Science and Technology Studies (STS)

Recently I've been revising for a university unit on science and technology studies (STS).
As a general rule, I've often found articles to be written in an overly opaque style. As an example, here's one from my lecturer (scroll down to the abstract by Gooding, you'll get the picture).
Why the obscure language?
I've also noticed that the titles all follow a particular style with a catchy/obscure headline, a colon, and a tagline- "Great Big Jugs: The Use of Amphora in Pre-Eruption Pompeii". STS scholars also like to unnecessarily use words from other European languages, my lecturer is fond of referring to science as scientia and art as ars (both from Latin).
Plenty of examples of this writing style are available (just refresh the page for another).
Why the pretension? Maybe they need to dress up their ideas with all this to obscure triviality. As an example, Ihde and Selinger coined the phrase 'epistemology engine' to refer to inventions which have inspired a lot more scientific thinking than was required for their invention. It is a cute phrase, but did it really require a 16-page explanation?
Many STS articles are critical of science and the idea that humans can obtain objective knowledge, but STS has produced no alternative. Do you really expect scientists to adopt your new paradigm?
What is the solution? The STS community is currently highly insular: it needs to broaden its appeal and get scientists on board. Scientists are often very interested in what STS has to say, but are put off by the pretentious writing and the perceived anti-science prejudice. It seems that your intended audience is one-another...surely as a critique of scientists, your intended audience should be scientists?! Scientists may also have a lot to contribute: "many eyes make all bugs shallow" (Linus Torvalds). Widen your possible audience and you might widen your influence!
P.S.: This isn't intended as a flame, but as constructive criticism!