Hackathons have been widely promoted as participatory design spaces fostering innovation, creativity, and collaborative problem-solving across diverse domains, including education. Originally rooted in grassroots, countercultural programming communities, hackathons have since undergone significant professionalisation, increasingly embedded within corporate and governmental frameworks. This paper examines hackathons as instruments of neoliberal governance, questioning their purported inclusivity and democratising potential. Drawing on two case studies – the hackathon organised by the Department for Education (DfE) in 2023 and OakHack, organised by Oak National Academy in 2023, the analysis reveals how hackathons often serve as performative exercises that prioritise technical feasibility, corporate interests, and public relations over genuine participatory engagement and educational transformation.

The historical trajectory of hackathons reflects their evolution from informal, community-driven gatherings to highly stylised events aligned with market-oriented objectives. This transformation illustrates the co-optation of grassroots innovation within neoliberal economic structures, where hackathons function as cost-effective mechanisms for extracting creative labour without long-term commitments. Both case studies exemplify how these dynamics unfold. Although framed as a teacher-centric initiative aimed at fostering educator involvement in EdTech innovation, the DfE hackathon was predominantly led by non-educational experts from the FacultyAI (the data analytics company that conducted the data modeling which contributed to Brexit) rather than by the National Institute of Teaching, a secondary co-organiser. The budget allocation and organisational priorities further underscored the marginalisation of educational concerns, privileging technical development over pedagogical relevance. Similarly, the majority of hackathon participants at OakHack were EdTech startups.

The analysis identifies several themes. First, the hackathons’ discourse maintained an overwhelmingly positive tone, systematically downplaying negative findings and technical shortcomings. Despite the fact that many use cases failed to meet expectations, the narrative emphasised superficial successes, reflecting a broader tendency toward optimism bias inherent in EdTech discourse. Second, the events were marked by a strong techno-deterministic orientation, with AI positioned as an inevitable and beneficial force in education. Rather than critically engaging with educators' concerns – such as the reliability of AI systems – issues like algorithmic hallucination were reframed as trust deficits to be managed rather than substantive risks to be addressed. This approach translated complex educational and social challenges into narrowly defined technical problems, sidelining critical pedagogical questions in favour of technical efficiency and scalability. Third, while the DfE and Oak National Academy promoted an image of inclusivity, the events exhibited characteristics of “participation washing.” Teacher and student involvement was largely limited to roles resembling focus groups or product testers rather than genuine co-design partners. Efforts to foster diversity were superficial, with little clarity on what constituted meaningful diversity beyond assembling participants from different backgrounds. Moreover, the short duration of the hackathon, often celebrated as a catalyst for innovation, constrained the depth of engagement, reinforcing hierarchical power dynamics between EdTech developers and educational practitioners.

This study illustrates how hackathons function less as genuine participatory design spaces and more as performative showcases that align with neoliberal governance logics. Their primary utility often lies in symbolic displays of innovation and inclusivity, serving public relations objectives rather than fostering substantive educational change. This paper interrogates the extent to which government-led hackathons achieve their stated goals of democratising technology development in education. By examining the power dynamics, institutional interests, and techno-solutionist assumptions embedded in hackathon practices, the paper questions whether such formats genuinely promote inclusive participation or merely reproduce existing inequalities under the guise of innovation.

