Two kinds of difficulties, which should be made explicit, face a researcher undertaking empirical work in an institution. First, he must explain how he chooses his theoretical framework, in so far as what he sees and the information he obtains will depend far more than is often admitted on the type of questions he asks. Secondly, he must try to clarify the way in which he adapts his original intentions in the light of the practical difficulties that occur in the (...) actual research situation, and how he interprets the evidence he finally decides is relevant. These points are illustrated by the study of an ?open? Borstal for girls. The aim of the study was to try to understand the workings of the institution, to outline the process which led to the Borstal sentence, and to attempt to discover the way the girls looked at the situation. The research was motivated by Matza's guiding principle, ?to be true to the phenomena?, but even this, as this paper tries to show, does not lead to an unambiguous body of facts which can be presented unequivocally as ?findings? (shrink)