From Grounded Theory to Grounded Theorizing in Qualitative Research INTRODUCTION theory’ (GT) has achieved canonical status in the research world (Locke, 2001). Qualitative researchers, in particular, have embraced GT, although often without sufficient scholarship in the methodology (Gephart, 2004; Partington, 2000, 2002). The tendency has been to con sider GT a qualitative research approach while ‘ignoring its quantitative roots and its inherent flexibility as a general research methoxiology amenable to a range of epistemological per- spectives and research paradigms (Glaser, 2003, 2005; Holton, 2008). Consequently, we have seen a range of methodologies claiming GT status (Birks and Mills, 2011, 2015; CCharmaz, 2000, 2006, 2014a; Gioia et al., 2013; Goulding, 2002; Redman-MacLaren and, Mills, 2015; Strauss and Corbin, 1990, 1998; Urquluart, 2013). Over time, GT has emerged as synonymous with a more general term, “grounded theorizing’ (Langley, 1999; Locke, 2007) or ‘grounded analysis’ (Johnson and Judith A. Holton Harris, 2002: 113). Walsh et al. (2015a) st gest that “[¢)his blurring of terms is atthe heart of the persistent “rhetorical wrestle” (Glaser, 1998) surrounding grounded theory’ (p. 625). Given the interpretations and approaches, this chapter addresses important distinctions between GT as a general research methodology and its popularization as an evolving and pluralistic approach under the umbrella of qualitative research (Charmaz, 2009). The perspective offered here is thatthe term ‘grounded theory’ should be reserved for work that respects the original intention of the classic methodology; ie. the system- atic generation of theory from data presented as a core category, abstract of the descriptive details of people, time and place, to concep- tually explain a main concern in the area under study and its continual processing or resolution, To illustrate this distinction, this chapter begins with a brief overview of GT's, origins, foundational pillars and methodolog- ical principles then continues by addressing the methodological drift to the more general