This study uses conversation analysis to explore advice delivery, resistance and its management in undergraduate face-to-face supervision, an under-explored setting. Its main focus is the tension between two different forms of knowledge: the supervisor's expertise and the student's experience. While the supervisor's efforts to help the student see where he has made a mistake succeed, when the student pushes back by invoking a vague authority or with his own perspectives, the supervisor backs down. An important contribution is its analysis of the teetering between advice delivery and joint orientations to preserving the student's competence, and the use of question tags and lived stories to resist rather than deliver advice. One implication is for supervisors to reflect on when persisting with advice, and when desisting with advice, is in the best interests of their students.
AntakiC. (1994). Explaining and arguing: The social organization of accounts. Sage.
2.
Badem-KorkmazF.EkinS.BalamanU. (2022). Pre-service language teachers’ resistance to teacher trainer advice on task design for video-mediated L2 interaction. Classroom Discourse, 13(2), 212–230. https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2021.2020144
3.
BlochS.AntakiC. (2022). How professionals deal with clients’ explicit objections to their advice. Discourse Studies, 24(4), 385–403. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614456221110669
ButlerC. W.PotterJ.DanbyS.EmmisonM.HepburnA. (2010). Advice implicative interrogatives: Building ‘client-centered support’ in a children’s helpline. Social Psychology Quarterly, 73(3), 265–287. https://doi.org/10.1177/0190272510379838
6.
ChenF.WangX. (2023). Oops! I can’t express this in English! Managing epistemic challenges by Chinese EFL peer tutors in writing tutorials. Text & Talk, 43(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2020-0139
7.
EdwardsD. (2000). Extreme case formulations: Softeners, investment, and doing nonliteral. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 33(4), 347–373. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327973RLSI3304_01
8.
EkbergK.LeCouteurA. (2015). Clients’ resistance to therapists’ proposals: Managing epistemic and deontic status. Journal of Pragmatics, 90, 12–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.10.004
9.
HepburnA.PotterJ. (2010). Interrogating tears: Some uses of ‘tag questions’ in a child protection helpline. In FreedA.EhrlichS. (Eds.), Why do you ask?” The function of questions in institutional discourse (pp. 69–86). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195306897.003.0004
10.
HepburnA.PotterJ. (2011). Designing the recipient: Managing advice resistance in institutional settings. Social Psychology Quarterly, 74(2), 216–241. https://doi.org/10.1177/0190272511408055
11.
HepburnA.ShawC.PotterJ. (2018). Advice giving and advice resistance on telephone helplines. In MacGeorgeE. L.Van SwolL. M. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of advice (pp. 153–174). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190630188.013.23
HeritageJ. (2012). Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(1), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.646684
15.
HeritageJ. (2013). Epistemics in conversation. In SidnellJ.StiversT. (Eds.), Handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 370–394). Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118325001.ch18
16.
HeritageJ. (2015). Well-prefaced turns in English conversation: A conversation analytic perspective. Journal of Pragmatics, 88, 88–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.08.008
17.
HeritageJ.LindströmA. (1998). Motherhood, medicine, and morality: Scenes from a medical encounter. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 31(3-4), 397–438. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.1998.9683598
18.
HeritageJ.RaymondG. (2005). The terms of agreement: Indexing epistemic authority and subordination in assessment sequences. Social Psychology Quarterly, 68(1), 15–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/019027250506800103
19.
HeritageJ.SefiS. (1992). Dilemmas of advice: Aspects of the delivery and reception of advice in interactions between health visitors and first time mothers. In DrewP.HeritageJ. (Eds.), Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings (pp. 359–419). Cambridge University Press.
20.
JeffersonG. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In LernerG. (Ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation (pp. 13–32). John Benjamins.
21.
KärkkäinenE. (2003). Epistemic stance in English conversation: A description of its interactional functions, with a focus on I think. John Benjamins.
22.
KitzingerC. (2013). Repair. In SidnellJ.StiversT. (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 229–256). Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118325001.ch12
23.
LabovW.FanshelD. (1977). Therapeutic discourse: Psychotherapy as conversation. Academic Press.
24.
LeylandC. (2018). Resistance as a resource for achieving consensus: Adjusting advice following competency-based resistance in L2 writing supervisorials at a British university. Classroom Discourse, 9(3), 267–287. https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2018.1480966
25.
LeylandC. (2020). Academic writing tutorials for international students: Deferring to an expert and follow-up advice. Language and Education, 34(3), 212–230. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2019.1682008
26.
LeylandC. (2021). The interactional construction of the academic reader in writing tutorials for international students: An advice-giving resource. Linguistics and Education, 61, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2020.100900
27.
