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