Human-carnivore conflicts pose significant challenges in the management and conservation of carnivores across the globe. Abundant research has led to generalizable insights into the causes of such conflicts. For example, conflicts predictably occur when carnivores have access to human food resources, particularly when their natural foods are scarce. However, similar insights into the effectiveness of interventions aimed at coexistence remains comparatively scarce. We hypothesized that this disparity might be reflected in a bias toward research focused on causes of conflict rather than interventions to address it. To test our hypothesis, we evaluated the content of studies on human–carnivore conflicts and coexistence in Canada and the United States from 2010 to 2021. We found that studies disproportionately focused on causes of conflict, with that discrepancy increasing through our study period. We also found a disproportionate focus on black bears and wolves and western jurisdictions, and a disproportionate use of observational (vs. experimental) approaches. Studies on conflict interventions were primarily directed at the carnivores themselves (e.g., lethal approaches) versus human elements (e.g., attractant management, policies), despite evidence that the latter are more effective. We expect that a shift in focus toward solutions-oriented research, integrating insights across geographies, taxa, social contexts, and disciplines, would facilitate effective interventions and foster coexistence, improving outcomes for people and carnivores alike.