The following essay is reprinted with permission from Thirteen years before any other woman joined the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics \u2013 or the NACA, NASA\u2019s predecessor \u2013 in a technical role, a young lab assistant named Pearl Young<\/a> was making waves in the agency. Her legacy as an outspoken and persistent advocate for herself and her team would pave the way for women in science, technology, engineering and mathematics for decades to come.<\/p>\n My interest in Young\u2019s story is grounded in my own identity as a woman in a STEM field<\/a>. I find strength in sharing the stories of women who made lasting impacts in STEM<\/a>. I am the director of the NASA-funded<\/a> North Dakota Space Grant Consortium<\/a>, where we aim to foster an open and welcoming environment in STEM. Young\u2019s story is one of persistence<\/a> through setbacks, advocacy for herself and others, and building a community of support.<\/p>\n If you’re enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing<\/a>. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.<\/p>\n Young was a scientist, an educator, a technical editor and a researcher. Born in 1895, she was no stranger to the barriers that women faced at the time.<\/p>\n In the early 20th century, college degrees in STEM fields were considered \u201cless suited for women<\/a>,\u201d and graduates with these degrees were considered unconventional women<\/a>. Professors who agreed to mentor women in advanced STEM fields in the 1940s and 1950s were often accused of communism<\/a>.<\/p>\n In 1956, the National Science Foundation even published an article<\/a> with the title: \u201cWomen are NOT for Engineering.\u201d<\/p>\n Despite society\u2019s sexist standards, Young earned a bachelor\u2019s degree in 1919 with a triple major in physics, mathematics and chemistry, with honors, from the University of North Dakota. She then began her decades-long career in STEM.<\/p>\n Despite the hostile culture for women, Young successfully navigated multiple technical roles at the NACA. With her varied expertise, she worked in several divisions \u2013 physics, instrumentation and aerodynamics \u2013 and soon noticed a trend across the agency. Many of the reports her colleagues wrote weren\u2019t well written enough to be useful.<\/p>\n In a 1959 interview<\/a>, Young spoke of her start at the NACA: \u201cThose were fruitful years. I was interested in good writing and suggested the need for a technical editor. The engineers lacked the time to make readable reports.\u201d<\/p>\n Three years after voicing her suggestion, Young was reassigned to the newly created role of assistant technical editor in the publications section in 1935. After six years in that role, Young earned the title of associate technical editor in 1941.<\/p>\n In 1941, the NACA established the Aircraft Engine Research Laboratory, now known as NASA Glenn Research Center, in Cleveland. This new field center needed experienced employees, so two years later, NACA leadership invited Young to lead a new technical editing section there.<\/p>\n It was at the Aircraft Engine Research Laboratory that Young published her most notable technical work, the Style Manual for Engineering Authors, in 1943. NASA\u2019s History Office even referred to Young as the architect of the NACA technical reports system<\/a>.<\/p>\n Young\u2019s style manual allowed the agency to communicate technological progress around the globe. This manual included specific formatting rules for technical writing, which would increase consistency for engineers and researchers reporting their data and experimental results. It was essential for efficient World War II operations and was translated into multiple languages.<\/p>\n But it wasn\u2019t until after this publication that Young finally received the promotion to full technical editor, 11 years after she voiced the need for the role at the agency. She was the first person to hold this role, but she had to start at the assistant level, then move up to associate before receiving the full technical editor designation.<\/p>\n Perhaps the most noteworthy piece of Young\u2019s story is her character. While advocating for herself and her colleagues, Young often had to challenge authority.<\/p>\n She stood up for her editing section when male supervisors wrongfully accused them of making mistakes. She wrote official proposals to properly classify her office in the research division<\/a> at the Aircraft Engine Research Laboratory. She regularly acknowledged the contributions of her entire team for the achievements they shared.<\/p>\n She also secured extra personnel to lessen unbearable workloads and wrote official memorandums to ensure that her colleagues earned rightful promotions. Young often referred to these actions as \u201craising hell.\u201d<\/p>\n The archival documents I\u2019ve analyzed indicate that Young\u2019s performance at the NACA was exemplary throughout her career. In 1967<\/a>, she was awarded the University of North Dakota\u2019s prestigious Sioux Award<\/a> in recognition of her professional achievements and service to the university.<\/p>\n In 1995, and again in 2014, NASA Langley Research Center dedicated a theater in her name<\/a>. The new theater is located in NASA\u2019s Integrated Engineering Services Building.<\/p>\n In 2015, Young was inducted into the inaugural NASA\/NACA Langley Hall of Honor<\/a>. But throughout her career, not all of her colleagues shared this complimentary view of Young and her work.<\/p>\n One of Young\u2019s supervisors in 1930 thought it necessary to assess her \u201cattitude\u201d and fitness as an employee in her progress report \u2013 and justified his position by typing these additional words into the document himself.<\/p>\n Later that year, Young requested time off \u2013 likely for the holiday season \u2013 prompting a different supervisor to draft an official memorandum to the engineer in charge, a position akin to today\u2019s NASA center director. He referred to Young\u2019s \u201cattitude\u201d in requesting to use her vacation days.<\/p>\n While sexism in STEM has shifted its forms over time, gender-based inequities still exist. Women in STEM frequently confront microaggressions<\/a>, marginalization and hostile work environments<\/a>, including unequal pay, lack of recognition and additional service expectations.<\/p>\n Women often lack supportive social networks<\/a> and encounter other systemic barriers to career advancement<\/a>, such as not being recognized as an authority figure, or the double standard of being perceived as too aggressive instead of as a leader.<\/p>\n Women of color<\/a>, women who belong to LGBTQ+ communities and women who have one or more disabilities<\/a> face even more barriers rooted in these intersectional identities.<\/p>\n One of the ways to combat these inequities is to call attention to systemic barriers by sharing stories of women who persisted in STEM<\/a> \u2013 women like Pearl Young.<\/p>\n This article was originally published on <\/i>The Conversation<\/i><\/a>. Read the <\/i>original article<\/i><\/a>.<\/i><\/p>\n<\/div>\n![\"The](\"https:\/\/counter.theconversation.com\/content\/242873\/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-advanced\")
The Conversation<\/a>, an online publication covering the latest research.<\/em><\/p>\nOn supporting science journalism<\/h2>\n
Facing challenges from the beginning<\/h2>\n
Becoming a technical editor<\/h2>\n
Pearl Young \u2018raising hell\u2019<\/h2>\n
Women not welcome in STEM<\/h2>\n