Welcome to the Hogwarts house-inspired evaluation attitude survey! Whether you’re a lifelong Harry Potter fan or only vaguely aware of Hogwarts, join this bit of magical thinking and let’s have some fun.
For those unfamiliar, the Sorting Hat was a legendary, enchanted hat at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. This sentient headpiece was imbued with the wisdom of the school’s four founders. At the start of every school year, the Sorting Hat was placed on the heads of new students to determine which of the four houses (Gryffindor, Ravenclaw, Hufflepuff, or Slytherin) best suited their personality and potential.
The following diagnostic is inspired by the Sorting Hat. What’s your primary orientation to policy and program evaluation? This tool hasn’t been validated: it’s a playful way to reflect on your instincts, preferences, and strengths. Treat it as a conversation starter, not a limiting label. You may identify with elements from several houses.
Try on the Sorting Hat. Which is your Hogwarts Evaluation House? Let us know in the comments!
Policy & Program Evaluation Attitude Diagnostic: Hogwarts Edition
For each of the five easy questions below, decide which statement best describes you. Don’t overthink it - go with the one that resonates most. Tally your responses: how many times did you answer A, B, C, or D?
1. When evaluating a policy or program, I’m most concerned with:
A) Whether it reflects ethical principles and stands up for those in need
B) The quality and rigour of the evidence supporting its impact
C) How it serves and involves everyone affected
D) How evaluation findings can be used to secure influence or resources
2. If I have to choose how to approach uncertainty in evaluation:
A) I’d rather speak truth to power, even if it’s risky
B) I’d look for more data, analysis, or a better method
C) I’d build trust by involving stakeholders in the process
D) I’d focus on how the uncertainty is communicated to the primary audience
3. My biggest frustration with evaluations is:
A) Ignoring values or equity concerns
B) Poor methods or weak causal links
C) Disconnected from real-world stakeholders and communities
D) Not strategic or actionable enough
4. Making evaluative judgements should primarily involve:
A) Weighing arguments for or against a conclusion, using values as the compass
B) Applying systematic logic, with structured tools like algorithms or spreadsheets
C) Working collaboratively with stakeholders to create shared meaning
D) Trusting the judgement that feels right, with rationale appropriate to the context
5. When sharing findings, I feel drawn toward:
A) Highlighting key moral or equity issues
B) Walking through the methodology and results in detail
C) Using stories and feedback from participants
D) Framing recommendations to fit strategic needs
Scoring:
Mostly A: Gryffindor - Values-driven evaluator
You bring courage and a moral standpoint to evaluation, ready to challenge norms for what is right.
Gryffindors approach evaluation with courage and a deep commitment to core values, championing principles like justice, equity, and the public good - even when it means challenging authority or prevailing norms. They prioritise alignment with social justice values over technical perfection, and willingly take risks to advocate for change. Gryffindor evaluators often highlight powerful stories of transformation and use their findings for advocacy. In making evaluative judgements, Gryffindors are likely to include all-things-considered reasoning, weighing different arguments and giving special consideration to whether judgements align with foundational values. Gryffindors sometimes need colleagues from other houses to nudge them back from impulsivity or stubbornness; not every situation calls for a crusade - sometimes, reflection and collaboration bring stronger results.
Mostly B: Ravenclaw - Analytical, evidence-centric evaluator
You thrive on data, theory, and intellectual integrity, seeking the best-evidenced answer.
Ravenclaws approach evaluation as an intellectual discipline, prioritising precision, methodological rigour, and conceptual clarity. They seek the most accurate conclusions through thoughtful design, statistical analysis, and a deep knowledge of evaluation theory. Ravenclaws revere evidence-based policy paradigms, where quality data and strong causal inference are central. A Ravenclaw approach often features randomised controlled trials (RCTs), advanced mixed-method designs, robust validity testing, and scholarly influence. When it comes to evaluative reasoning, Ravenclaws gravitate toward technocratic approaches like cost-benefit analysis (CBA), multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA), and other systematic frameworks to weigh evidence and reach a structured conclusion. While Ravenclaws’ commitment to accuracy and expertise is a major asset, a singular focus on methods may overshadow practical or stakeholder concerns. Ravenclaws sometimes need reminding that methodological perfectionism can be perceived as nitpicking or arrogance, and that a timely but imperfect answer may be more useful than a more precise answer too late.
Mostly C: Hufflepuff - Participatory, utilisation-focused evaluator
You ensure that evaluation serves stakeholders, builds trust, and is truly useful and inclusive.
Hufflepuffs approach evaluation with patience, inclusiveness, and a focus on service to stakeholders. They aim for results that are relevant, trusted, and genuinely useful for those delivering and receiving services. This attitude aligns with participatory, utilisation, and empowerment evaluation traditions, involving communities in co-defining criteria, ensuring transparency, and privileging stakeholder ownership over methodological prestige. Hufflepuffs favour collaborative evaluative reasoning, emphasising democratic and deliberative approaches to developing criteria and making judgements, centring the views and voices of stakeholders in developing meaning and value. While Hufflepuffs’ quiet perseverance is a key strength, they must take care not to become so focused on consensus, harmony, or process that evaluations lose their analytical edge or fail to challenge prevailing views when needed.
Mostly D: Slytherin - Strategic, adaptive evaluator
You use evaluation strategically for influence and tactically for navigating the political landscape.
Slytherins treat evaluation as a strategic tool, focusing on how findings can be leveraged to secure resources, enhance influence, and achieve long-term objectives. They excel at aligning evaluation designs with political realities and framing results to maximise strategic impact. In policy settings, this reflects a results-focused and persuasive communication style, where evaluation is just one element in a broader decision-making context. Slytherins can show deep loyalty and commitment to their circles. They pragmatically blend technocratic and democratic evaluation approaches, employing tools like Social Return on Investment (SROI), the power of a compelling narrative, drawing on intuition and tacit reasoning, trusting expert judgement, and remaining alert to opportunities for advantage. They know how to back judgements with evidence and argument when needed. Their talent for tactical adaptation is their superpower, but is best exercised when coupled with ethical accountability, ensuring the results they achieve are respected and trusted by wider audiences.
You may see aspects of yourself across several houses.
You can use this typology to reflect on your natural proclivities and potential growth areas in evaluation practice, or to build evaluation teams that weave together different kinds of magic. Or just bring it to the office end-of-year party and use it for laughs. I even made you a printable PDF version!
Let’s face it - there are more than four kinds of evaluator. Perhaps you don’t see yourself in these archetypes at all - perhaps instead you’re a Hagrid, bringing warmth, inclusivity, and practical know-how to connect stakeholders; a Dumbledore, guiding with wisdom and long-term vision; a McGonagall, upholding standards, discipline, and fairness while keeping the team grounded in purpose; a Snape, applying precise methodology, scepticism, and rigour to uncover what others might miss; or a Hermione, weaving together curiosity and diligence to solve complex problems. Or perhaps you’re a mediator and bridge-builder like Harry Potter. Whichever powers you bring, the strongest evaluations are a team endeavour, blending multiple evaluation personalities, and balancing head, heart, and context for credible, meaningful judgements.
Thanks for reading!
Hufflepuff! With a dash of Gryffindor 🙂 Fun and made me reflect… 😊
Very clever. I suspect 95% of the AES would select A’s and / or C’s. Governments tend to want a lot more B’s and D’s along with the A’ and C’s. Big mismatch and skills deficit across the profession.