In education, the practice of commissioning research reviews to provide a comprehensive view of what is known about a particular phenomenon is widespread among policy- makers. The growing demand for 'evidence-based' policy has led to the promotion of models of reviewing - such as 'systematic reviewing' - which attempt to replicate within education the research culture of medicine and other 'scientific' disciplines. While there has been extensive discussion and critique of these developments within education, drawing attention for example to the underlying positivist model of research (Hammersley, 2001), or the mechanistic production of 'objectivity' (Hodkinson, 2004), less attention has been paid to review processes and their implications for inclusivity. This paper presents the work of a group of researchers in the Participation, Inclusion and Equity Research (PIER) Network at the University of Stirling. The group set out to explore a range of phenomena collectively contributing to our understanding of cultures of inclusion and exclusion in education and related areas of social life, and of the complex and contested nature of inclusion and exclusion (Hegarty et al. 1996; Nes, 2004). Review topics include The Experiences of Vulnerable Young People in Secondary Schools; New Community Schools and Inclusion; Teachers' Perspectives on Inclusion; and Hearing the Voices of Children and Young People. These and other topics have been addressed by review teams which include academic professional and 'user' voices, from a range of disciplines or professional fields. They have involved the identification of challenging, sometimes 'troubling' literature for review, including participatory research; transgressive studies: those which cross boundaries of inclusion/exclusion; research which challenges power relationships; and research which helps to overthrow theories and replace them with better alternatives or which modifies theories to increase their explanatory power. A key feature of the review practice has been to acknowledge explicitly the reviewers' perspectives, and a recognition that these are likely to be multiple and to include personal, professional, political and intellectual characteristics. The paper will set out some of the challenges - and some of the solutions - which the reviewers have encountered in the process of conducting reviews. These include " the practical and personal difficulties of working in a team of people with disparate perspectives - and busy lives " issues around selection of literature for review, and criteria for inclusion or exclusion of particular texts " the identification of audiences for the outcomes of the reviews and the challenge of producing outcomes which are accessible and inclusive in style, and have something valuable to contribute to the debate. The paper concludes with a discussion of the questions which this evolving model of reviewing raises for the 'new orthodoxy' (Hodkinson, 2004) in research and research reviewing, specifically pitting the perspectives of those who hold that voices of the 'researched' must be heard, particularly in research which directly addresses issues connected to inclusion, against models which effectively create new gate keepers - and new gates. References Hammersley, M. (2001). On 'Systematic' Reviews of Research Literatures: a 'narrative' response to Evans and Benfield. British Educational Research Journal, 27 (5). Hegarty, S., Meijer, C. and Jan Pijl, S. (eds.) (1996). Inclusive Education - A Global Agenda. London: Routledge. Hodkinson, P. (2004). Research as a form of work: expertise, community and methodological objectivity. British Educational Research Journal, 30 (1). Nes, K. (2004). Quality versus equality? Inclusion politics in Norway at Century's End. In L. Ware (ed.) Ideology and the Politics of (In)Exclusion. New York: Peter Lang.