In Defence of Scholarly Bullshit—a Reflection on Kirchherr

The recent publication by Kirchherr on bullshit in sustainability and transitions studies has generated much contention. In the intentionally controversial paper, the author uses profanity to provoke and shock the readers. He argues that the metric-driven logic of the academic system has allowed subpar scholarship—recognised as scholarly bullshit, to permeate the field and that up to 50% of the articles (in particular, those on circular economy) published in reputable sustainability and transitions journals can be considered of generally inferior quality. In this reflection on Kirchherr’s piece, I aim to contribute to the debate that the author has instigated by offering an alternative opinion. Namely, I find it necessary to warn against the implications of the negative connotations that the term scholarly bullshit encapsulates since the actual situation in the field may not be as problematic and unfavourable as it sounds. By assessing the arguments presented in the original paper, I explain not only why the existence of subpar scholarship is not a problem but also explicate some positive effects of the phenomenon that make it a potentially desirable element of the scientific publication process. Although I agree with the original paper’s overall argument about the increasing presence of buzzwords in recent scholarly work, I conclude that weeding out presumably “inferior” scholarship may lead to a type of “scholarly eugenics”, resulting in the loss of the interdisciplinary richness and fertility that have been driving the field of sustainability and transitions so far.