To deconstruct how Charmaz's constructivist grounded theory (CGT) evolved from the original ideas of Glaser and Strauss, and to explore how CGT is similar to and different from the original grounded theory (GT).The origins of GT date to 1967 with Glaser and Strauss's study of the treatment of dying individuals, applying an inductive method allowing for the development of theory without the guidance of a preconceived theory. CGT moves away from the positivism of the Glaserian and Straussian GT schools, approaching GT through a constructivist lens that addresses how realities are made.This article does not involve the collection and analysis of primary data; instead, academic literature written by leaders in the field of GT was reviewed to generate the ideas presented.Comprehensive literature review drawing on the 'integrative review' principles.When selecting a GT approach, the possibility of a congruence between the chosen methodology and the worldviews of the researcher's discipline and own outlook should be considered.The differences among the various schools of GT lie in their overarching goals and their perspectives of the nature of reality.Considering the alignment between the constructivist worldview and the field of nursing, CGT offers a valuable methodology for researchers in this area.