Grounded Theory (GT) methodology was originally proposed as an alternative to hypothetic deductive methods, aiming at creating new knowledge on the basis of the emergence of latent social patterns. While this ambition of creating fresh knowledge seems appropriate, there are difficulties inherent to the development of innovative and creative grounded theories (Fendt & Sachs, 2008 ; Guillemette, 2006 ; Shalley et al., 2000). However, creativity is an under evoked issue in the literature on GT. Mentions of creativity in GT literature is either diffuse (Charmaz, 2000 ; Glaser & Strauss, 1967 ; Strauss & Corbin, 1990) or scant (Dey, 1999 ; Douglas, 2003 ; Fendt & Sachs, 2008 ; Goulding, 2001 ; Locke, 2001 ; Wells, 1995). Our communication contributes to clarify to what extent creativity has a place in GT as well as how to enhance it. We first discuss the implications of epistemological choices underlying different versions of GT on the role of creativity in the research process. From early works of the pioneers (Glaser and Strauss, 1967), new GT versions have been developed, either focusing on the tactics to develop grounded theories in a practical way (Corbin & Strauss, 1990, 2008 ; Strauss & Corbin, 1990, 1998) or on its epistemological background (Charmaz, 2000, 2006). We show that the quest for creativity differs among these existing GT approaches. We also present three creativity-enhancing strategies to help researchers in their quest for creativity. We derive from our almost 10-year experience of developing GT as researchers and instructors to show how these strategies lead to creativity. We do not ambition to give an exhaustive set of techniques and strategies, but we focus on three of them, namely the collective work, the use of art knowledge, and in vivo creativity.
