Purpose: This paper is a comment on Gurd's paper published in QRAM 5(2) on the use of grounded theory in interpretive accounting research. Methodology: Like Gurd, we conducted a bibliographic study on prior pieces of research claiming the use of grounded theory. Findings: We found a large diversity of ways of doing grounded theory. There are as many ways as articles. Consistent with the spirit of grounded theory, the field suggested the research questions, methods and verifiability criteria. From the same sample as Gurd, we arrived at different conclusions. Research limitations: In our research, we did not verify the consistency of claims with grounded theory. We took for granted that the article authors had understood and made operational the suggestions of the founders of the method. Practical implications: The four canons of grounded theory can be considered as reference marks rather than as the rules of the method. Accordingly, the researcher is free to develop his or her own techniques and procedures. Originality/Value of the paper: This paper stimulates debate on grounded theory based research. On the other hand, it conveys the richness and the variety of interpretive research. Two similar studies, using similar samples and methods, arrive at different (divergent) conclusions.