Grounded Theory (GT) is an innovative research methodology, consisting of three prevailing traditions: Classic, Straussian, and Constructivist GT. Despite arising from the same root, and sharing a number of the original methodological techniques, Classic, Straussian, and Constructivist GT have nevertheless diverged to such an extent that they are neither homogenous nor interchangeable methodologies. They are differentiated by contrasting philosophical frameworks and conflicting methodological directives. Through a careful analysis of the literature, the authors propose that the incongruity of the three GT traditions hinges on three principal and paramount demarcations: Firstly, their contending coding procedures; secondly, their opposing philosophical positions; and thirdly, their conflicting use of literature. The authors argue that these three areas of contention represent the quintessential distinction between the three GT traditions. Accordingly, this article will illustrate and contrast the contending coding conventions, uncover the underlying philosophical positions, and explore the contrasting uses of literature embedded within Classic, Straussian, and Constructivist GT.