rights training course. Opinions gathered can be grouped under headings (such as “very satisfied”, “satisfied”, “dissatisfied”) and thus quantified. This approach is more subtle than a simple quantitative method. It ­ provides means to disaggregate data and address perceptions and opinions. ­Nevertheless, such quantifiable qualitative indicators share some of the ­drawbacks of purely quantitative methods. They try to reduce complex and dynamic social ­processes to static and artificial categories. 2. Participatory indicators How data are defined, selected, collected and analysed determines ­whether quantitative or qualitative indicators are participatory or not. While non-­participatory indicators are externally imposed, for example by NHRI ­programme managers, participatory indicators are based upon the views of ­national ­institutions’ partners and beneficiaries of their activities or programmes. Such indicators are developed collectively through workshops, focus group ­discussions and participatory evaluations. Participation by stakeholders brings to light impacts that cannot ­necessarily be perceived from within an institution. Sometimes the information gained through a participatory approach will supplement that available from more formal ­indicators; at other times it may contradict such information. The quality of these indicators is certainly improved if all stakeholders, mainly beneficiaries and partners, as well as the body to which the national institution is accountable, are involved. Unexpected outcomes and intractable difficulties of interpreting data are likely to be minimised if there is input from all sides. An opinion survey: the end-of-workshop questionnaire Many NHRIs use end-of-workshop questionnaires to evaluate their training activities. Participants are asked to assess the training in light of their expectations and needs; they may also be asked to assess training techniques or the trainers. Organisers and trainers should also be invited to evaluate the quality of the activity. These are qualitative indicators, which can be grouped and quantified to establish whether the majority of participants found the training useful. They can help NHRIs to judge ­whether expectations and objectives – of the participants as well as the organisers – were met. Participatory approaches are criticised for being subjective. The interests and perceptions of different stakeholders may indeed be subjective. However, bringing a variety of viewpoints together may result in indicators that are less subjective than those devised in isolation, for example by NHRIs themselves. This said, the participatory approach has genuine limitations. NHRIs may find it difficult to define who their stakeholders are for any given set of activities. In the questionnaire circulated for this research, NHRIs were asked to define their “clients”. Most replied that they were everyone in the country. Some ­specified 26 Assessing the Effectiveness of National Human Rights Institutions