MacaskillA.TaylorE. (2010). The development of a brief measure of learner autonomy in university students. Studies in Higher Education, 35(3), 351–359. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070903502703
28.
MandelbaumJ. (2013). Storytelling in conversation. In SidnellJ.StiversT. (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 492–508). Wiley-Blackwell. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/9781118325001.ch24
29.
MayesP. (2015). Becoming an ‘autonomous writer’: Epistemic stance displays and membership categorization in the writing conference. Discourse Studies, 17(6), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445615602375
30.
MishlerE. G. (2005). Patient stories, narratives of resistance and the ethics of humane care: A la recherche du temps perdu. Health, 9(4), 431–451. https://doi.org/10.1177/1363459305056412
PomerantzA. (1986). Extreme case formulations: A way of legitimizing claims. Human Studies, 9, 219–229. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00148128
36.
RaymondG. (2003). Grammar and social organization: Yes/no interrogatives and the structure of responding. American Sociological Review, 68(6), 939–967. https://doi.org/10.2307/1519752
37.
RaymondG.HeritageJ. (2006). The epistemics of social relations: Owning grandchildren. Language in Society, 35(5), 677–705. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404506060325
38.
SacksH.SchegloffE.JeffersonG. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735. https://doi.org/10.2307/412243
SchegloffE. A. (1988). Goffman and the analysis of conversation. In DrewP.WoottonA. (Eds.), Erving Goffman: Exploring the interaction order (pp. 89–135). Polity Press.
41.
SchegloffE. A.LernerG. (2009). Beginning to respond: Well-prefaced responses to Wh questions. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 42(2), 91–115. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810902864511
42.
ShawC. (2013). Advice giving in telephone interactions between mothers and their young adult daughters [Ph.D. Thesis]. Loughborough University. https://hdl.handle.net/2134/12142
43.
StevanovicM.PeräkyläA. (2012). Deontic rights in interaction: The right to announce, propose, and decide. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(3), 297–321. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.699260
44.
StiversT.MondadaL.SteensigJ. (2011). Knowledge, morality and affiliation in social interaction. In StiversT.MondadaL.SteensigJ. (Eds.), The morality of knowledge in conversation (pp. 3–24). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511921674
45.
StiversT.TimmermansS. (2020). Medical authority under siege: How clinicians transform patient resistance into acceptance. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 61(1), 60–78. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022146520902740
46.
SvinhufvudK.VehviläinenS. (2013). Papers, documents, and the opening of an academic supervision encounter. Text and Talk, 33(1), 139–166. https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2013-0007
47.
TaB. (2023). A conversation analytic approach to doctoral supervision: Feedback, advice, and guidance. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003265863
48.
TaB.FilipiA. (2020). Storytelling as a resource for pursuing understanding and agreement in doctoral research supervision meetings. Journal of Pragmatics, 165, 4–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2020.03.008
49.
TaB. T. (2019). PhD supervisory feedback practices: A conversation analytical study [Doctoral dissertation]. University of Melbourne, Australia.https://doi.org/10.26180/5c39d5b534988.
50.
TaB. T. (2022). Giving advice through telling hypothetical stories in doctoral supervision meetings. In FilipiA.TaB. T.TheobaldM. (Eds.), Storytelling practices in home and educational contexts (pp. 311–334). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-9955-9_16
51.
VehviläinenS. (2009). Problems in the research problem: Critical feedback and resistance in academic supervision. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 53(2), 185–201. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313830902757592
52.
VehviläinenS. (2012). Question-prefaced advice in feedback sequences of Finnish academic supervisions. In LimbergH.LocherM. (Eds.), Advice in discourse (pp. 31–52). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.221
53.
WaringH. Z. (2005). Peer tutoring in a graduate writing center: Identity, expertise and advice resisting. Applied Linguistics, 26(2), 141–168. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amh041
54.
WaringH. Z. (2007a). Complex advice acceptance as a resource for managing asymmetries. Text and Talk, 27(1), 107–137. https://doi.org/10.1515/TEXT.2007.005
55.
WaringH. Z. (2007b). The multi-functionality of accounts in advice giving. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 11(3), 367–369. https://doi.org10.1111/j.1467-9841.2007.00328.x
56.
WestM. (2021). I’m not going to tell you cos you need to think about this’: A conversation analysis study of managing advice resistance and supporting autonomy in undergraduate supervision. Postdigital Science and Education, 3, 198–222. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-020-00194-5
ZhangS. (2021). The epistemics of advice-giving sequences: Epistemic primacy and subordination in advice rejection. Discourse Studies, 23(6), 705–725. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614456211017394
