Conference Agenda

In an era of increasing political polarization across Europe, and with 122 million refugees worldwide (UNHCR, 2025) questions of social justice and solidarity have become central to public discourse and educational practice (Reeskens and Van der Meer, 2019).

Immigration remains one of the most discussed issues in contemporary European societies, with immigrants consistently identified as among the most "undeserving" groups (Van Oorschot, 2006; Heuer & Zimmermann, 2020). This positioning raises fundamental questions of equity and inclusion that extend into educational settings where teachers and administrators make daily decisions affecting immigrant students and families. While groups like the elderly are widely viewed as deserving of support, immigrants face persistent stigmatization regardless of their contributions (Reeskens & Van der Meer, 2019). According to self-interest theory, individuals with vulnerable socioeconomic positions perceive immigrants as economic competitors and threats to welfare resources, leading to opposition to immigration (Green, 2007; Cooper & Burchardt, 2022). These perceptions influence policy implementation (Knotz et al., 2022), affect social integration (Ratzmann & Sahraoui, 2021), shape boundaries of "social membership" in welfare states (Kymlicka, 2015), and may manifest in educational inequalities through attitudes, assessments, and resource allocation.

Political ideology adds complexity to understanding these attitudes and their educational manifestations. Political orientation significantly influences how citizens—including educators—conceptualize social justice, solidarity, and resource distribution (Wulfgramm & Starke, 2017). Right-wing contexts emphasize individual responsibility and conditional solidarity, often framing immigrants as burdens (Attewell, 2021). Left-wing environments promote redistribution and equality, yet support for immigrants' welfare rights remains discussed—the "progressive's dilemma" (Goodhart, 2004; Eger & Kulin, 2022). Understanding these dynamics is essential for developing migration-sensitive pedagogical approaches that challenge rather than reproduce inequalities.

This study addresses the research questions of how perceptions of deservingness affect Europeans’ attitudes toward immigration and, in particular, whether this relationship, at the individual level, is conditional on the political orientation at the country level.

Our findings reveal important patterns for social justice in diverse societies and schools. First, negative deservingness perceptions strongly predict negative immigration attitudes across Europe, suggesting moral judgments about welfare dependency extend to immigrants—including in schools. Second, country-level political orientation significantly moderates this relationship: the association between deservingness and immigration attitudes is stronger in left-leaning compared to right-leaning countries. This counterintuitive finding suggests that in progressive contexts where welfare support is generally higher (Wulfgramm & Starke, 2017), deservingness considerations play a particularly important role in determining solidarity boundaries.

Patterns vary across European regions: left-leaning countries demonstrate moderate deservingness perceptions with relatively positive immigration attitudes, while right-leaning countries show consistently negative attitudes toward deservingness and immigration. In between are the centrist political countries with more positive deservingness perceptions and immigration attitudes.

However, within left-leaning contexts, individual variations in deservingness perceptions have particularly strong effects, suggesting that conditional solidarity operates powerfully even in progressive environments—with direct implications for how schools address diversity and inclusion.

These patterns reflect a collective factor: individual attitudes are formed within broader social, cultural, and political environments (Bratman, 1999; Anderson, 2006; Bicchieri, 2006). The political context of a country creates conditions that shape how deservingness perceptions translate into immigration attitudes, with significant implications for educational inclusion and equitable migration policies.

This research contributes to Network 07's focus on social justice and intercultural education by illuminating mechanisms of marginalization and exclusion in contemporary Europe and translating insights into actionable implications for school development and educational practice.

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.