About

Dr. Dayoung Kim is an Assistant Professor of the Department of Engineering Education at Virginia Tech and serves as the Director of the LABoratory for Innovative and REsponsible Engineering workforce (LAB-IREEN). She conducts research in engineering practice and workforce development, focusing on the practices and experiences of engineers in various employment settings, including startups and government agencies. Her work explores how emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence and quantum technologies influence engineering practice and workforce needs, as well as the social responsibility and ethics of engineering professionals. Dr. Kim aims to identify effective strategies to cultivate an innovative and responsible engineering workforce through educational initiatives and science & technology policy, utilizing quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods approaches to understand engineers' competencies, ethical principles, and the regulatory environment surrounding their work. She actively collaborates with engineers in various professional contexts to address questions related to engineering ethics, industry-academia partnerships, and the integration of emerging technologies into engineering education and practice. Dr. Kim holds a Ph.D. in Engineering Education from Purdue University, a B.S. and M.S. in Chemical Engineering from Yonsei University and Purdue University respectively, and has received numerous awards and fellowships for her research and contributions to engineering education and policy.

Research topics

• Sociology
• Social Science
• Psychology
• Engineering ethics
• Social psychology
• Pedagogy
• Engineering
• Political Science
• Medicine
• Medical education

Selected publications

• Exploring Translational Ethical Competency (TEC) in AI Design: Conceptual Analysis and Methodological Reflections from a Pilot Study

  2025-06-06

  articleSenior author

  As AI is rapidly becoming an integral part of our daily life, the ethical issues associated with it have become a major issue. Although the ethical concerns regarding the development of AI systems have been discussed in detail during recent years, practical competencies for translating ethical principles into actionable practices have not been fully understood. To fill this gap, this paper uses the concept of Translational Ethical Competency (TEC) in the context of AI design. We share our reflection on a pilot study we conducted, which involved semi-structured text-based elicitation interviews with AI professionals to examine how ethical principles are incorporated into the real-world development of AI systems. Four case studies were designed as an elicitation tool to guide the discussion, covering domains such as educational fact checking, autonomous vehicles, stock price prediction, and blood diagnostics. Based on our reflection at the pilot interview stage, we revised our interview protocol. In this paper, our reflection on the pilot study, protocol revision process, and future work will be discussed. We aim to identify the best practices to incorporate ethical principles into the AI design process, which can provide practical insights for AI ethics education and professional development.

  PublisherDOI

• Expanding the Engineering Workforce: An Exploratory Study of a Mid-Career Transition from a Non-Engineering Background

  2025-08-21

  articleSenior author
  PublisherDOI

• Navigating the AI Ethics Frontier: A Cross-nationalComparison of AI Policy Documents for Developing Responsible AI Workforce

  2025-08-21

  articleSenior author
  PublisherDOI

• Putting Reputation Back in the Spotlight: Exploring New Perspectives on Personal Reputation at Work

