Rethinking High Streets: Why Stories Matter as Much as Statistics

By Azadeh Fatehrad, institutional lead for the UPEN Programmes ‘Place’ area of work, Professor of Art and Public Policy at Teesside University, and co-director of the Institute for Collective Place Leadership.

Across the UK, towns and high streets are under pressure to reinvent themselves – economically, socially and culturally. Data plays a central role in shaping these decisions, but what kind of data truly helps us understand places and the people who live in them?

At a recent panel hosted through our work at the Institute for Collective Place Leadership and the Darlington Economic Campus, colleagues from local government, national policy, and academia came together to explore a deceptively simple question:

How can qualitative, place-based insight better inform regeneration policy?

What emerged was not just a discussion about methods, but a deeper reflection on how we understand place, and who gets to shape its future.

Quantitative data is often the starting point for decision-making. It tells us where investment is flowing, how footfall is changing, and which areas are growing or declining. But as several speakers noted, these numbers can sometimes tell an incomplete, or even misleading, story.

In one example, strong economic indicators masked a lack of collaboration and innovation within a local business ecosystem. In another, data suggested weak spending in a town centre, when in reality residents were simply travelling elsewhere to spend their money due to a lack of local offer.

These gaps point to a crucial distinction:

• Quantitative data tells us what is happening
• Qualitative insight helps us understand why

Without that “why,” policies risk addressing the wrong problem.

Across the discussion, there was a shared recognition that lived experience is not anecdotal. It is essential evidence.

Whether through interviews, community workshops, walking methodologies or informal conversations, qualitative approaches reveal the textures of everyday life: how people move through spaces, what they value, what they avoid, and what remains unseen in formal datasets.

These insights often surface the unexpected. From accessibility challenges in public transport to perceptions of safety, stigma or belonging, qualitative work exposes the subtle dynamics that shape how places are used and felt.

Quantitative data tells us what is happening. Qualitative insight helps us understand why.

One of the clearest messages was that qualitative engagement is most powerful when it happens early.

Too often, communities are consulted after decisions have already been made. At that stage, engagement becomes reactive rather than generative. Involving communities at the start of the process helps define the problem itself, ensuring that policies respond to real needs rather than assumptions.

But meaningful engagement requires more than method. It requires trust.

And as was candidly acknowledged by our panel, trust cannot be assumed. Many communities begin from a position of scepticism, shaped by previous experiences of tokenistic consultation. Building trust takes time, transparency, and a willingness to listen, even when the answers are complex or inconvenient.

If qualitative research offers depth, its impact depends on how it is communicated.

A recurring theme was the importance of storytelling, not as simplification, but as translation. Policymakers and stakeholders are more likely to engage with narratives that connect data to human experience, like a resident describing their home, a business owner explaining daily challenges and a community articulating its aspirations.

These stories do not replace data, but they do make it meaningful.

Qualitative approaches reveal the textures of everyday life: how people move through spaces, what they value, what they avoid, and what remains unseen in formal datasets.

Despite widespread recognition of its value, embedding qualitative insight in policy remains difficult. Our participants highlighted a range of barriers, including:

• Limited time and resources
• Institutional processes that are designed for quantitative outputs
• Difficulty accessing existing research
• Fragmentation between academia, policy, and practice

At the same time, opportunities are emerging. New collaborations, policy fellowships, and networks are beginning to bridge these gaps. Digital tools and AI also offer potential to analyse large volumes of qualitative data, although always with careful attention to nuance and ethics.

Perhaps the most important takeaway from the session is this:

Better policy requires a shift from making decisions about communities to making decisions with them.

This is not simply about adding qualitative methods to existing processes. It is about rethinking how knowledge is produced, shared, and valued.

For those of us working in place leadership, the challenge and opportunity is clear. We must continue to build infrastructures, partnerships, and practices that bring together data, stories, and lived experience in meaningful ways.

Because if we are to reimagine our high streets and town centres, we must first listen more carefully to the people who shape them every day.

Next steps

Looking ahead, this conversation will continue through a series of upcoming workshops and collaborative discussions hosted through the Institute for Collective Place Leadership and the Darlington Economic Campus. Following the recent workshop held this month, a further session is planned for June, bringing together colleagues from policy, academia, and community practice to explore how participatory and qualitative approaches can better inform regeneration and place-based policymaking.

These workshops aim not only to share insights, but to build longer-term collaborations around community engagement, storytelling, and evidence-informed place leadership.

Those outside existing UPEN programmes who are interested in getting involved are encouraged to explore the UPEN Participation Fund, which supports engagement with network activities and collaborative initiatives.