Focus Groups | Digital vs In-Person: A Post-COVID Governance Question

The pandemic forced focus groups online. That shift has stuck. Many organisations now default to digital platforms because they are faster to arrange and cheaper to run. But format is not neutral. It shapes participation, discussion depth and evidence quality. For those accountable under scrutiny, that matters.

Digital Sessions Change Behaviour

Online platforms alter how people engage. Contributions are shorter. Cross-discussion becomes more structured. Non-verbal cues disappear. The ease of joining and leaving reduces relational depth. If focus groups are meant to stress test options before publication, these differences are material.

NHS England continued digital engagement post-pandemic as part of the congenital heart disease review. Virtual sessions increased reach. But patient groups publicly questioned whether online formats allowed meaningful dialogue on complex clinical proposals. The challenge was not attendance. It was depth. Stakeholders argued that digital formats constrained nuanced discussion and made real-time challenge harder.

Digital Inclusion Remains Uneven

Online focus groups can widen geographic reach. But Ofcom’s recent UK Online Nation data confirms that digital exclusion persists across age and income groups. Post-COVID, the risk is no longer necessity. It is complacency.

Birmingham City Council faced criticism during 2023 equalities engagement following its financial crisis. Digital methods risked excluding vulnerable communities. The council responded by expanding in-person sessions. The issue was not legality. It was perceived fairness. When decisions are politically sensitive, perceived exclusion becomes reputational exposure.

Hybrid Formats Demand Deliberate Design

Hybrid focus groups are now common. In theory they offer balance. In practice they introduce facilitation risk. Remote participants speak less. In-room participants shape pace and tone. Facilitators divide attention between audiences, often unintentionally privileging those in the room.

Transport for London’s 2023 ULEZ expansion engagement included hybrid elements. Public commentary and political scrutiny focused heavily on whether formats enabled balanced participation, particularly for outer London residents. Format itself became part of the legitimacy debate. Hybrid delivery does not insulate against challenge. It can invite it.

Digital Records Are Now Part of the Scrutiny Trail

Digital focus groups generate recordings, transcripts, poll data and attendance logs. This strengthens documentation. It also increases exposure. The Information Commissioner’s Office is clear that digital communications are subject to disclosure obligations. Focus group recordings may be reviewable under Freedom of Information legislation or during legal challenge.

North Yorkshire Council faced scrutiny following its 2023 formation as a unitary authority. Digital engagement outputs were examined alongside decision documentation. The question was not whether sessions occurred, but whether evidence demonstrated intelligent consideration of views. Digital artefacts are no longer working documents. They are part of the record.

Where Organisations Misjudge Risk

Many assume that holding a focus group demonstrates engagement. Scrutiny tests something different. Was engagement fair? Was it proportionate? Could it inform the decision? Digital sessions carry particular risks. Disengagement masked by attendance numbers. Transcript detail missing from published summaries. Narrow participation presented as representative.

In-person sessions carry their own risks. Dominant voices. Weaker documentation. Accessibility constraints. Neither format guarantees defensibility. The post-COVID reality is that digital records are routine and public trust is fragile.

Format Is Strategic, Not Operational

The choice between digital and in-person focus groups is a governance decision. The question is not which format is easier. It is which format best protects the defensibility of the outcome.

Fairness and the Gunning standards are tested against substance, not convenience. A poorly designed in-person session will fail scrutiny. So will a poorly structured digital one. Focus groups provide qualitative depth that surveys cannot. But in a digitally recorded, politically sensitive environment, platform choice carries strategic weight.

Format must follow purpose. Design must reflect the level of challenge the decision will attract. In that context, ask not what is easiest, but what is most defensible.

---

How tCI Can Help

Quality Assurance
Independent review at critical stages of your engagement design. Our seven stage QA process ensures your focus group approach meets legal and good practice standards, assessing format choice, facilitation design and evidence documentation.

Early Assurance
Snapshot review during planning to sense check your engagement framework before fieldwork begins. Strengthens your approach and helps avoid costly missteps.

Bespoke Training Workshops
Sector tailored sessions that work with real projects, not hypothetical scenarios. Teams learn to design defensible focus groups, choose appropriate formats and document evidence properly. Half day or full day delivery for health, local government, planning and public service teams.

Contact tCI: hello@consultationinstitute.org