Conference Agenda

The movement of student voice has gained prominence over the last two decades, especially after the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in 1989 (United Nations, 1989). The term “student voice” has varied meanings in different sources of literature and within different countries, ranging from simple expression of views either through verbal or non-verbal means, while at the same time referring to the idea of participation and having an active role in decision-making processes (Cook-Sather, 2006).

Students’ voices and inclusive education are interconnected ideas (Messiou, 2019). Adopting Ainscow’s definition of inclusion as an ongoing process (Ainscow, 2007), focusing on identifying barriers within contexts that may limit the presence, participation, and achievement of all learners (Ainscow, Booth and Ainscow, 2006), we argue that listening to students’ voices is an avenue through which we can identify such barriers and ultimately a manifestation of being inclusive (Messiou, 2006). Inclusion is a challenging process and requires the involvement of different stakeholders, including students in schools. Where this happens, possibilities for developing more inclusive school contexts can be created, through processes of dialogues between all involved. At the same time, as Kozleski, Artiles, and Waitoller (2014) argue progress in relation to inclusion is complex and context-specific.

Starting from the belief that students must have a central role in education, to promote equity and inclusion in schools, and the conviction that they can take leading roles in research and in schools, we wanted to know what is already happening in the field in different countries that belong in a World Educational Research International Network (WERA IRN): “Student Voice for Promoting Equity and Inclusion in Schools”. The countries are:Austria, Australia, Indonesia, Italy, New Zealand, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, UK, USA.

We therefore carried out scoping reviews in each country for the years 2020 – 2025, aiming to identify the key concepts underpinning our research areas. We followed Arksey and O’Malley’s (2005) five-step framework: Stage 1: identifying the research question, Stage 2: identifying relevant studies Stage 3: study selection Stage 4: charting the data Stage 5: collating, summarizing and reporting the results. Our key terms were student voice, inclusion, equity and schools. In addition to student voice, we used other relevant terms such as student participation and student agency to ensure identification of all relevant sources.

During this first part of the symposium, we will explore the following questions:

- What conceptualisations of student voice can we identify through the reviews of studies in each of the four countries?

- How does the political and educational context of each country influence studies carried out in each context?

- To what extent do methodologies employed in research involving students correspond to the meanings attributed to student voice?

- What areas emerge that deserve further exploration in the field of student voice research?

Through our analysis, we highlight how different contexts adopt different conceptualisations of student voice and that there is a variation of methodological approaches, influenced by the context within which studies are conducted and by researchers’ positionalities. Though four countries’ findings are presented in detail, we will be referring to findings from other countries too, since scoping reviews have been carried in all the countries of our international network. We will highlight how different countries have adopted different conceptualisations of the terms that we explore and the implications that this has both on research and in practice within each context. We will also highlight how the structures and policies in the different contexts impact on student voice in schools and in research.

In the Austrian educational landscape, "student voice" is an emerging conceptual framework that remains relatively new compared to established traditions such as student participation and "Mitbestimmung" (co-determination) (Messiou et al., 2022). While these traditional terms are anchored in Austrian school law—specifically the School Education Act (Schulunterrichtsgesetz §§ 57-60) and the Student Representation Act (Schülervertretungsgesetz, SchVG)—they often prioritize institutionalized representation through formal bodies such as student councils (Schülervertretung) rather than the agentic, transformative dialogue associated with the international student voice movement. To investigate how these theoretical tensions manifest in current scholarship, this scoping review examines the conceptualization and application of 'student voice' within Austrian primary and secondary educational research between 2020 and 2025, specifically focusing on its relationship to inclusion and equity. Following the framework by Arksey and O’Malley (2005) and PRISMA-ScR guidelines (Tricco et al., 2018), 18 studies were analysed. The review reveals that, despite recognition of student voice as a transformative element in inclusive education (Messiou & Ainscow, 2015; Sandoval & Messiou, 2022), its implementation in Austria remains fragmented, inconsistently theorized, and often limited to tokenistic consultation. Out of 18 studies reviewed, only seven explicitly employed the term "student voice" or articulated clear theoretical foundations. A recurring theme across the reviewed literature is the discrepancy between de jure rights and de facto influence, with research highlighting that Austrian students often experience their voice as structurally constrained. Consistent with this, the identified research characterizes student involvement primarily as a consultative process; most studies focus on gathering perspectives through traditional qualitative interviews rather than employing innovative participatory or student-led designs. This reliance on traditional, adult-led methodologies further complicates equity, as the review identifies a significant lack of intersectionality where the underexplored perspectives of marginalized groups risk being silenced by research designs that inherently centre the most "confident" voices. To move toward an inclusive system where "every learner matters" (UNESCO, 2017), the paper argues for a paradigm shift toward "transgressive" and "intergenerational" research approaches (Pearce & Wood, 2019) that empower students as co-creators of knowledge. The review concludes by recommending future research that addresses power dynamics and systemic constraints to genuinely enact student voice in the Austrian context, aligning local practice with international commitments such as SDG 4.

