Recent accounting research has connected the coercive and enabling types of formalisation (C/E) (Adler and Borys, 1996) with the distinction between diagnostic and interactive controls (D/I) proposed by Simons (1995, 2000) to tackle research questions on complex control situations involving both the degree of employee autonomy and patterns of management attention. The diverse conceptual approaches used for connecting C/E and D/I have led to fragmentation in the literature and raise concerns about their conceptual clarity. In this paper, we assess the conceptual clarity of various forms of connection between C/E and D/I. Firstly, we conduct an in-depth content analysis of 59 recent papers, and inductively identify three points of conceptual ambiguity and divergence in the literature (namely, the perspective from which a phenomenon is studied; whether categories capture choices driven by design or by style-of-use; and the properties of control systems). We also observe that the literature proposes various forms of connection (i.e. coexistence, inclusion, and combination approaches). Secondly, we use the three detected points of ambiguity and divergence as assessment criteria, and evaluate the extent to which conceptual clarity is at risk under each form of connection. Based on this assessment, we provide guidelines to enhance the conceptual clarity of the connections between C/E and D/I, propose several research models, and indicate opportunities for future research in this area.

最近的会计研究已将强制性形式化和授权形式化（C / E）（Adler and Borys，1996）与Simons（1995，2000）提出的诊断性和交互式控制（D / I）之间的区别联系起来，以解决有关以下方面的研究问题：复杂的控制情况，涉及员工自治程度和管理注意模式。用于连接C / E和D / I的各种概念方法已导致文献中的碎片化，并引起人们对其概念清晰性的担忧。在本文中，我们评估了C / E与D / I之间各种连接形式的概念清晰度。首先，我们对最近的59篇论文进行了深入的内容分析，归纳了文献中概念上的歧义和分歧的三点（即从现象研究的角度出发；类别是捕获由设计还是由使用风格驱动的选择；以及控制系统的属性）。我们还观察到，文献提出了各种形式的联系（即共存，包含和组合方法）。其次，我们使用检测到的歧义和差异的三个点作为评估标准，并评估每种连接形式下概念清晰的风险程度。在此评估的基础上，我们提供了一些指导方针，以增强C / E与D / I之间联系的概念清晰性，提出几种研究模型，并指出该领域未来的研究机会。和组合方法）。其次，我们使用检测到的歧义和差异的三个点作为评估标准，并评估每种连接形式下概念清晰的风险程度。在此评估的基础上，我们提供了一些指导方针，以增强C / E与D / I之间联系的概念清晰性，提出几种研究模型，并指出该领域未来的研究机会。和组合方法）。其次，我们使用检测到的歧义和差异的三个点作为评估标准，并评估每种连接形式下概念清晰的风险程度。在此评估的基础上，我们提供了一些指导方针，以增强C / E与D / I之间联系的概念清晰性，提出几种研究模型，并指出该领域未来的研究机会。