This article examines the findings of Parallel Lives: 25 years on and considers how social cohesion is shaped by psychological, neighbourhood and narrative factors. It highlights the limited attention given to media influences in the report and argues for a stronger focus on public purpose media as part of the civic infrastructure needed to support cross-group relationships. The piece discusses future research needs, policy implications and the role of local communication practices in building trust, belonging and shared understanding across diverse communities.
The publication of Parallel Lives: 25 years on arrives at an important moment for those considering the future of social cohesion in the UK. The findings set out a careful account of how people navigate the social, psychological and neighbourhood conditions that shape the likelihood of inter-ethnic contact. By looking closely at the drivers of mixing rather than only the outcomes, the research encourages a more grounded discussion of why interaction develops for some individuals and not for others, and why some places sustain opportunities for connection while others do not.
The attention given to neighbourhood diversity, feelings of belonging, personal dispositions and the wider structural opportunities for interaction offers a valuable foundation. What becomes increasingly evident, however, is the extent to which these factors sit within a narrative environment that is only briefly acknowledged in the report. The reference to dominant national and international narratives, especially online narratives about immigration, race and social mixing, recognises the role of media, but leaves open the question of how these systems shape the conditions in which contact either emerges or is suppressed.
This omission matters. Public attitudes do not develop in isolation, and neighbourhood experiences are not separate from the communication settings that influence how people interpret their surroundings. If inter-ethnic contact is shaped by opportunity, by a sense of motivation and by perceptions of safety, then the stories encountered each day inevitably influence how those opportunities are perceived and whether individuals feel able to take them. A household living in a mixed neighbourhood while immersed in divisive national or online narratives will experience that environment differently from one exposed to more considered or constructive forms of public conversation.
This gap opens the way for a clearer role for public purpose media. If the aim is to encourage social cohesion, then communication systems must be understood as part of the civic infrastructure rather than as an ancillary cultural feature. Public purpose media helps establish the shared narrative conditions that support understanding, trust and reflective engagement. Without this, the drivers of inter-ethnic contact become harder to sustain, regardless of the physical or demographic layout of a community.
Future research would benefit from integrating media more explicitly as part of the structural landscape. This involves recognising media as a determinant of contact, tracing how national and online narratives shape everyday expectations, and examining local media ecosystems to understand their influence on trust, belonging and the interpretation of social life. In many places, limited or fragmented communication provision can make it harder for residents to imagine common ground, even when diverse groups live in close proximity.
There is also a need to explore how media literacy and critical consumption relate to the psychological characteristics identified in the study. The degree to which people can navigate contested information environments may influence how they approach cross-group interaction and how they respond to tensions or uncertainty within their neighbourhoods.
From a policy perspective, it becomes essential to see communication infrastructure as part of the foundational economy. Public purpose media supports the everyday interactions and shared accounts of local life that underpin wider democratic and social processes. Understanding this relationship shifts the conversation from seeing media as a technical sector to recognising its role in sustaining cohesive communities.
At a local level, the development of shared communicative spaces becomes central. Community radio, civic podcasts, neighbourhood storytelling and participatory media projects give residents space to be heard and to hear one another. These practices reinforce the forms of belonging that the report identifies as significant and provide a way for people to engage with issues affecting the places they live. They also offer a practical means for researchers, practitioners and residents to explore how place, perception and social interaction shape everyday life.
Future research phases could be enriched by involving practitioners from journalism, community media, digital design and civic communication. Their insights into how narratives form, circulate and influence behaviour would add depth to the analysis and support targeted policy responses. Monitoring changes in local reporting, online discourse or communication infrastructure alongside the existing longitudinal work could strengthen understanding of how inter-ethnic contact evolves over time.
If the aim is to understand how people move from parallel lives to shared lives, then the stories circulating within and between communities become central to the discussion. Public purpose media, considered as a form of social infrastructure, offers a practical and meaningful way to strengthen that narrative environment. It helps create a space where residents can encounter one another through shared dialogue rather than through distant or distorted representations. With the findings of this report now in the public domain, the next step is to widen the conversation and ensure that communication practitioners, researchers and civic leaders work together to develop the environments needed for a more cohesive and reflective society.