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.