  Academy of Management Proceedings · 2025-07-01

  article

  Personal reputation has long been recognized as a cornerstone of social and organizational dynamics, influencing individual success, workplace relationships, and team and organizational outcomes (Ferris et al., 2014; Hochwarter et al., 2007; Zinko et al., 2012; Zinko & Rubin, 2015). Foundational work in this area has conceptualized reputation as a perceived identity, shaped by one’s characteristics, behaviors, and interactions (Bromley, 1993; Ferris et al., 2003; Zinko et al., 2007). This research positions reputation as inherently multifaceted, encompassing positive and negative evaluations, and grounded in specific traits and behaviors rather than broad, generalized perceptions (Zinko & Rubin, 2015). Recent advancements have enriched these foundational insights by exploring diverse dimensions of reputation, such as creative reputations (Carnevale et al., 2021; 2024; Zaggl, & Müller, 2024), moral reputations (Huang et al., 2024), and relational reputations (Huang et al., 2024), while also investigating the psychological pressures associated with maintaining positive reputations (Baer et al., 2015; DeCremer & Tyler, 2005). Given this momentum, it is exciting to see a reemerging interest in personal reputation at work, making this an opportune moment to build on these developments and push the field further. Recent work in this area has largely centered on the reputations of individuals at lower levels of the organizational hierarchy, exploring how employees cultivate and maintain their reputation in their immediate work environments (Carnevale et al., 2021; 2024; Huang et al., 2024, 2024). Expanding on this foundation, the current symposium turns its focus to individuals in positions of influence, such as leaders and political actors, to explore the unique challenges they face in managing and leveraging their reputations. While early work on reputation suggested that it functions as a form of influence (Bromley, 1993; Ferris et al., 2003; Gamson, 1966), questions remain about how those whose roles inherently involve influence navigate the complexities of reputation. For example, how do new leaders address the demands of a modern workplace, balancing the need to establish credibility with fostering team collaboration to enhance their reputations? Similarly, how do workplace dynamics—such as the interplay between leaders and subordinates or the performance of the teams they oversee—shape leaders' perceptions of their reputations, influencing their strategies to maintain or enhance their influence? Beyond formal leadership, reputation also plays a pivotal role in broader organizational contexts, where influence often extends to individuals outside traditional hierarchies. Notably, while politics is an inherent aspect of organizational life, involving the deliberate use of influence, critical questions remain about how political reputations are formed and shape organizational outcomes. The studies included in this symposium aim to address these questions and propel the conversation forward by examining how reputations are cultivated, maintained, and leveraged by individuals in positions of influence, offering insights into the mechanisms that underpin these processes and their broader implications for organizational dynamics. An Actor-Centric View of New Leaders’ Status Incongruence Author: Jiayu Song; Auburn University Author: Jaclyn Koopmann; Auburn University A Leader-Centric Perspective of the Consequences of Team Performance Author: Maojiao Mei; Syracuse University Author: Joel B. Carnevale; Syracuse University The Actor-Centric Consequences of Leader Unethical Request Author: Lei Huang; Auburn University Author: Danni Wang; Rutgers University Author: Dayoung Kim; Auburn University Author: Shiqi Xiao; Rutgers Business School The Effects of Individual Political Reputations on Perceiver Emotional and Behavioral Reactions Author: Maria Bracamonte; Mississippi State University Author: Parker Ellen; Mississippi State University

  PublisherDOI

• Exploring the Intersection between Lifelong Learning and Workforce Development in Engineering

  2025-08-21

  articleSenior author
  PublisherDOI

• Assessing computer science student attitudes towards AI ethics and policy

  AI and Ethics · 2025-08-21 · 8 citations

  articleOpen access

  Abstract As artificial intelligence (AI) grows in popularity and importance—both as a domain within broader computing research and in society at large—increasing focus will need to be paid to the ethical governance of this emerging technology. The attitudes and competencies with respect to AI ethics and policy among post-secondary students studying computer science (CS) are of particular interest, as many of these students will go on to play key roles in the development and deployment of future AI innovations. Despite this population of computer scientists being at the forefront of learning about and using AI tools, their attitudes towards AI remain understudied in the literature. In an effort to begin to close this gap, in fall 2024 we fielded a survey ( $$n=117$$ ) to undergraduate and graduate students enrolled in CS courses at a large public university in the United States to assess their attitudes towards the nascent fields of AI ethics and policy. Additionally, we conducted one-on-one follow-up interviews with 13 students to elicit more in-depth responses on topics such as the use of AI tools in the classroom, ethical impacts of AI, and government regulation of AI. In this paper, we describe the findings of our exploratory study, drawing parallels and contrasts to broader public opinion polling in the United States. We conclude by evaluating the implications of CS student attitudes on the future of AI education and governance.

