The term Critical Utopian Action Research (CAR) was inspired by critical theory originating in the Scandinavian action research milieu (Nielsen & Nielsen, 2006; Gunnarson et al., 2016). CUAR advocates a critique of social structures, as these are often the barriers to human development (Coghlan & Brydon-Miller, 2014; Hansen et al., 2016). In this tradition, the role of the researcher is to raise awareness of societal problems. CUAR was inspired by (1) critical theory, (2) the work of Kurt Lewin, (3) socio- technical action research and (4) future research. (Coghlan & Brydon-Miller, 2014). CUAR researchers function as facilitators of free spaces (Bladt & Nielsen, 2013), that is to say, they create forums and arenas to foster deliberations, dialogues and joint activities. These spaces serve as laboratories where social learning and imagination are developed in order to enable “new forms of social learning between citizens and scientists" (Egmose, 2015, p.1).

The CUAR framework was developed by Kurt Aagaard Nielsen and Birger Steen Nielsen (Nielsen & Nielsen, 2006). The tradition of CUAR emerged for the practical application of critical knowledge through analysing modernity in the social sciences, and in cultural and philosophical studies. This theoretical, methodological, and practical framework was inspired by some relevant critical theorists, such as Theodor W. Adorno and Max Horkheimer.  They formed a view that science cannot be considered valid unless it is the result of democratic processes. On that same note,  an undemocratic investigation of the world can only lead to an undemocratic reality (Coghlan & Brydon-Miller, 2014). In addition, purely positivist approaches, devoid of critical reflection, neglect fundamental democratic values (McIntosh, 2010). According to CUAR advocates, society cannot be governed in a technocratic way with a purely authoritarian development logic (Coghlan & Brydon-Miller, 2014).

CUAR encourages the creation of democratic knowledge with a high level of reflexivity (Elling, 2008). A basic argument used by Lewin was that researchers do not only work for scientific reasons -in the circuit of academically mediated reflexivity, away from other members of society -, but they also work for and together with research participants (McIntosh, 2010; Coghlan & Brydon-Miller, 2014). Lewin’s methodology is relevant for housing studies, as it is institutionalized in the socio-technical tradition of action research and where participants co-operate with researchers in real life  projects.

Another important inspiration for the CUAR tradition is future research, a notion introduced by the German philosopher Robert Jungk, who applied tools and created forums for democratic change  for a better future (Jungk & Müllert, 1987; Reason & Bradbury, 2008). According to Jungk, the future is determined by a small elite, while the majority of citizens remain powerless. Therefore, he wanted people not to close their eyes to the future, but to become co-creators of it (Coghlan & Brydon-Miller, 2014).

The convergence of critical utopian thinking and everyday knowledge are the key ingredients of CUAR. This research framework provides a unique and useful orientation of imaginative processes towards sustainable social change. CUAR fosters transdisciplinary thinking across a wide range of existing knowledge. By creating new platforms (for example educational platforms, campaigns, or experimental pilot projects) it can give people the opportunity to act upon their values and knowledge.