Arksey, H., & O’Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32. Messiou, K., & Ainscow, M. (2015). Responding to learner diversity: Student views as a catalyst for powerful teacher development? Teaching and Teacher Education, 51, 246–255. Messiou, K. et la. (2022). Student diversity and student voice conceptualisations in five European countries: Implications for including all students in schools. European Educational Research Journal, 21(2), 355–376. Organisation for the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). (2017). A Guide for Ensuring Inclusion and Equity in Education. UNESCO Publishing. ISBN: 978-92-3-100230-8. Pearce, T. C., & Wood, B. E. (2019). Education for transformation: an evaluative framework to guide student voice work in schools. Critical Studies in Education, 60(1), 113–130. Sandoval, M., & Messiou, K. (2022). Students as researchers for promoting school improvement and inclusion: a review of studies. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 26(8), 780–795. Tricco, A. C., et al. (2018). PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine, 169(7), 467–473.

While research explicitly framed as Student Voice is still emerging in Italy (Grion, 2017), the national landscape is rooted in established traditions of participatory research and democratic education, often in connection with action research approaches and research conducted with and for children (Mortari, 2009). In order to reflect this specific research landscape, we decided to adopt a broad perspective on the conceptualisation of student voice in our scoping review, encompassing studies that position students as meaningful contributors to educational processes, promote co-construction of knowledge, and acknowledge the transformative potential of their voices in fostering participation, inclusion, and social justice. In total, eight empirical studies (2020–2025) in Italian school contexts were identified as aligning with the defined framework and were subsequently analysed for the present review. The analysis of the studies was guided by five key analytical dimensions: (1) study contexts and participants; (2) research objectives and focal themes; (3) research designs and methodological approaches; (4) stages and forms of student involvement across the research process; and (5) the transformative potential of student voice. Firstly, the results reveal a predominant focus on secondary education, with comparatively less attention given to primary and preschool contexts. Regarding the research objectives and foci, four partially overlapping thematic orientations emerge: social justice, inclusion, and equity (Cotza, 2022; Frizzarin et al., 2023); participation as democratic education (Pastori et al., 2020); transitions and educational “fragilities” (Zecca et al., 2020; Zecca & Cotza, 2020); and inclusion extending beyond school into civic spaces (Montanari, 2024). Methodologically, qualitative approaches predominate, with many studies drawing on Grounded Theory. Data collection is largely based on interviews, supplemented by participatory methods such as Photovoice-inspired protocols, student co-construction of questionnaires, and practical activities. However, the review shows uneven student involvement, which often begins after researchers have defined study aims. While some studies engage students primarily as informants, fewer extend participation to proposal-making or engagement with institutional audiences (Frizzarin et al., 2023). Crucially, no study involves school age students in defining research objectives or designing the research itself. The review also highlights how Italy’s school autonomy within multi-level governance shapes the potential of student voice: influence is primarily observed in pedagogical practices and extends to territorial or policy arenas only when explicit relationships with decision-makers are established. Further research should therefore expand attention to preschool and primary contexts and strengthen participatory pathways that allow students’ perspectives to travel from consultation to shared decision-making.