Qualitative text analysis

This article contributes to scholarship on participatory design in digital education by examining how participatory ideals are operationalised within government-led innovation formats. Drawing on the case of the DfE’s 2023 AI hackathon, the study shows that participation needs to be understood as a political practice shaped by institutional logics and power relations. The findings speak directly to long-standing critiques in participatory design literature that warn against forms of managed participation that solicit user input without redistributing decision-making authority. The analysis underscores that participation becomes meaningful only when it enables those most affected by digitalisation to influence problem framings, question technological inevitabilities, and articulate alternative educational values. When participation is constrained to improving uptake of technologies, it risks reproducing the very asymmetries it claims to address. The study highlights how teacher scepticism and ethical concerns can be recast as cultural or skills deficits rather than recognised as legitimate critiques rooted in professional judgment and care for educational relationships. Such reframing aligns with broader patterns in data-driven reform, where responsibility for adaptation is displaced onto educators while structural and technological limitations remain unexamined. From a social justice perspective, this shift is consequential: it narrows the space for democratic deliberation and sidelines questions about whose knowledge counts in shaping educational futures. By situating hackathons within these debates, the paper argues that participatory design in digital education must move beyond symbolic inclusion toward practices that actively challenge solutionism, foreground relational and pedagogical values, and treat contestation as a productive dimension of participation. Without such commitments, participatory innovation risks reinforcing existing power hierarchies rather than advancing more just and inclusive forms of educational digitalisation.

Briscoe, Gerard, and Catherine Mulligan. 2014. ‘Digital Innovation: The Hackathon Phenomenon’. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:31734217. Costanza-Chock, Sasha. 2020. Design Justice: Community-Led Practices to Build the Worlds We Need. The MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/12255.001.0001. Davies, Emily. 2023. Unlocking the Future of Education: Key Insights from the AI in Education Hackathon. November 14. https://faculty.ai/blog/key-insights-from-the-ai-in-education-hackathon/. Defence Science and Technology Laboratory. 2023. Dstl and Google Cloud Hackathon: New Era of Defence AI Innovation. November 20. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/dstl-and-google-cloud-hackathon-new-era-of-defence-ai-innovation. Department for Education. 2024. Use Cases for Generative AI in Education User Research Report. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/66cdb078f04c14b05511b322/Use_cases_for_generative_AI_in_education_user_research_report.pdf. Department for Energy Security & Net Zero. 2024. Nuclear Hackathon Pre-Reading Material. https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/alternative-routes-to-market-for-new-nuclear-projects/nuclear-hackathon-pre-reading-material. Department for Science, Innovation & Technology. 2025. AI Opportunities Action Plan. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/ai-opportunities-action-plan/ai-opportunities-action-plan. Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, and Department for Education. 2024. Teachers to Get More Trustworthy AI Tech, Helping Them Mark Homework and Save Time. August 28. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/teachers-to-get-more-trustworthy-ai-tech-as-generative-tools-learn-from-new-bank-of-lesson-plans-and-curriculums-helping-them-mark-homework-and-save. DiSalvo, Carl, Melissa Gregg, and Thomas Lodato. 2014. ‘Building Belonging’. Interactions 21 (4): 58–61. https://doi.org/10.1145/2628685. First Ever Hackathon in Education to Explore AI. 2023. Department for Education. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/first-ever-hackathon-in-education-to-explore-ai. Lodato, Thomas James, and Carl DiSalvo. 2016. ‘Issue-Oriented Hackathons as Material Participation’. New Media & Society 18 (4): 539–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816629467. Manancourt, Vincent, and Laurie Clarke. 2024. ‘How Dominic Cummings’ Favorite AI Firm Captured the British Government’. Politico, May 16. https://www.politico.eu/article/dominic-cummings-faculty-ai-safety-british-government-procurement-contracts/. Modernisation and Reform Unit. Cabinet Office. 2023. ‘A Modern Civil Service’. Delivering Government Innovation with Evidence House, July 19. https://moderncivilservice.blog.gov.uk/2023/07/19/delivering-government-innovation-with-evidence-house/. Rankin, Robert. 2025. AI’s Role in Education: Key Takeaways from Our January Hackathon. February 27. https://faculty.ai/insights/articles/key-takeaways-from-our-january-hackathon. Roberts, John. 2024. You’re Invited to Our Hackathon. September 5. https://www.thenational.academy/blog/you-re-invited-to-our-hackathon. Zukin, Sharon, and Max Papadantonakis. 2017. ‘Hackathons as Co-Optation Ritual: Socializing Workers and Institutionalizing Innovation in the “New” Economy’. In Precarious Work, edited by Arne L. Kalleberg and Steven P. Vallas, vol. 31. Research in the Sociology of Work. Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0277-283320170000031005.