Prison life can be a difficult experience to adequately understand for an individual who has never been behind bars or for someone who has not been subjected to the criminal law and incarcerated. Researcher Muzammil Quraishi, a British Muslim, carried out a year of research from July 2001 to July 2002 investigating Muslim prisoners in the UK. Muzammil faces numerous challenges in his year-long research by investigating a total of three anonymous prisons. In doing so, Muzammil had overcome numerous obstacles, from the validity of generic research to the side effects of field research. This paper will separate three columns of obstacles that Muzammil faced, Technical Issues, which would outline the challenges that he, as a researched, had to adapt to due to the environment he was investigating. The second concerns political issues, which mainly arise from external interference; the most notable would be the September 11, 2001 incident. Finally, the third concerns administrative issues, which shine a spotlight on the regulations that Muzammil had to comply with in order to carry out his research in a legitimate manner. When conducting research, consistency is an essential part of combining multiple data sheets for the sole purpose of comparing data sets; however, the problem that Muzammil gets into is the variety of methods that must be employed. This falls slightly under administration; however, it is also a technical question, a question that addresses. Muzammil describes that each prison is “different not only in geography, history, and population, but also in terms of legal operation and corresponding security classification within the prison facility (Quraishi 455).” An example of some of the problems he talks about is how some prisons allow the tape recorder... middle of paper... apparently they were never informed of Muzamill's arrival (455, 456). Not only was this a nuisance for the researcher, but by seeing Muzamill escorted by a chaplain interviewees could potentially have a distorted view of Muzamill, something he appears to be desperately trying to avoid. This is suggested because he refuses to take on any leadership role such as that of Imam (456). It is clear that Muzamill had many obstacles in his research, variety of techniques employed, confidentiality, validity, Hawthorne effect, consensus, anonymity, and misplaced oversight by officials and administrative barriers that made it extremely difficult. As a critic, I fundamentally believe that Muzamill has performed exceptionally well in the face of all these dilemmas, taking into account how it affects everyone and finding a good balance between ethics and truthfulness to support his research.