>And if he sees no essential difference between AA diffidence and Al-anon
>intrusiveness, then IMHO he's made a mistake. The two approaches are
>diametrically opposed.
he didn't study al-anon. he studied AA. what he showed was how he, _as the researcher_ was pressured into discussing his drinking habits, despite trying to avoid such discussions in the first place. and, when he did engage, he was pressured into describing them as if they were signs of being an alcoholic. if you're a researcher, and you point this out to people, if you make it clear, then why on earth should any AA member, let alone the contact persons he asked for permission to study the sites, grill him about his drinking habits. what business is it of their's. furthermore, how do you explain my students' experiences. when they attended with parents or friends, they too were subjected to questioning to see if they had the telltale signs.
it's not an aberration, but a facet of social life. group membership hinges on learning to identify _as_ a member. and, with AA, they have some norms as to what constitutes membership. those who don't live up to the norms, drop out. BFD. all he did was show how AA wasn't magic, but normal social interaction.
you're quite open minded and a voracious reader, seems to me. i hope you take the chance to read it. nothing in it will offend you, i'm certain. i'm quite surprised at this overreaction, now.
kelley