arbiter
JournalsPricingAccount

Developing Critical Thinking, Ethical Reasoning, and Decision-Making Skills Using a Whistleblowing Case Study

Steven Mintz

Research on Professional Responsibility and Ethics in Accounting2024https://doi.org/10.1108/s1574-076520240000026008book-chapter
AJG 1ABDC B
Weight
0.51

What the paper says

Abstract This whistleblowing case study engages students in discussions about when and how to disclose differences of opinion on a revenue recognition matter with higher-ups in an organization. Factors to consider include the morality of whistleblowing, confidentiality obligations, the rules of conduct in the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) Code, Sarbanes–Oxley Act (SOX), Dodd–Frank, and the US Supreme Court ruling in Digital Realty, Inc. v. Somers that addresses when to report matters to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Case questions are designed to promote students’ critical thinking skills, ethical reasoning skills, and decision-making. A flowchart of AICPA ethics rule 2.130.020 (Subordination of Judgment) provides the framework for making decisions when differences exist in financial reporting. The case provides learning objectives, implementation guidance, and teaching notes. The case was used in an accounting ethics course taught at the undergraduate senior level but can also be used in auditing, fraud examination, and advanced financial reporting courses.

1 citation

Open paper page →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1108/s1574-076520240000026008

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{steven2024,
  title        = {{Developing Critical Thinking, Ethical Reasoning, and Decision-Making Skills Using a Whistleblowing Case Study}},
  author       = {Steven Mintz},
  journal      = {Research on Professional Responsibility and Ethics in Accounting},
  year         = {2024},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1108/s1574-076520240000026008},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

Developing Critical Thinking, Ethical Reasoning, and Decision-Making Skills Using a Whistleblowing Case Study

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.

Evidence weight

0.51

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.51 × 0.4 = 0.20
M · momentum0.53 × 0.15 = 0.08
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.