This article takes its point of departure from an article by Kurunmäki, who illustrated how medical professionals in Finland adopted accounting techniques and practices in their roles. She, therefore, argued that the medical profession had become hybridized. Jacobs, however, questions this “hybridization thesis” and offers an alternative explanation, suggesting that the medical profession—at least in the United Kingdom, Germany, and Italy—was polarized. According to this view, accounting techniques and practices were adopted only by a subgroup of medical staff, leaving the fundamental values and practices of the wider profession largely unchanged. We revisit this debate through a semi-systematic review of literature from the fields of accounting, public sector studies, management and organizational studies, and healthcare research. We systematize, analyze, and discuss key insights from the different fields. The review is organized into two main streams: research that supports and extends the hybridization thesis and research that supports and extends the polarization thesis. The first stream is further divided into four themes that emerged from our analysis: hybrid roles and identities; hybrids as knowledge brokers and facilitators of organizational change; budgeting, accounting, and hybridization; and hybridization as practice. The article concludes with suggested avenues for future research.