Pilot Project – Alternative Security Narratives in Colombia
In 2023, I began coordinating a pilot project on security from transformative approaches for Puentes, a leading organization in narrative change in Latin America. Over three years, we drove a sustained process that combined research on dominant security narratives, audience studies, co-creation of narrative pillars with civil society organizations, and narrative exploration grants, among other activities.
Throughout this process, the learnings have been substantial. We confirmed that the hegemonic security narrative is deeply rooted—not only in conservative sectors but also among those of us working to transform it, making narrative change far more challenging. We also learned that building alternatives without validating fear or acknowledging diverse experiences of insecurity reinforces the hard-line narrative, as it confirms the perception that those proposing other approaches minimize real problems. Additionally, we confirmed an important gap: although security is constantly discussed, that conversation is monopolized by the state, security forces, and media. What's missing is a broad, deliberative citizen conversation. I learned that a counter-narrative isn't about changing the story diametrically, but enriching it: with more protagonists, more narratives, and new values.
We're currently closing this first cycle, which functioned as a laboratory. For now, I'm sharing this video that summarizes our approach. I hope to share more news about next steps soon.
Research Agenda: Narratives, Evidence, and Security Decisions
This initiative emerged from conversations with Andrés Preciado, with whom I share a persistent concern about why many security policy decisions continue to favor reactive, punitive, and repressive responses that, rather than solving problems, often worsen them—even in countries and cities with technical capacity and access to evidence on effective approaches to reducing violence.
On the demand side—from citizens—we have some information about how preferences around security are constructed. However, on the institutional supply side, where policies are defined and justified, available knowledge is far more limited. From there, this research agenda was born: to better understand the decision-making frameworks and prevailing logics in the spaces where security policies are defined, to understand what decision-makers are maximizing, how certain narratives are reproduced within the state, and why certain policies persist even when evidence points in the opposite direction. The goal is to shed light on the gap between evidence and political decision-making, and explore how to close it.
While the research has a regional scope for Latin America, we began with an exploratory pilot phase in Colombia. This included a brief round of interviews with people who led security institutions, held decision-making roles, or were close to those spaces, as well as with editors and journalists, to test initial hypotheses and identify key dimensions. We hope to share the findings from this first phase soon.
This research agenda seeks to generate useful insights for organizations that support governments and produce applied knowledge, academic communities interested in their evidence having greater impact, and people within the public sector who influence how security policies are conceived. We also aspire to enrich the public and media conversation, expanding the frameworks through which security is understood and debated.