Technical Communication Confusion

I just got finished reading chapter 11 from our Research in Technical Communication textbook in preparation for tomorrow's class. The chapter is written by John Monberg, who is a comm studies professor at the University of Kansas. I have to be honest; I have no idea what he is talking about. The problem is that it is written in academic, ivory tower, incomprehensible gibberish. It scares me a little, because I am supposedly going to enter this discourse community (comm studies) in a few years, and in general, I cannot follow the discourse! What bothers me most is that I see too much of this in technical communication literature. This isn't always the case. Other authors in this text are quite easy to read and comprehend. In particular, Susan Katz, Teresa Kynell, Bruce Seely, Daniel Murphy, Laura Gurak, and Christine Silker among others seem easy to follow, and I do think the comprehensible outweighs the incomprehensible in this text. However, I have not read a lot of each of these authors, so all of their writing may not be so straightforward, but the limited exposure I have had has impressed me.

In my first tech comm class with Dr. Edminster, she often spoke of "tearing down the walls of text." I love that line because it speaks to my feelings about how the academia often distances itself from the "commoners" through language. If technical communication is truly about clarity, focus, simplicity, comprehensibility, etc., then why is there this insistence on writing in such a seemingly unclear, unfocused, complex, and incomprehensible manner? I realize that part of the reasoning involves making technical communication acceptable to the rest of the academia, and I also realize that the discourse isn't incomprehensible to everyone. But are we, as educators and researchers, being true to our chosen field if we continue to write in such a cryptic manner? Why not be the front runners and lead the rest of the academia in simplifying the language to make it more accessible? I would love to hear responses to this from both sides.

Addendum:
I was rereading this post and wanted to make clear that it wasn't Monberg's entire chapter that was confusing. It was really about the first 2/3 that I struggled with. The latter part of the chapter that deals with the case studies was understandable. There was a clear point of transition in his writing style. As he moved from theory to reporting the results of the case studies, his writing changed. This is a good thing! I can't help but wonder though, how much more would I have gotten out of this chapter if the theory portion had been written in a more accessible style.