Building Professional Resilience in Accounting Higher Education: A Multi-Level Framework for the Digital-Intelligent Era
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54097/qwtbz064Keywords:
Accounting Education, Professional Resilience, Digital Intelligence, Curriculum Transformation, Artificial Intelligence, Higher EducationAbstract
Digital intelligence is changing how accounting information is produced, assured, interpreted, and governed, yet higher education responses often remain limited to adding isolated software or analytics courses. This conceptual paper investigates professional resilience as a more comprehensive basis for reforming accounting-related degree programs. Professional resilience is defined as the multi-level capacity of programs, faculty, and students to anticipate technological change, adapt learning and professional practice, and transform established routines while preserving accounting’s public-interest responsibilities. Through a structured synthesis of accounting education, professional learning, and resilience literature, the paper develops a framework comprising five mutually reinforcing dimensions: a purpose-anchored curriculum architecture, human–AI collaborative pedagogy and assessment, reflective and situated professional learning, faculty and organizational capability, and ethical and inclusive professional identity formation. The framework is translated into a staged implementation approach covering mission diagnosis, curriculum mapping, controlled pilots, institutionalization, and assurance of learning. Particular attention is given to constructive alignment, feedback literacy, responsible technology use, equitable access, and the avoidance of both technological determinism and defensive curriculum preservation. The analysis contributes a distinctive account of resilience that connects student development with program-level governance rather than treating adaptability as an individual trait. For universities, it offers design principles for building accounting programs that can revise themselves without abandoning disciplinary rigor or professional judgment. The framework is conceptual and does not claim empirical effectiveness; future research should examine its propositions through longitudinal, comparative, and practice-based studies.
Downloads
References
[1] Albrecht, W. S., & Sack, R. J. (2000). Accounting education: Charting the course through a perilous future. Accounting Education Series No. 16. American Accounting Association.
[2] Behn, B. K., Ezzell, W. F., Murphy, L. A., Rayburn, J. D., Stith, M. T., & Strawser, J. R. (2012). The pathways commission on accounting higher education: Charting a national strategy for the next generation of accountants. Issues in Accounting Education, 27(3), 595–600. https://doi.org/10.2308/iace-10300.
[3] Howieson, B. (2003). Accounting practice in the new millennium: Is accounting education ready to meet the challenge? The British Accounting Review, 35(2), 69–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0890-8389(03)00004-0.
[4] Bui, B., & Porter, B. (2010). The expectation-performance gap in accounting education: An exploratory study. Accounting Education, 19(1–2), 23–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/09639280902875556.
[5] Kavanagh, M. H., & Drennan, L. (2008). What skills and attributes does an accounting graduate need? Evidence from student perceptions and employer expectations. Accounting & Finance, 48(2), 279–300. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-629X.2007.00245.x.
[6] Jackling, B., & De Lange, P. (2009). Do accounting graduates’ skills meet the expectations of employers? A matter of convergence or divergence. Accounting Education, 18(4–5), 369–385. https://doi.org/10.1080/09639280902719341.
[7] Pan, G., & Seow, P.-S. (2016). Preparing accounting graduates for digital revolution: A critical review of information technology competencies and skills development. Journal of Education for Business, 91(3), 166–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2016.1145622.
[8] Sledgianowski, D., Gomaa, M., & Tan, C. (2017). Toward integration of Big Data, technology and information systems competencies into the accounting curriculum. Journal of Accounting Education, 38, 81–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaccedu.2016.12.008.
[9] Dzuranin, A. C., Jones, J. R., & Olvera, R. M. (2018). Infusing data analytics into the accounting curriculum: A framework and insights from faculty. Journal of Accounting Education, 43, 24–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaccedu.2018.03.004.
[10] Jackson, D., Michelson, G., & Munir, R. (2023). Developing accountants for the future: New technology, skills, and the role of stakeholders. Accounting Education, 32(2), 150–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/09639284.2022.2057195.
[11] United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). (2023). Guidance for generative AI in education and research. UNESCO.
[12] Duchek, S. (2020). Organizational resilience: A capability-based conceptualization. Business Research, 13(1), 215–246. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40685-019-0085-7.
[13] Sutcliffe, K. M., & Vogus, T. J. (2003). Organizing for resilience. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline (pp. 94–110). Berrett-Koehler.
[14] Lengnick-Hall, C. A., Beck, T. E., & Lengnick-Hall, M. L. (2011). Developing a capacity for organizational resilience through strategic human resource management. Human Resource Management Review, 21(3), 243–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2010.07.001.
[15] Martin, A. J., & Marsh, H. W. (2006). Academic resilience and its psychological and educational correlates: A construct validity approach. Psychology in the Schools, 43(3), 267–281. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20149.
[16] Yeager, D. S., & Dweck, C. S. (2012). Mindsets that promote resilience: When students believe that personal characteristics can be developed. Educational Psychologist, 47(4), 302–314. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2012.722805.
[17] Biggs, J. (1996). Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher Education, 32(3), 347–364. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00138871.
[18] Shulman, L. S. (2005). Signature pedagogies in the professions. Daedalus, 134(3), 52–59. https://doi.org/10.1162/0011526054622015.
[19] Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books.
[20] Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press.
[21] Carless, D., & Boud, D. (2018). The development of student feedback literacy: Enabling uptake of feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(8), 1315–1325. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1463354.
[22] Redecker, C. (2017). European framework for the digital competence of educators: DigCompEdu (Y. Punie, Ed.). Publications Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2760/159770.
[23] Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x.
[24] International Federation of Accountants (IFAC). (2019). Handbook of international education pronouncements, 2019 edition. IFAC.
[25] Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB). (2020). Guiding principles and standards for business accreditation. AACSB International.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Academic Journal of Education
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
