Right answer up there from Dr. Zino

Thank you Goerge Stoica, I am facing this problem with my supervisor on my phd work. But I am going to leave my results the way it came and I damn any consequences....findings should be left the way it is gotten than manipulating it and claiming to use conventional knowledge...George pray for me to overcome this situation

Every result from analysis should be based on the data that generated the result.  However, some results may be counter-intuitive or so-called negative results; but  they should be noted and explained as they appear without manipulations. That is the hallmark of integrity in research.

Absolutely right ! There should be no manipulation over unexpected  results.

But a bit another thing is :   "should all the negative results be mentioned" (???)

Very often (and everyone knows it) -  it must take (sometimes) much time - to understand  why from the view of common knowledge the experiment "went wrong".

To find the correct explanation - is maybe - the most valuable part of research !

It may sound naive - but our research is aimed for new findings !  Otherwise it would be time-killing= just a lost time

Leonid.

You have been correctly adviced and I am happy you have equally decided to follow path of academic honour. Manipulating research result could be a disservice to academic community in one hand and to the entire human race in another hand.

Research is dynamic hence your supervisor can equally learn from you but you must stand your ground intelligently and diplomatically insist on your finding (s).

Yes, your supervisor, but this is your own work and contribution. Stand by objectivity and God will equally stand by you.

Negative results can be reported based on the the type of research you are doing. It has a an implications for your research and for the recommendation

Thanks Dr. Amos 

Knowledge is "cultural", not really "common" or not. If you are in the field doing anthropological research, "common knowledge" may make visible the most important traits of that culture, and is therefore very important as data for the research. If you are investigating oral literature, common and shared poetic traditions must be studied as data. If you are doing research on the art world market, trends and fashions are essential to reckon with as essential for understanding why an artists is doing good or bad business. When polling preferences about the idea of a "good city", like Kevin did is his splendid book The Idea of a City, people's perceptions are the case in point, in view that feeling one belongs to a neighborhood is a perception, not a truth. In every period of historyI know of,  people, even scientists, believe that science is at it's peak and that knowledge has been achieved at last. But the truth is that new discoveries will point in another direction and prove that what we thought was authentic and final, was not because it was, actually, "common knowledge. "Common knowledge" is taken as truth, depending on the state of knowledge. And it musk be included in the research fact finding process precisely because it IS common knowledge.

Knowledge is "cultural", not really "conventional" or not. If you are in the field doing anthropological research, "conventional knowledge" may make visible the most important traits of that culture, and is therefore very important as data for the research. If you are investigating oral literature, conventional and shared poetic traditions must be studied as data. If you are doing research on the art world market, trends and fashions are essential to reckon with as essential for understanding why an artists is doing good or bad business. When polling preferences about the idea of a "good city", like Kevin did is his splendid book The Idea of a City, people's perceptions are the case in point, in view that feeling one belongs to a neighborhood is a perception, not a truth. In every period of history I know of,  people, even scientists, believe that science is at it's peak and that knowledge has been achieved at last. But the truth is that new discoveries will point in another direction and prove that what we thought was authentic and final, was not because it was, actually, "conventional knowledge. "Conventional knowledge" is taken as truth, depending on the state of knowledge. And it must be included in the research fact finding process precisely because it IS conventional knowledge.