define “valid knowledge” in different ways. In sciences, disagreement might reflect competing methods or results. In humanities and social sciences, it might reflect different interpretations or theoretical frameworks.

Tip: Disagreement doesn’t necessarily mean one source is wrong — but it may reflect different methods, perspectives, or even weaknesses in one approach. Your task is to evaluate these differences and explain your reasoning.

Use a structured framework to compare sources critically. This helps you decide how much weight to give each one.

Ask these questions:

• What is the main claim?
  
  
• What evidence is used to support it?
  
  
• When was it published? Is it still current?
  
  
• Who is the author or organisation? Are they credible?
  
  
• What method was used? Qualitative, quantitative, case study, review?
  
  
• What is the purpose? Inform, argue, persuade, or promote?
  
  
• What assumptions are made? Are they stated or hidden?
  
  
• What’s missing? Are key groups, viewpoints, or variables overlooked?

Tip: Making a comparison table can help you map areas of agreement and disagreement.

If sources disagree, try these steps:

• Look for patterns — Do several sources point in one direction?
  
  
• Weigh the quality — Is one source more recent, detailed, or robust?
  
  
• Consider the purpose — Is one source designed to persuade rather than inform?
  
  
• Be transparent — Acknowledge differences and explain your reasoning
  
  
• Don’t force a false balance — Some positions are better supported by evidence than others

Tip: Tutors are looking for critical engagement — not a simple “right answer.” Disagreement can strengthen your analysis if you handle it well.

This can feel awkward — but it’s not necessarily a problem.

Academic knowledge is constantly evolving, and it’s normal for new research to challenge older views — even those you’ve encountered in class. Lecturers often provide a simplified overview or focus on key theories to support your learning. That doesn't mean alternative perspectives or newer findings are wrong.

If your research leads you to a different conclusion:

• Acknowledge both views. Show that you’ve understood what was said in class, but explain how your sources offer a different perspective.

• Be respectful and evidence-based. Use reliable sources to support your argument. Focus on the evidence, not the authority of the lecturer.

• Check your assignment brief. Some tasks ask you to apply taught theory; others expect you to explore alternatives. If in doubt, ask your tutor.

Tip: Disagreement can show independent thinking — as long as you explain your reasoning clearly and back it up with credible research.

Here’s a simple example of how you might describe conflicting evidence clearly and concisely in your own writing.

Topic: The effectiveness of online learning in higher education

While Jones (2019) found that online delivery led to lower student engagement, more recent studies (Ahmed & Lee, 2022; Turner, 2023) highlight that well-designed online courses can produce outcomes comparable to in-person teaching. This suggests that course design and delivery style may be more important than the mode of delivery itself.

This more advanced example shows how conflicting findings can reflect not just different results — but entirely different theoretical approaches.

Topic: Causes of gender disparity in STEM fields

One study (Brown, 2020) uses psychological testing to suggest that confidence and risk aversion explain gender gaps in engineering careers. Another (Iqbal & Singh, 2022) draws on sociological data to argue that structural barriers and gender bias in recruitment are the main factors. These findings reflect not only different data but different theoretical lenses. Analysing both helps reveal the complexity of the issue and avoids relying on a single explanation.

As you apply what you've learned, keep these final checks in mind. They can help you stay critical and make clear, confident choices in your writing.

• Check assumptions — What does each author take for granted?
  
  
• Cross-check with your brief — Which sources speak most directly to your task?
  
  
• Use your own voice — Weigh up the evidence and say what you think (based on the research)

Useful questions to ask yourself:

• Have I explained why I’ve used one source over another?
  
  
• Have I shown the reader that I’m aware of the disagreement?
  
  
• Have I avoided simply picking the one I agree with?