What's the best way to handle conflicting information in a report?

It is always foremost important to validate the source of any numbers (data) or claims (info) being shared by anyone. Even when it comes to numbers, it is easy for people to miss out on the fact that they can be easily made to support either side of an argument. Thus, when checking the sources, even if a legit source exists, one should know about the motivations which drive that source.

While AI language models present exciting potential, they also open the door for a rapid rise in conflicting information, including unfounded AI hallucinations. This means that we must be more alert than ever, ready to question the errors and biases that are embedded in online content. Whenever possible, turn to the experts. Build relationships with industry professionals who can provide a quote or clarification. If you must rely on your own research, trust the sources that have a longstanding reputation of expertise and credibility. For example, to confirm medical facts, go straight to Mayo Clinic and avoid online forums and promoted blogs. It sounds simple, but in the flurry of research, we can sometimes overlook the obvious.

Broaden your horizons by seeking out additional perspectives on the subject matter. Engage with experts, consult reputable journals or publications, and participate in relevant forums or discussions. Dig deeper into the methodologies used to gather and analyze the conflicting data. Evaluate factors such as sample size, study design, data collection methods, and statistical analysis. Look for any potential biases or limitations that could influence the findings. Understanding the nuances of the methodologies employed will provide insights into the reliability and validity of the conflicting information.

Well Said Kathy Serenko! Funny with all the tech it's still wise to trust your gut and the old tried and true sources. Just because it is online it does not mean it is true. There is a line between using AI to predict/anticipate and using it to steer thoughts and behaviors off a cliff

It's always important to have multiple credible sources of information. Be able to match in some cases online articles to reputable news station websites or newspapers. Although, in media it's important to be first, but sometimes you have to sit on information and check your resources.

Indeed. When it comes to different numbers or stats, the approach to get to those outcomes needs to be considered. In the case of my work, another leading research agency in the field had a different number to us that we also cited and explained why there was a difference (they had different groupings in their methodology excluded certain dynamics). It's better to acknowledge the difference and explain it - rather than ignore it.

I agree with that, always research outside the box outside the majority belief within that box. Not in just one area but in a variety and then you have a clear view of the full picture both inside and out.

It's always important to explain differences in your report. It shows that you've consulted various sources of information and are able to understand how each has come to their respective conclusion.

Context is key in resolving conflicting information. Consider the broader context in which the information was produced. Are there cultural, temporal, or disciplinary factors that could account for the differences? For example, a study on climate change from the 1980s might conflict with a recent one due to advancements in technology and understanding over time. Acknowledging this context can help reconcile the conflicting information.

When conflicting information cannot be reconciled, it's important to present both sides of the issue. This approach maintains the integrity of your report and allows readers to make their own informed judgments. Clearly present the conflicting information, explain the possible reasons for the conflict, and provide your own reasoned perspective based on your research.

One thing I have found useful in synthesizing and integrating conflicting information is to take a step back to look at the overall context. Oftentimes seemingly opposing data or views are simply perspectives from opposite ends of the spectrum which add depth of understanding. A report that acknowledges divergent views and outlier information enables better decision-making.

In synthesizing, it's especially useful to note what differing perspectives agree upon. Further, it's important to make a distinction between information and conclusions. Let's say there's a glass filled 1/3 the way with water on the table. One person says there's only 1/3 of the water left because we squandered the first two thirds on drinking. LET'S STOP DRINKING! Another person says we have 2/3s of that glass we can still fill with water. LET'S GET POURING! We could argue all day about 'pouring' and 'drinking', but at the end of the day, there's still 1/3 of a glass of water on the table. People lend credibility to the guy who observes this and states it clearly.

Be transparent about the limitations of your findings and any unresolved conflicts. Acknowledge that conflicting information exists and explain the potential impact it may have on the overall conclusions and recommendations of the report.

Avoid making a straw-man argument of the counter argument as it’s essential for credibility. This ensures readers know we are fully aware of the alternatives views (and consider them), and then we follow this by providing a clear indication of the rationale behind our argument. This also involves comparing apples to apples, while also ensuring that the factors of comparison are proper indication of the output/results e.g., using GDP to analyze an economic output, not mortality rate. Acknowledgment and justification begins in the very research framework we adopt.

If you receive conflicting information on a report, you can potentially create a section of your paper to address counterarguments. In this section, you can address conflicting information and why you feel this does not detract from your thesis. Counterarguments are actually effective ways to make your paper stronger because they show that you have done all of your research and still have come to the same conclusion.

The simplest thing you can do is provide a draft to people who are on both (or all) sides of the issue. Ask: 1. Do you find the information expressed in this article to be reasonable? Why or why not? 2. If you could further clarify something in this article, what would it be? Incorporate the feedback that is meaningful and reasonable. We humans like to feel heard. You can use this article to give people a voice.

I am pretty much seconding what was said before. When you write a paper, you really should be researching and collecting evidence before you draw a conclusion. You do not want to have a set opinion and look for sources that corroborate this.

Be willing to change your mind. Always allow for the possibility that you are wrong. If the conflicting information can be synthesized into a new argument, do so. For example, when citing your sources, clarify which source is which by telling the audience, “Jones, et al. argue X.” The conflicting information would be added as “Smith, et al. argue Y.” Examples of synthesized arguments might be: “In some cases, X. In others, Y.” “It appears that X, but Y is true.” “X is the case from one perspective, but Y is the case from another perspective. This is because Z.”

NOTE: The perspective shared here is 1 of 5 🐝s due to space limit. Get theBEe🐝s that are omitted on our profile. 🐝1. The issue of how to deal with conflicting information in a report is always an important one and is particularly a critical one in this day because of severe social members disintegration verging on exacerbation due to technological advancements, and especially the advent of the availability of artificial intelligence (AI). The perspectives shared to this article are spot on in prescribing many of the essential means to properly addressing the dilemma that writing, and particularly journalism, faces in this modern climate of disingenuousness and ability for bad actors to deceive audiences with propaganda and fake news.

If you're still unsure how to handle conflicting information, don't hesitate to seek expert opinions. Reach out to professionals in the field, consult with your colleagues, or engage with academic communities. These individuals or groups can provide valuable insights and may help you navigate the conflict in your report.