The purpose of this article is to attempt to identify practices of resistance in supervision meetings, specifically the graduate student’s resistance in relation to the supervisor’s recommendations and advice. How do students account for their resistance in relation to the supervisor’s advice and recommendations? How do the graduate students enact their resistance in the interaction, and how does the supervisor relate to that? To answer these questions, practices of advice resisting in 24 re- corded supervision meetings from teacher education and journalist education in two different Swedish universities are analysed. The analysis is conducted within a conversation analytical framework including the concepts of preference structure and accountability. The results show that it is unusual to express resistance to the supervisors’ advice and recommendations. Four different kinds of advice resisting practices are however identified in the interaction, in which the students use different accounts. Following the supervisors’ advice:

– is too complicated and time consuming– has negative far-reaching implications– is contrary to what other authorities express/state – is contrary to the own ideas.

Both students and supervisors use hedging and mitigation strategies in relation to the practices of resistance. These and other interactional strategies indicate that both advising and resisting advis- ing is complicated and challenging.