In the first half of the nineteenth century, many Americans visited phrenological practitioners. Some clients were true believers, who consulted phrenology to choose an occupation, select a marriage partner and raise children. But, as this article demonstrates, many others consumed phrenology as an ‘experiment’, testing its validity as they engaged its practice. Consumers of ‘practical phrenology’ subjected themselves to examinations often to test the phrenologist and his practice against their own knowledge of themselves. They also tested whether phrenology was true, according to their own beliefs about race and gender. While historians have examined phrenology as a theory of the mind, we know less about its ‘users’ and how gender, race and class structured their engagement. Based on extensive archival research with letters and diaries, memoirs and marginalia, as well as phrenological readings, this study reveals how a continuum of belief existed around phrenology, from total advocacy to absolute denunciation, with lots of room for acceptance and rejection in between. Phrenologists’ notebooks and tools of salesmanship also show how an experimental environment emerged where phrenologists themselves embraced a culture of testing. In an era of what Katherine Pandora has described as ‘epistemological contests’, audiences confronted new museums, performances and theatres of natural knowledge and judged their validity. This was also true for phrenology, which benefited from a culture of contested authority. As this article reveals, curiosity, experimentation and even scepticism among users actually helped keep phrenology alive for decades.

One of the key objectives of the community care reforms of 1990 in the United Kingdom was the development of a flourishing independent sector alongside good quality public services. The aims of the reforms were to increase the available range of options, widen consumer choice and promote independence. The purpose of the study reported here was to examine – from the perspective of older service users, their carers and care managers – experiences at the operational level of arranging, delivering and receiving care services. The findings are based on data gathered in seven local authorities including reviews of case files, policy documents and face-to-face, in-depth interviews with 55 users, 37 carers and 28 care managers. There is evidence of a pronounced emphasis on procedure-based systems of care management. Potentially this has two significant consequences. First, the fostering of personal relationships may be subordinated to the organisation of short-term tasks and thereby may threaten patterns of trust and accountability. Second, the associated fragmentation of the assessment and care management process which in turn can lead to discontinuities of care for users and their carers. The paper concludes that there is still some way to go before care managers as micro-commissioners have sufficient and reliable information or available service capacity to match providers' capabilities with users' and carers' needs.

‘Relevance’, ‘accountability’ and ‘users’ are now prominent terms in the policies of public research funding agencies. In countries such as the UK, the funding of research in social science and other subjects has become increasingly dependent on the perception that research will contribute towards the achievement of certain national goals. Despite renewed discussions surrounding the utility of social analysis, these are rarely informed by debates in academic communities about the meaning of ‘relevance’ or associated debates about the status of knowledge. However divergent policy and academic discussions about relevance may appear, they intersect in concerns over the identity of researchers, the practices of research, and the claims made on behalf of research. This article draws on a case study in an attempt to show the difficulties of reconciling competing demands for relevance. Preliminary reflections are offered on a strategy for creating a productive tension between policy and academic discussions.