‘People lie’: overcoming obstacles to incorporate social science research to biodiversity conservation

Despite the acknowledged importance of interdisciplinarity in biodiversity conservation, there is still resistance to incorporate social science research (SSR) to both conservationist thinking and practice. The reasons for such a resistance can be summarized in three general statements still commonly attributed to SSR, namely: it is of 'little use' and it has 'less methodological rigor' than research in the natural sciences and, above all, it is unreliable because 'people lie'. The current essay was developed based on the experience of participants of a community of practice (formed by professionals from different fields and sectors associated with conservation), as well as on discussions held in this space of collective learning. It addresses the limitations and misconceptions behind the aforementioned statements. SSR is not less useful in conservation and not less methodologically rigorous than research conducted in the natural sciences. When researchers are lied to, the problem does not lie on the research itself, but on the subject-researcher relationship. We herein argue that as conservationists become more familiar with SSR, and as principles like equity and justice are incorporated to conservation values and goals, both the importance and need of SSR in conservation become obvious, making the lack of trust between researcher and subjects no longer a significant concern. Increasing capacity, integrating and supporting are our basic recommendations for researchers, educators, managers and decision-makers in the conservation, teaching, publishing and funding fields, so that SSR can fully fulfill its role in conservation.