Collaboration between experts and stakeholders from science and practice for tackling real-world, context-sensitive societal challenges.more

Image: td-netmore

Evaluation H

This method asks participants to answer a specific question by a) positioning themselves on a continuum and by b) listing positive factors (on the one side of the continuum) and negative factors (on the other side of the continuum) that influence their individual position on the continuum.

Strength of the method:The method supports giving equal importance to each participant to communicate his/her perspective regarding a specific question and to elaborate on positive and negative factors. By clustering the positive and negative factors, general themes for intervention can be derived. Thereby, the method links the discussion of participants viewpoints with the joint further elaboration of the issue at stake.
To be considered:
  • The method assumes a community of trust. Facilitators need to pay attention to the sensitivity of the question, and the familiarity and level of trust between participants
  • The STEPS centre describes a specific variation of the H evaluation, originally developed by Andy Inglis, see references below.

Read here about the rationale of the brief factsheets (in comparison to method profiles of the td-net toolbox).


The method aims to make different perspectives on a specific issue/question explicit, to illustrate plurality, as well as to highlight ‘outliers’ or more marginal views.

Location in td process phases:The method is useful for identifying different positions along a continuum, and can be applied creatively as such. It was originally developed for monitoring and evaluation purposes (Inglis 1999), but may also be applied in other phases, e.g. to learn about the perceived prevalence of a concept.
Bridging thought styles:

By inviting each participant individually to give his/her response and to position himself/herself, diverse perspectives of a given question or statement can be explored. By clustering the positive and negative factors stated, differences and commonalities between the perspectives are addressed. “Dialogue emerging from discussion can address dynamics between plural perspectives, including tensions, commonalities, gaps, or opportunities” (STEPS Centre).

Time required to implement the method:

At least 1.5 hours up to several hours, depending on the number and heterogeneity of participants, the familiarity amongst them and the issue to be discussed.

Preparation required:
  • Formulate a question or statement that has a continuum incorporated (E.g. How easy is it to…?, How important is it to…? )
  • Prepare flipchart and sticky notes
Expertise required:

Facilitation skills: Participants should feel comfortable, willing and able to give their perspective and reflect in response to others’.

Convener & participants:

Convener: Facilitator
Participants: Various stakeholders

Original resource: Guy, S., and Inglis, A.S. (1999) Tips for trainers: Introducing the ‘H-form’ – a method for monitoring and evaluation, In: Gujit, I., and Braden, S. (Eds) (1999) Learning from Analysis, Participatory Learning and Action Notes, Issue 34, International Institute for Environment and Development, London, pp84–87

For a detailed description of the method (online, open access), please visit:

Resource compilation in which it appears:

Provided by:ESRC STEPS (Social, Technological and Environmental Pathways to Sustainability) Centre
Recommended by:td-net