Blame attribution and accountability in Palestinian academic discourse: a discursive analysis of student-instructor communication

This research examines how Palestinian university students use discursive practices to negotiate blame and accountability with their instructors regarding academic performance. Drawing on discursive psychology, the study analyzed student messages to explore how they explain low grades and negotiate outcomes. Three primary discourses were identified: Expectation Discrepancy, Should-Be-Otherwise, and Failure-as-Something-Else. Findings show that students frequently shift responsibility for poor performance onto external factors, such as instructors’ decisions, socio-economic pressures, and societal expectations. They employ discursive devices, including contrasts, extreme case formulations, and stake inoculation, to manage their academic identities and mitigate personal accountability. The study highlights the socio-cultural and economic contexts shaping students’ perspectives in Palestine, where academic success is often viewed not solely as an individual effort but as linked to familial, societal, and economic pressures. By examining these discourses, the research contributes to understanding how culture and socio-economic conditions intersect with education, shaping accountability and identity management. The findings underscore the importance of considering these broader contextual factors in studies of student discourse and call for future research to investigate how similar practices manifest across diverse educational settings globally.