Cotza, V. (2022) Verso la trasformazione delle teorie della giustizia sociale in educazione. La voce degli studenti delle scuole popolari della seconda opportunità. FORMAZIONE & INSEGNAMENTO, 20(1), 685-698. Frizzarin, A. et al. (2023) “Insieme è semplicemente più divertente”: Uno studio sull’esperienza soggettiva di partecipazione e inclusione a scuola di bambini/e e ragazzi/e con disabilità della Provincia di Bolzano. Integrazione scolastica e sociale, 22(4), 26-46. Grion, V. (2017) ‘Student Voice’in Italy: the state of the art. Teaching and Learning Together in Higher Education, 1(20). Montanari, M. (2024) Il progetto PEBA per una città accessibile a tutti. Integrazione scolastica e sociale, 23(1), 55–68. Mortari, L. (2009) La ricerca per i bambini. Mondadori. Pastori, G., Pagani, V., Sarcinelli, A. S. (2020) La ricerca partecipativa con i bambini come forma di educazione democratica. Riflessioni etiche e ricadute formative del progetto di ricerca europeo ISOTIS in 8 Paesi. RicercAzione, 12(1), 107-128. Zecca, L., Cotza, V. (2020) Distance relationships and educational fragilities: A Student Voice research in digital third spaces. Research on Education and Media, 12, 34-41. Zecca, L., Passalacqua, F., Ribis, A. (2020) Orientamento e dispersione scolastica: la valutazione degli studenti nella transizione tra secondaria di I e di II grado. CQIA, 30, 147-166.

Sweden has long promoted the ideal of “a school for all” (Gadler, 2011), foregrounding student influence, participation, and rights. Swedish research on student voice and inclusion reflects this orientation across fields such as language and literacy education, inclusive and special education, mathematics education, digital learning, early childhood education, and educational practice. Rather than focusing primarily on policy or structures, this body of research emphasizes students’ lived experiences of participation, belonging, engagement, and agency. Student voice is conceptualized in diverse but interconnected ways. In language and literacy education, it is examined through linguistic and dialogic practices such as evaluative language, metaphors, and role-taking. Across disciplines, inclusion is framed as a relational and participatory process grounded in equity and belonging (Roos, 2023; Gardesten & Palmér, 2025). Theoretical frameworks are interdisciplinary, drawing on dialogic theory, systemic functional linguistics, genre theory, democratic and political theory, discourse theory, phenomenology, and participation-oriented models. Methodologically, studies employ qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods, often using participatory approaches that position students as co-constructors of knowledge (Gardesten & Palmér, 2025). Key findings show that dialogic, creative, and multimodal practices enhance students’ participation, agency, and engagement in learning (Söderberg et al., 2024). In mathematics and inclusive classrooms, participation is shaped by ideological, structural, and subject-specific conditions, highlighting the importance of teachers’ relational and didactic competence (Roos, 2023; Gardesten & Palmér, 2025). In early childhood education, tools such as cameras and photo documentation make children’s perspectives visible and support belonging and social inclusion (Elvstrand et al., 2025). Overall, Swedish research demonstrates that inclusion is not merely a structural or policy-driven goal but is continuously produced through students’ experiences. Attending to student voice is essential for identifying barriers, fostering equitable participation, and sustaining democratic educational practices. The review calls for transdisciplinary research approaches (Allan et al., 2025) and warns that political and administrative trends risk marginalizing children’s voices.