  PublisherOA PDFDOI

• Perceptions of AI Ethics Policies Among Scientists and Engineers in Policy-Related Roles: An Exploratory Investigation

  Digital Society · 2025-04-01 · 7 citations

  articleOpen access

  Abstract The explosive growth of artificial intelligence (AI) over the past few years has focused attention on how diverse stakeholders regulate these technologies to ensure their safe and ethical use. Increasingly, governmental bodies, corporations, and nonprofit organizations are developing strategies and policies for AI governance. While existing literature on ethical AI has focused on the various principles and guidelines that have emerged as a result of these efforts, just how these principles are operationalized and translated to broader policy is still the subject of current research. Specifically, there is a gap in our understanding of how policy practitioners actively engage with, contextualize, or reflect on existing AI ethics policies in their daily professional activities. The perspectives of these policy experts towards AI regulation generally are not fully understood. To this end, this paper explores the perceptions of scientists and engineers in policy-related roles in the US public and nonprofit sectors towards AI ethics policy, both in the US and abroad. We interviewed 15 policy experts and found that although these experts were generally familiar with AI governance efforts within their domains, overall knowledge of guiding frameworks and critical regulatory policies was still limited. There was also a general perception among the experts we interviewed that the US lagged behind other comparable countries in regulating AI, a finding that supports the conclusion of existing literature. Lastly, we conducted a preliminary comparison between the AI ethics policies identified by the policy experts in our study and those emphasized in existing literature, identifying both commonalities and areas of divergence.

  PublisherOA PDFDOI

• Considering Personal Mastery as a Framework for Developing Students’ Affinity for Lifelong Learning [Research]

  2025-08-21 · 1 citations

  articleSenior author
  PublisherDOI

• 'Do I Have to Take This Class?': A Review of Ethics Requirements in Computer Science Curricula

  2025-02-12 · 9 citations

  reviewOpen access

  ABET criteria for accreditation of undergraduate computer science (CS) degrees require universities to cover within their curricula topics including ''local and global impacts of computing solutions on individuals, organizations, and society,'' and to prepare their students to ''make informed judgments in computing practice, taking into account legal, ethical, diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility principles''. A growing body of research similarly identifies the need for CS programs to integrate ethics into their degree requirements, both through standalone ethics-related courses and embedded modules or case studies on the ethical impacts in 'technical' courses. The calls for increased attention to CS ethics education have become more pressing with the emergence of sophisticated consumer-ready AI technologies, which pose new ethical challenges in the forms of bias, hallucination, and autonomous decision-making. Yet it remains unclear whether current university curricula are adequately preparing future graduates to confront these challenges. This paper presents a systematic review of the degree requirements of 250 computer science bachelor's degree programs worldwide. We categorize each program according to whether a CS-related ethics course is offered and/or required by the department, finding that almost half of all universities we review do not offer any computing ethics courses, and only 33% of universities require students to take an ethics course to obtain their degree. We analyze differences among public US, private US, and non-US universities and discuss implications for curricular changes and the state of undergraduate computing ethics education.

  PublisherDOI

• WIP: Identifying Technology Social Ventures for Research on Technology-Based Social Entrepreneurship Education for Engineering Students

  2024-10-13 · 1 citations

  article1st authorCorresponding

  In this research work-in-progress paper, we introduce an ongoing research project that aims to establish foundations for technology-based social entrepreneurship education for engineering students. To answer the research questions of this project, we first clearly define what technology social venture means in our research with example organizations that can be classified as technology social ventures. We explain how we identified such organizations for the project in detail. We conclude this paper with an introduction to our future work and implications for engineering education.

  PublisherDOI

Frequent coauthors

• Carla Zoltowski

  Purdue University System

  109 shared

• Brent Jesiek

  Stanford University

  80 shared

• Michael C. Loui

  University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign

  71 shared

• Alison Kerr

  Colorado School of Mines

  69 shared

• Justin L. Hess

  Purdue University West Lafayette

  56 shared

• Nicholas Fila

  University at Buffalo, State University of New York

  55 shared

• Andrew O. Brightman

  University of South Florida

  54 shared

• Stephanie Claussen

  University of Colorado System

  54 shared

Labs

• Engineering EducationPI

Awards & honors

• 2022 Christine Mirzayan Science & Technology Policy Graduate…
• 2022 College of Engineering Outstanding Graduate Student Res…
• 2022 Lillian Gilbreth Postdoctoral Fellowship, Purdue Univer…
• 2022 Bilsland Dissertation Fellowship, Purdue University
• Honorable Mention Best Paper Award, IEEE-ETHICS 2023 Confere…