Teaching Risk Management and Control in Accounting Higher Education: A Judgment-Centered Pedagogical Framework

Abstract

Risk management and control are central to accounting practice, yet their treatment in higher education is often fragmented across auditing, management accounting, information systems, and corporate governance courses. Teaching can consequently privilege framework recall and procedural compliance over the judgment required to interpret uncertainty, challenge assumptions, and communicate responses. This conceptual paper examines how accounting-related degree programs can integrate risk management and control through coherent teaching methods and curriculum modes. Drawing on a structured synthesis of accounting education, risk and control, and professional learning literature, the paper defines judgment-centered risk capability as the capacity to frame objectives and context, diagnose vulnerabilities, deliberate over alternative responses, communicate accountable decisions, and learn from subsequent experience. It proposes an aligned pedagogical framework combining progressive case-based inquiry, interrupted scenario simulations, role rotation, dialogic debriefing, and workplace-connected learning. These methods are supported by authentic assessment through risk-framing memoranda, control rationales, decision logs, oral defenses, and reflective portfolios. Implementation is organized as a spiral curriculum in which foundational concepts are revisited across accounting domains with increasing ambiguity and stakeholder complexity. Particular attention is given to faculty collaboration, proportionate use of digital environments, inclusion, academic integrity, and assurance of learning. The paper contributes a pedagogical connection between risk frameworks and professional formation rather than another classification of teaching techniques. It offers universities design principles for developing graduates who understand that controls are organizational choices with behavioral and ethical consequences. The framework is conceptual and does not claim demonstrated causal effectiveness; future research should investigate its operation across institutional and professional contexts.