methodatlas
Compare

View methods side by side.

Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.

Criterion
Paper illustration for Fishbowl Discussion.
Facilitation
Fishbowl Discussion
Paper illustration of shared options, independently placed voting dots, and a highlighted shortlist.
Facilitation
Dot Voting
Paper session grid with two time blocks, three rooms, colored session cards and an open topic pool.
Facilitation
Barcamp
Paper illustration of the Consensus Workshop working structure.
Facilitation
Consensus Workshop
Purposedifferent
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.When a workshop has produced too many options and the group needs to condense quickly, dot voting makes preferences visible in a short time. It bundles individual votes into a solid signal for the next selection.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 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
MediumLowMediumMedium
Timedifferent
45-90 min5-15 minHalber Tag bis 2 Tage1-3 h
Participantsdifferent
8-803-2015-2005-30
Formatsame
WorkshopWorkshopWorkshopWorkshop
Outputdifferent
Discussion Insights, Observed Tensions, Follow-up QuestionsRanked list, Consensus signal, ShortlistSession Board, Session Notes, Community LearningsConsensus Clusters, Theme Titles, Priority Areas
Tags1 shared
FacilitationDialogueLarge group
FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization
FacilitationLarge groupLearning
FacilitationConsensusWorkshopAlignment
Add more methods