THE ESSAY IN QUESTION CRITICIZES THE LITERATURE ON COURT ADMINISTRATION AS BIASED, QUESTIONS THE MOTIVES BEHIND THE COURT ADMINISTRATION 'MOVEMENT,' AND OFFERS A POLITICAL EXPLANATION OF THAT MOVEMENT. WHILE THE ESSAY'S BASIC PLEA FOR OBJECTIVE EVALUATION OF COURT ADMINISTRATION IS FOUND TO HAVE MERIT, SOME OF THE ARGUMENTS POSED IN THE ESSAY ARE CRITICIZED. QUESTIONS ARE RAISED REGARDING THE EXTENT TO WHICH CONCLUSIONS CAN BE DRAWN ABOUT THE MOTIVES FOR HIRING COURT ADMINISTRATORS. IT IS POINTED OUT THAT REAL POLICY MOTIVES ARE NOT ALWAYS THE SAME AS THOSE THAT FIND THEIR WAY INTO PRINT. CRITICISM IS ALSO DIRECTED TO THE GROUNDS ON WHICH THE ESSAY BASES ITS ANALYSES OF ARGUMENTS FOR COURT ADMINISTRATORS (DELAY IN COURTS, OVERWORKED JUDGES, PLEA BARGAINING AS A CONSEQUENCE OF CROWDED DOCKETS, COURT ADMINISTRATORS' CONTRIBUTIONS TO REDUCING DELAY). EXAMPLES OF COMPLEXITIES THAT DISTORT SOME OF THE CONCLUSIONS DRAWN IN THE ESSAY ARE CITED. IN REFERENCE TO A COMMENT IN THE ESSAY CONCERNING COURT REFORMERS' AWARENESS OF AND RESPONSES TO SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH, IT IS SUGGESTED THAT A GAP SEPARATES THE COURT REFORM MOVEMENT FROM SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH. THAT GAP IS SAID TO BE DUE IN PART TO THE HOSTILITY OF JUDGES AND LAWYERS TOWARD SOCIAL SCIENTISTS, AND IN PAST TO THE FACT THAT SOCIAL SCIENTISTS DO NOT ALWAYS ADDRESS THE QUESTIONS THAT HAVE RELEVANCE FOR EFFECTIVE COURT MANAGEMENT. FOOTNOTES ARE PROVIDED. SEE ALSO NCJ-48466, 48467, AND 48469. (LKM)