How do i discuss conflicting studies in my literature review without derailing?

[Steven.R]

I’m drafting my dissertation’s literature review and I’m stuck on how to handle a few older studies that contradict my main argument. I feel like I should include them, but I’m not sure how to discuss them without derailing the section’s flow.

[RileyS]

I've kept a couple older studies that clash with my argument, and I treat them like a reminder that the landscape isn't settled. They sit near the discussion's start as a nod to what came before, but they don't drive the main claim.

[Ryan19]

I was worried they would derail the flow, so I tried to contrast their methods briefly and then pivot back to the main thread.

[Mason_H]

I drew a quick map of sources showing where the older conflicting work sits relative to the newer confirmations, and used that to justify keeping them in.

[NoraGH]

Could the real problem be that the conflict isn’t with the evidence but with how I’m framing the question?

[Aubrey_G]

I sometimes just mention the contradiction in a sentence and move on, but then I notice readers might want to see more.

[DennisM]

I tried to create a short counter evidence paragraph, but it felt forced, so I dropped it and noted it in a footnote instead.

[LarryJR]

One moment I drifted into thinking about why the earlier work argued that way after a long coffee break, then snapped back to the point; that detour reminded me to keep it grounded.