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 User Interviews |  UX Research Empathy Mapping |  Decision Making Cynefin Workshop |  Decision Making Argument Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When teams derive needs only from assumptions and real motives are missing, user interviews give direct access to behavior and meaning. Conversations from the target group's everyday life make patterns, tensions, and open questions solidly visible. | 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 problems are unclear, chaotic, or only seemingly familiar, standard recipes fall short. A Cynefin Workshop sorts situations by the nature of their problem and connects them with matching action logic. | When statements, evidence, and counterarguments get mixed up, a debate quickly loses its structure. Argument Mapping breaks a thesis down into its reasoning and makes visible what it really rests on. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Low | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min per interview | 30–60 min | 60-180 min | 1-3 h |
Participantsdifferent | 1 participant per interview | 4-8 | 4-20 | 1-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Cynefin Map, Domain-specific Actions, Sensemaking Notes | Argument Map, Evidence Gaps, Decision Rationale |
Tagsno overlap | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | ComplexitySensemakingDecision | SensemakingDecisionRationale |