This special issue of kritisk etnografi conjoins trends at three scales. First and most importantly, in Sweden and elsewhere around the world we see a widespread and accelerating sense of public crisis. Reports and commentaries in traditional and social media, mass actions on the streets and online, volatile voting patterns and deepening threats to democratic rights and institutions all testify to collective alarm around a range of issues affecting how we live and what the future will bring. The corona pandemic, climate change, and divisive debates on migration and integration are the most obvious manifestations of this distress in Sweden and Europe, but many other subjects, including the withdrawal of the welfare state and growing economic disparities, are also significant loci of public anxiety.Second, academic anthropologists have been troubled about the public contribution of anthropology as a distinct endeavour in relation to other social science fields. Over the past fifteen years, many have argued that anthropologists should "engage" and establish a more meaningful "public presence"; in some cases, such calls have been accompanied by efforts to identify and discuss existing anthropological "outreach" (e.g., Andersson 2018;Erikson 2006;Fassin 2018;Low and Merry 2010). Academic anthropologists have sharply criticised the discipline for not doing more to deliver anthropological knowledge and perspectives beyond the academic journals and publications that are the typical outlets for scholarly work (e.g., Burman 2018;Podjed et al. 2016;Sillitoe 2006). In Sweden, concerns that the discipline should become more "relevant" and useful to our interlocutors and the broader public have been driven in part by increasing expectations from funding agencies that anthropologists collaborate with actors outside the university (O'Dell 2018: 59-60, 65).Third, anthropologists inside and outside the university are questioning whether the anthropology curriculum adequately serves our students (e.g., Copeland and Dengah 2017;Lassiter and Campbell 2010;Roberts 2006;Stefanelli 2017). Several anthropologists have pointed out that the undergraduate anthropology curriculum has not kept pace with the discipline's evolution or the opportunities available to our students after they conclude their degrees (ibid.; see also Jöhncke Forthcoming; MacClancy 2017: 2). Indeed, some suggest that the anthropology curriculum may hamper our students' ability to operationalise their education outside the academy (Graffman and Börjesson 2011;Jöhncke Forthcoming;Rylko-Bauer et al. 2006). Rather than encouraging our former students to hide their primary subject area (see Graffman 2013), academic anthropologists should be helping them put anthropology to work. Revising the anthropology curriculum deserves a more prominent place in our discussions about the discipline: how and what we teach affects our ability to address the widespread public sense of crisis, academic worries about anthropology's relevance and contribution to the societies in which we liv...