# Professional Practice Analysis: Making Sense of Work Situations Together

Explore professional practice analysis: frame a work situation, consider multiple readings, and preserve the person’s choice.

- Canonical URL: https://www.harmate.com/en/blog/professional-practice-analysis-making-sense-of-work-situations-together
- Author: Harmate Team
- Published: 2026-10-04
- Updated: 2026-10-04T00:20:17.436542+00:00
- Language: en

## Content

# Professional Practice Analysis: Making Sense of Work Situations Together

Professional practice analysis (APP, from the French *analyse des pratiques professionnelles*) is a structured group reflection on work situations experienced and presented by the people involved. The group is not there to identify someone to blame or apply a ready-made formula. It helps describe the situation, examine several possible readings, and formulate options that the person can decide whether to explore in their own context.

APP covers varied arrangements. A research article on teacher education notes that protocol characteristics and group size can affect the nature of reflective work and participants’ perceptions of its usefulness. It is therefore better to describe the frame and facilitation choices than to present one method as universally effective ([Levain et al., 2015](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S126917631500005X)).

## Start with a bounded situation, not a judgment

A session has a clearer purpose when the group knows why it is meeting and what kind of situation can be brought forward. “This team resists change” already contains an interpretation. A more concrete description opens the situation to examination: “During the last two workshops, several participants stopped speaking after the small-group activity was introduced.”

That description does not yet explain why people went quiet. It invites the group to clarify the moment, instructions, room setup, what happened immediately before, and what could be observed afterward. The person involved chooses what to share and can correct the group’s restatement of their experience.

Before the session, clarify the frame:

| Framing question | Why ask it? |
|---|---|
| Who brings the situation, and what remains under their control? | The person retains ownership of the account and possible next steps. |
| Who is in the group, and what are their work relationships? | Hierarchy or evaluation relationships may change what can safely be said. |
| Which details need to be anonymized? | Indirect details can identify a situation or person. |
| Is the session for learning, decision-making, or evaluation? | APP should not be presented as a disguised performance review. |

## Do not conflate APP, peer consultation, project review, and supervision

These formats may all begin with work situations and use peer discussion, but they do not necessarily serve the same purpose. Boundaries vary across professional settings; this table is a framing aid, not a set of universal definitions.

| Format | Common starting point | Work sought | What the label does not guarantee |
|---|---|---|---|
| APP | A lived practice or situation presented by one person | Collective reflection, sense-making, possible avenues to test | A shared solution or diagnosis of a person |
| Peer consultation / codevelopment | A “client” brings a case to peers | Clarify the request, consult, then choose a next step | That the group has the answer or decides for the client |
| Project review / lessons learned | A completed project or period of work | Reconstruct experience, learning, and next steps | That the account proves why an outcome occurred |
| Supervision | A defined professional support relationship | Reflective work with a supervisor, within a frame and stance specific to the profession | That a workshop among colleagues is equivalent to supervision |

Our guide to [peer consultation groups](https://www.harmate.com/en/blog/peer-consultation-groups-help-a-colleague-without-deciding-for-them) describes one particular protocol; the [project lessons-learned guide](https://www.harmate.com/en/blog/project-lessons-learned-method-questions-and-an-adaptable-template) is organized around a project and its learning. If the need is to understand what happened in a specific interaction, APP may be relevant—provided the arrangement and facilitation experience fit the group.

## A sequence that protects reflection

There is no mandatory timing or number of rounds for every APP. The steps below name functions to support; they should be adapted to the chosen method and group.

