The application of grounded theory in social sciences is on the rise, but the misconceptions and difficulties in its application constrain the quality of researches. The purpose of this systematic review is to provide a reference for practical studies through the clarifications of common misconceptions in the application of grounded theory and proposals of specific strategies for the difficulties in its use. There are differences in the epistemology, ontology, and techniques of different versions of the grounded theory, but there are commonalities in the core principles. On the ground of these core facets, this article dissects the common misconceptions about using grounded theory. The misconceptions discussed here are as follows. Misconception 1: some studies of grounded theory neglect theory generation and narrow systemic methodology to coding procedures. Theories have explanatory power beyond description, so the application of grounded theory should focus on theoretical pursuits. The systemic methods can facilitate the theory generation more than the local method, so applying grounded theory should strengthen the systemic quality. Misconception 2: many researchers confuse theoretical sampling with purposive or initial sampling. Equating purposive sampling with theoretical sampling confuses the concept of different categories. It ignores the uniqueness of the theoretical focus of theoretical sampling, which means they cannot be used as synonymous terms. The theoretical sampling proceeds based on data analysis, but the initial sampling collects initial information. They are not the equivalents. Misconception 3: some researchers equate theoretical saturation with data saturation. The data saturation often manifests as repetition of data, while the theory saturation finds out varying patterns to the maximum and emphasizes the thickness of categories and theories. On this ground, it cannot be equated with frequency counting or data saturation. Misconception 4: some researchers often downplay memo writing and constant comparison but exaggerates mechanical coding. The memo writing and constant comparison promote category generation and theory development. The mechanical coding disengages from the actual conditions of researches. The coding procedure of grounded theory is not an unchanging formula; it needs increased attention on memo writing and constant comparison. Targeting the increased comprehensibility and accessibility of the grounded theory for the Novice, this article analyzes the strategies to apply its core principles through case analysis. These strategies proposed are as follows. (1)Conduct the theoretical sampling through diverse forms such as concept identification, continuous inquiry, identification of new locations, and participants characteristics. (2) Judge the theoretical saturation based on conceptual density, logical relationships between categories, and theoretical explanatory power. (3) Facilitate the appropriate coding procedure through compliance with the coding prescription and flexibility, group dialogue. (4) Write the memo in the form of free or thematic writing，with the help of a figure and table. (5) Carry out the constant comparison through similarities and differences, longitudinal and horizontal, back and forth comparison. Given the current misconceptions and difficulties in grounded theory study, this article proposes that research on applying grounded theory should focus on systematicity, standardization, and flexibility. In addition, researchers should develop diverse strategies to promote theory generation in the future based on the core principles of grounded theory and research practice.