MIS Quarterly recently published an extensive review of the Grounded Theory Methodology (GTM) inInformation Systems research (Wiesche et al., 2017). Our paper contributes to the IS research methodsliterature by reflecting on, commenting on, and elaborating on their review. Even though our paper isa commentary to a single paper, we provide it as a general argument in support of pluralist GTM researchpractice. Specifically, we argue that Wiesche et al. have omitted paradigmatic assumptions fromtheir considerations, which hides their positivist/functionalist single-paradigm framing. Paradigmaticassumptions are important, because what it is means for a 'theory' to be 'grounded' is a matter ofontology and epistemology. We make four arguments to advance GTM pluralism: 1) identification ofdifferent GTM generations may not be purposeful; 2) abduction should be acknowledged in addition toinduction; 3) GTM procedures are resources not necessities; and 4) theorization should be grounded inlocal meanings in the context of explanation.