Bullsh!t Baffles Brains? Rethinking academic publishing through a military lens

A phrase that travels

If you have spent time in the British Army, you will recognise the phrase “bullsh!t baffles brains.”

It describes a familiar communicative behaviour: the use of complexity, jargon, or confident delivery to obscure rather than clarify. Whether deployed deliberately or absorbed culturally, the effect is consistent; understanding is displaced by impression. What is less frequently acknowledged is how readily this dynamic can be observed beyond the military environment.

The academic parallel

Within Higher Education, particularly in academic publishing, similar patterns can emerge. This is not an argument against rigour. Academic work requires precision, nuance, and engagement with existing knowledge, all of which often generate complexity.

However, there are instances where complexity exceeds what is required for understanding. When this occurs, it ceases to function as a vehicle for precision and instead becomes a barrier to access. The distinction is subtle but critical.

As George Orwell argued, unclear writing is often symptomatic of unclear thinking. In a different context, Richard Feynman repeatedly demonstrated that deep understanding is reflected in the ability to render complex ideas intelligible. These positions suggest that clarity is not a simplification of thought, but evidence of its maturity.

The research/practice gap

The concern that academic knowledge does not translate effectively into practice is well established. It is neither new nor confined to a single discipline. Early work by Bero et al. (1998) demonstrated that even in healthcare; arguably one of the most application-driven domains, substantial barriers exist between research production and implementation.

Within management and applied fields, this issue has been examined extensively. Tkachenko et al. (2017) characterise the research/practice gap as a persistent and unresolved problem, while more recent systematic reviews continue to demonstrate that it remains structurally embedded (Arteaga et al., 2024).

The implication is not that research lacks value. Rather, it indicates that the pathway from knowledge production to practical application is far less direct than is often assumed.

Structural incentives and communicative consequences

To understand why this gap persists, it is necessary to examine the structures within which academic work is produced and evaluated. Academic careers are typically shaped by publication output, journal status, and citation frequency. These metrics are internally coherent, but they privilege recognition within academia over engagement beyond it.

Under such conditions, it is entirely rational for researchers to prioritise theoretical contribution, methodological sophistication, and disciplinary relevance. The consequence is not necessarily poor research, but research that is optimised for a particular audience. Communication, therefore, becomes orientated toward those already within the system, rather than those who might apply its insights.

Academic knowledge circulates efficiently within its own domain. Its movement beyond that domain is considerably less reliable.

Complexity and its uses

At this point, it is important to distinguish between forms of complexity. Some complexity is essential. Without it, accuracy is compromised, nuance is lost, and scholarship is weakened. This form of complexity is integral to intellectual work.

However, there is also complexity that exceeds functional necessity. This is not always intentional, but it has a different effect. Rather than clarifying, it obscures. Rather than enabling engagement, it restricts it. It is here that the analogy with “bullsh!t baffles brains” becomes analytically relevant; not as a critique of intent, but as a description of outcome.

When communication becomes inaccessible, it does not invite challenge or application. It is simply bypassed.

Self-referential knowledge systems

A further consequence of current structures is that academic knowledge can become self-referential. Research builds on research, debates unfold within disciplinary boundaries, and theoretical refinement occurs through internal dialogue. This is a necessary condition for intellectual development, but it also creates limitations.

Without deliberate translation, knowledge that is internally rigorous may remain externally distant. Tkachenko et al. (2017) note that fragmentation within applied fields can inhibit the practical utilisation of research, while Božič and Dimovski (2022) emphasise the need for more practitioner-orientated approaches.

The issue is not that knowledge lacks relevance, but that its relevance is not realised.

Reconsidering the theory/practice relationship

Within fields such as Organisational Behaviour, it is common to assert that theory and practice exist in a reciprocal relationship. In principle, this is both logical and desirable. In practice, the relationship is contingent.

Empirical work suggests that theory does not automatically inform practice. It requires translation, interpretation, and contextualisation. Without these processes, the connection remains conceptual rather than operational.

This does not invalidate theory. It highlights the conditions under which theory becomes useful.

What counts as contribution?

If academic work is intended to contribute beyond its immediate context, then the criteria by which it is evaluated warrant closer scrutiny. At present, success is predominantly defined by academic recognition. Far less emphasis is placed on whether research is accessed, understood, or applied outside scholarly communities.

This creates a misalignment between production and purpose. Knowledge is generated, validated, and circulated, but not consistently utilised.

Conclusion: Clarity as intellectual responsibility

The persistence of the phrase “bullsh!t baffles brains”* reflects an enduring recognition that complexity can obscure as much as it reveals. In academic contexts, the issue is not complexity itself, but its use without clear communicative purpose.

The literature on the research/practice gap makes a consistent point that if knowledge is not accessible is unlikely to be applied. If scholarship is to extend beyond journals and into the environments it seeks to inform, then clarity is not an optional refinement.

It is an intellectual responsibility.