David Coghlan’s article ‘Research as a Process of Change: Action Science in Organisations’ (IBAR vol 15, 1994 pp 119-130) provides a very clear introduction to action science. In doing so, he makes a very welcome contribution by showing the benefits that this often neglected qualitative methodology can make to social and management research. During the course of his argument he make some interesting comparisons between action science and ethnography; comparisons that warrant a little more attention. Coghlan argues (pl25) that the ‘ethnographic participant-observer role and the action scientist role are closely inter-connected and sharply distinguished’. This statement is undoubtedly true. However, during the course of his argument Coghlan discusses only one expression of ethnography. As a result his treatment of ethnography, while useful, is somewhat shallow at times. This, of course, is understandable as his focus is on action science and not ethnography. However, in the interests of raising the level of debate about qualitative research methods, it is useful to correct the ethnographic record!