Conflicting information is a common challenge for writers, especially when researching complex or controversial topics. How can you deal with contradictory sources, opinions, or data without compromising your credibility, accuracy, or ethics? Here are some tips to help you handle conflicting information in your writing.
The first step is to evaluate the quality and reliability of the sources that provide conflicting information. Consider their authority, reputation, currency, purpose, and evidence. Look for indicators of bias, agenda, or misinformation. Check if the sources cite their own sources and how they interpret them. Compare and contrast the sources with each other and with other relevant sources. Use critical thinking and logic to identify the strengths and weaknesses of each source.
It is crucial for writers to evaluate their sources carefully. Examine the authority and dependability of the sources when presented with conflicting information. Examine their standing, relevance, and goal while keeping an eye out for any prejudice or false information that might exist. It is critical to assess how sources cite their own sources and interpret data. Analyze each source critically and logically to determine its advantages and disadvantages. You may develop a knowledgeable perspective and create trustworthy material by doing this.
During my research I review multiple sources of information. If I find conflicting information in one source but no others, I can safely assume the information isn’t legitimate. However, if the discrepancies are found in multiple sources, then that is when I have to verify their source of information. If I’m writing about a public figure then I will research their social media and public statements to verify if they said something or not, which is another way to verify if the information is legitimate or not.
The second step is to acknowledge the existence and nature of the conflict in your writing. Don't ignore, hide, or dismiss conflicting information as irrelevant or invalid. Instead, explain the reasons and context for the conflict and how it affects your topic or argument. Be transparent and honest about your own perspective and position. Use phrases like "according to", "however", "on the other hand", or "some critics argue" to signal the different viewpoints and sources.
Ignoring conflicting information is a great way to invalidate your own point, for as soon as someone discovers said conflict, they'll have to wonder why you didn't even make an effort to acknowledge it. It makes it seem like you had no counterpoint, thereby weakening your position. If your research is thorough and your argument is sound, you should be able to acknowledge said conflict, discuss it maturely, and ultimately showcase why your point is the valid one through proper sourcing, evidence, and logic. This will in turn strengthen your position, as it shows you are open to other ideas, and can back up your arguments against them.
The third step is to analyze the implications and consequences of the conflicting information for your writing. How does it support or challenge your main point, thesis, or claim? How does it affect your audience, purpose, or tone? How does it relate to the broader context or background of your topic? How does it influence your assumptions, questions, or gaps? Use evidence, examples, and reasoning to support your analysis and show how you have considered the different perspectives and sources.
Recency is an important consideration, too. In many scientific fields, new information causes us to rethink or reject older points of view that are now seen as outdated. If you're writing about a field where fresh information has redefined everyone's sense of what's true, you may still want to acknowledge what the older beliefs were. But make clear that those old concepts are now being reassessed in the light of new evidence
Look behind the 'information'. What tacit assumptions is it making? Do the conflicting pieces of information share the same tacit assumptions or not? Are those assumptions true or false? Also, who paid, funded and publicised the new information (and the old information) for that matter? Did they have an agenda promoting it?
The fourth step is to synthesize the conflicting information and create a coherent and cohesive narrative or argument. Synthesizing means combining, integrating, or reconciling the different pieces of information in a way that makes sense and adds value to your writing. It does not mean simply summarizing, repeating, or agreeing with everything. It means finding connections, patterns, themes, or insights that emerge from the conflict and that advance your writing. Use transitions, headings, and subheadings to organize your synthesis and guide your readers.
If you spend all of your time talking about the grains of sand, you might forget that you were talking about time to begin with, and that sand falls through an hourglass.
The fifth step is to cite the sources that provide conflicting information in your writing. Citing means giving credit to the original authors or creators of the information and providing references for your readers to locate and verify the sources. Citing is essential for avoiding plagiarism, respecting intellectual property, and demonstrating academic integrity and professionalism. Use a consistent and appropriate citation style, such as APA, MLA, or Chicago, and follow the rules and conventions for formatting and punctuating your citations.
The sixth and final step is to review your writing and check for any errors, inconsistencies, or gaps in your handling of conflicting information. Read your writing aloud, ask for feedback, or use a proofreading tool to identify and correct any spelling, grammar, punctuation, or syntax mistakes. Make sure your writing is clear, coherent, concise, and complete. Ensure that you have addressed the conflict adequately, fairly, and respectfully. Revise and edit your writing as needed to improve its quality and effectiveness.
We work with local government bodies around the globe. These are political organisations. How local politicians see facts and state facts can be different according to their perspectives and lived experience. As a non-partisan organisation, we have to be really careful about balancing tone. If something is a particularly contentious issues, it can help imagine how opposing politicians might read it as a formal thought exercise (especially if it doesn't align with your own personal views). That doesn't mean we can alter facts, but we can seek address bias.
If we can see further, always remember its because we stand on the shoulders of giants (to paraphrase Newton) that have gone before. So, eliminate hubris, be respectful of the past but also always have the humility to make space for the future