Fairly critiquing an investigator's research endeavor is a task that must be taken seriously. Although it is quite easy to have an opinion of another's research it is something quite different to be able to evaluate the research activity in terms of topic specificity and soundness, intent or purpose, data analysis, and informational importance. The focus of this paper will be on whether or not an article authored by Mark H. Moore (1996), and entitled The Future of the Juvenile Court: A Theoretical Framework That Fits meets the best-fit guidelines of a prudent research investigation. Specific attention will be given to how the study assured the reader that the study itself was reliable, valid, ethical, and employed proper data analysis techniques. .

             All research reports, whether medical, sociological, psychological, or educational, must first be well-defined, remindful of ambiguity, and reader friendly - even for those who are not pundits in the subject matter being reported upon. The first step in informing the reader of a research investigation is to present a clearly defined research problem. To this end the research investigator is obligated to present an issue and or problem that have not been sufficiently resolved in previous research investigative endeavors. According to Moore the problem with the juvenile court system is that the court adjudicates criminal activities by juveniles when it should be rendering service in the area of status and dependency juvenile offenses. Unfortunately, however, the reader is not presented with any operational definitions with respect to the variables being reported upon, namely, status, dependency, and criminal activities. As such the reliability and validity of the information being presented is suspect. Any research report, even one that is based on a qualitative approach, the research investigator is obligated to assist the reader in understanding a concept that is generally enigmatic or confusing.