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 |  UX Research Contextual Inquiry |  Facilitation Consensus Workshop |
|---|---|---|---|
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 work processes are known only from accounts and the real context stays hidden, Contextual Inquiry makes behavior at the workplace visible. Observation and follow-up questions together show how people actually work, get interrupted, and improvise. | When a group needs a solid decision without outvoting individual factions, a Consensus Workshop creates a negotiable common ground. It makes agreement, reservations, and open tensions discussable at the same time. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min | 1-3 Wochen | 1-3 h |
Participantsdifferent | 4-8 | 4-12 Beobachtungen | 5-30 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Field Notes, Workflow Insights, Pain Points | Consensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority Areas |
Tagsno overlap | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | UX researchObservationContext | FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
