View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  UX Research Empathy Mapping |  Facilitation Barcamp |  UX Research Affinity Diagramming |  Facilitation Fishbowl Discussion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When a lot is assumed about a target group but little is seen jointly, empathy mapping makes knowledge and gaps directly comparable. The picture also shows which assumptions hold up and where evidence is missing. | When many people can contribute knowledge and the flow should stay open, Barcamp provides a framework for self-organized sessions. The format channels energy without defining the content too narrowly in advance. | When research notes, feedback, or observations sit unconnected side by side, affinity diagramming sorts the raw material into solid themes. Many individual points turn into patterns that make decisions and opportunities clearer. | When a controversial topic needs depth and discipline at the same time, Fishbowl Discussion makes the structure of the conversation transparent. The format keeps the core small enough for real dialogue and open enough for controlled turnover. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min | Halber Tag bis 2 Tage | 45–90 min | 45-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 4-8 | 15-200 | 3-10 | 8-80 |
Formatsame | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Session Board, Session Notes, Community Learnings | Theme clusters, Insight statements, Opportunity areas | Discussion Insights, Observed Tensions, Follow-up Questions |
Tagsno overlap | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | FacilitationLarge groupLearning | SynthesisQualitativeRoot cause | FacilitationDialogueLarge group |