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.