1. **Restate the frame.** Revisit the purpose, agreed confidentiality, the right not to answer, and how notes will be used.
2. **Hear the account.** Let the person describe a bounded situation in their own words. Others avoid interrupting to offer immediate fixes.
3. **Clarify before interpreting.** Ask for factual detail: where, when, who was present, what instruction was given? Separate what was seen or heard from what was inferred. “What exactly did you say?” clarifies; “Why didn’t you prompt them?” already implies criticism.
4. **Explore more than one reading.** Peers ask questions and offer hypotheses as hypotheses. The person can confirm, qualify, or set aside a reading.
5. **Return to the person who brought the case.** They identify what they take away, what remains uncertain, and whether they want to test an option. The group does not choose the action for them.
6. **Close and protect what follows.** Decide together what may be recorded, what stays out of the report, and whether follow-up is wanted.

These functions are prompts, not proof that an APP has been conducted well. Specialized programs describe the importance of the arrangement, facilitator stance, and real situations from practice. The continuing-education program at HES-SO Geneva presents APP as collective, reflective inquiry supported by a trained facilitator ([HES-SO Geneva](https://visions.hesge.ch/analyse-des-pratiques-professionnelles-app)).

## Fictional example: silence after an instruction

A trainer brings a fictional scene: after an instruction for small-group discussion, two tables begin while a third stays quiet. Her first comment is, “They weren’t motivated.” The group treats that explanation as an interpretation, not a fact.

They reconstruct the sequence: what words were in the instruction? Did participants have a clear output? How much time remained? Did anyone ask for clarification? The trainer remembers that one table had not received the worksheet. This does not prove that the worksheet explains all the silence; it adds context to examine.

Peers might offer several possibilities: uneven access to materials, an overly open task, too little time, or hesitation about starting in front of others. The trainer can choose a small check for a later session—for example, ask one participant to restate the instruction before work begins. The group has neither diagnosed the participants nor proved a general cause. It has replaced an immediate attribution with questions that can be checked.

## Confidentiality, power, and notes

Confidentiality is more than removing names from a report. A combination of role, date, place, and event may identify someone. Before the session, say what will be recorded, who may read it, where notes will be kept, and how they will be deleted or anonymized. Do not promise absolute secrecy if organizational rules or the group composition cannot guarantee it.

Someone with managerial authority over participants can influence participation even without speaking. Depending on the purpose and context, it may be better not to include that person in the same group, to offer a different space, or to clarify that the session will not feed an individual assessment. These choices belong to the person responsible for the arrangement and should be stated honestly.

A useful record stays bounded: the starting question, factual details retained by the group, readings that remain open, the option chosen by the person, and any agreed follow-up. Avoid psychological profiles, participant rankings, or notes that convert a group hypothesis into an established fact.

## What APP cannot establish

A session creates situated reflection, not proof that a selected explanation is true in every case. It does not by itself measure competence, certify a person, guarantee improvement, or replace a full training arrangement or specialist support when needed. Hypotheses need to be checked against real work conditions.

If a team also wants to collect experiences from several participants before or after an arrangement, it can use an appropriate questionnaire or interviews, then examine the responses with their contexts and limits. A [semi-structured interview](https://www.harmate.com/en/blog/semi-structured-interview-guide-method-steps-and-15-examples) gathers an individual account within a prepared frame; it does not replace APP’s group work. A tool such as Harmate can help collect or import those responses, present themes with supporting verbatim excerpts, and prepare a report. It does not select the arrangement, facilitate the group, or decide what a situation means.

### Sources and further reading

- [Levain, Minary, Le Borgne, and Loizon (2015), “Analysis of Professional Practices in Preservice Teacher Training”](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S126917631500005X): research on how protocol and group characteristics relate to reflective work and participants’ views of the arrangement.
- [Certificate of Advanced Studies in Professional Practice Analysis — HES-SO Geneva](https://visions.hesge.ch/analyse-des-pratiques-professionnelles-app): a training program outlining peer groups, facilitator stance, and ethical dimensions.
- [L’analyse des pratiques professionnelles : quelques repères (Savoirs, 2020, in French)](https://shs.cairn.info/revue-savoirs-2020-2-page-11?lang=fr): context on the plurality of arrangements and their frames.