The authors examine one of the earliest systematic forms of qualitative inquiry to identify some of the boundaries needed in grounded theory designs to provide a small corner of clarity in the discourse about what is acceptable science from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) perspective. Beginning with an overview of grounded theory research as it was originally conceived and extended, the challenges for establishment of a uniform standard are put forth. Within this background and context, the authors report the results of a content analysis of a sampling of dissertation abstracts claiming to use grounded theory. Results reveal the need to clarify standards for different types of grounded theory research to help those facing IRB oversight. The authors assert that there are two useful sets of standards that should be applied to the assessment of the quality of a grounded theory design and researchers should not confuse the two. (Contains 3 tables.)