Allan, J., Bagger, A., Andersson, A. L., Andersson-Norrie, I., Bertilsdotter Rosqvist, H., Dahl, I. A., , Engren, J., Tolgfors, S., Karlsson, J., Nakeva von Mentzer, C., Wåger, J., Yourston, H., & Österborg Wiklund, S (2025). Including all: the contribution of a diverse research community. Research Papers in Education, 1–25. Elvstrand, H., & Söderman Lago, L. (2022). Elevers delaktighet: Ett sätt att utmana och utveckla aktionsforskning i skolan?. Forskning og Forandring. 5:1, 25-45. Gadler, U. (2011). En skola för alla-gäller det alla?: statliga styrdokuments betydelse i skolans verksamhet (Doctoral dissertation, Linnaeus University Press). Gardesten, M., & Palmér, H. (2025). Students’ participation in mathematics in inclusive classrooms: a study of the enacted mathematical and relational knowing of teachers. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 27(2), 157–177. Roos, H. (2023). Students’ voices of inclusion in mathematics education. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 113(2), 229-249. Söderberg, E., Rejman, K., & Vuorenpää, S. (2024). Årskurs 9 högläser skönlitteratur: elevperspektiv på läsning och litteraturundervisning. Acta Didactica Norden, 18(1). Öhman, A. (2023). Gymnasieelevers erfarenheter av särskilt stöd: berättelser om utanförskap och tillhörighet. Pedagogisk forskning i Sverige, 28(3).

In the UK, particularly in England, there is a long tradition in student voice research. The movement gained prominence through the important work about pupil voice, funded by the ESRC, led by Jean Rudduck in the study “Consulting Pupils about Teaching and Learning” (2000-2003) where students’ views in primary and secondary schools were explored in relation to learning and teaching. Since then, several studies have been conducted with a focus on students’ voices. Following the steps and criteria outlined above, 15 papers were analysed for the purposes of this review. Many of the studies involved students as active participants, seeing voice as both a product and a process (Gripton and Vincent, 2020) and used a range of methodologies, predominantly qualitative approaches such as case studies (Aquarone, 2021; Hill, S. 2020), participatory action research (PAR) (Messiou et al., 2024), complexity informed – PAR (Crook, 2021). Some innovative and creative methods were used in some of the studies. For example, in Gripton and Vincent (2020) study small toys (Playmobil figures) were used to facilitate understanding young children’s experiences. Furthermore, photo-elicitation and photovoice were also used in the study of Shaw (2020). Both studies were carried out with young children and highlight the need for the use of innovative and creative approaches to enable young children’s voices to be heard. However, it was surprising to see that most of the identified studies still carry on with traditional methods, predominantly using individual interviews, focus group and group discussions. Some studies also involved students in data collection and analysis (McPartlan 2024, Messiou and Ainscow, 2020). Only one study identified was focusing on digital tools as a way of democratising school processes (Cook and Warwick, 2021). Given the use of technology by young people, it is surprising this is an aspect that has not been explored in more depth, not least with the dominance of AI. Finally, despite a focus on dialogues in students’ voice research aiming to promote inclusion, only one study highlighted intergenerational aspects explicitly. Crook’s (2021) study employed ‘cooperative intergenerational inquiry’ involving children, parents, siblings, grandparents and a school councillor. Through our findings we argue for the need for more transformative research approaches, where power dynamics are addressed through the processes employed, enabling all participants to be genuinely included. Additional authors: Chinmaya Potnis (orcid: 0009-0007-4806-4088) and Ping Dong (orcid: 0000-0003-1387-6274).

Aquarone, F. (2021) 'Student experiences of democratic education and the implications for social justice', Theory and Research in Education, 19(1), pp. 40-64. Cook, V., & Warwick, P. (2021). Realising student voice through dialogic engagement with a microblogging tool. Education 3-13, 51(1), 156–170. Crook, D.J. (2021). Children changing spaces, changing schools. Children & Society, 35, 445–460. Gripton, C., & Vincent, K. (2020). Using small world toys for research: a method for gaining insight into children’s lived experiences of school. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 44(3), 225–240. Hill, S. (2020). Seeing anew: The role of student leadership in professional learning. Professional Development in Education, 46(4), 563–579. McPartlan, D. (2024) Young people as co-researchers in schools: a collaborative research methodology which benefits young people and school culture, Pastoral Care in Education, 43(4), 520-539. Messiou, K. and Ainscow, M. (2020) Inclusive inquiry: student-teacher dialogue as a means of promoting inclusion in schools. British Educational Research Journal, 46(3), pp. 670-687. Shaw, P. A. (2020). Photo-elicitation and photo-voice: using visual methodological tools to engage with younger children’s voices about inclusion in education. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 44(4), 337–35.