New research suggests that a stereotypical programmer's workspace—Star Trek posters, empty Mountain Dew/beer cans and all, according to the article—may be a significant reason why more women are not entering into computer science disciplines and fields. While my formal training is as a chemical engineer, I have been programming since my parents enrolled me in computer camp when I was eight and didn't have many friends at home. In the intervening 23 years, I can probably count on one hand the number of times my computer workspace has been clean as opposed to looking like a bomb went off, but it has never looked like a sophomore male's dorm room... except my second year of college when I took all those computer science classes.

Where other STEM fields (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) are seeing the percentage of women enrolled increase, computer science is going through a decline. The study, published in Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, finds that the feeling of ambient belonging—a sense of how well one feels they fit into a field—is not there for women in computer science. "When people think of computer science the image that immediately pops into many of their minds is of the computer geek surrounded by such things as computer games, science fiction memorabilia and junk food," said Sapna Cheryan, a University of Washington assistant professor of psychology.

The authors describe this feeling as one that is garnered on a first impression of a space. "You look at the objects and make an instant appraisal of how you would fit with the objects and the people who are typically found in that environment. You also make a judgment of 'I like it here' or 'I don't belong here,'" said Cheryan.

To assess such a feeling, the authors set up a series of four experiments that were designed to aid understanding of whether stereotypical surroundings may cause women to choose fields of study over computer science.

The participants, over 250 male and female students not enrolled in a computer science course of study, and were ushered into a classroom that was either filled with stereotypical computer science objects, or one with generic crap. They were told the room was being shared with another class, and after a few minutes were asked to fill out a questionnaire probing their feelings about the room.

The survey found that women who sat in the stereotypically decorated room expressed less interest in computer science than those who sat in the control room. Men, on the other hand, did not show a similar drop in interest. This lead the researchers to conclude that choices of classes or even major can be influenced simply by the decor of the offices, classrooms, and labs that a department has.

In a continuation on the theme, the researchers conducted three similar experiments. When faced with the choice of joining one of two all-female teams, the only difference being the objects found in the team's workroom—stereotypical versus nonstereotypical—women overwhelmingly (82 percent of the time) choose to work with the team based in the nonstereotypically decorated room.

When men and women were asked about job offers at two companies who both had a 50/50 gender ratio, where one was decorated with the usual computer science gear and the other more generic stuff, both genders preferred the nonstereotypical setting, women more so than men. The final experiment probed thoughts about working at a nondescript Web design company; again, women would choose a work environment that was not decorated in the stereotypical computer science way.

The work does show a definitive trend of nontechnical people not liking work environments that have stuff a 17-year-old male would have hanging on the walls of his room. However, outside of the occasional computer science TAs office or undergraduate dorm room, I cannot see how this stereotypical setup seems very, well... stereotypical—especially in the latter of the three experimental setups. While my personal workspace may look like an utter mess, it is not the image that my company (or any I have visited, worked with, or interviewed at) as a whole projects themselves to potential hires and customers.

Judging simply from the image that accompanies this article, the brightly colored Star Trek poster and game boxes strongly draw one's eyes and attention—after all, it's what they were designed to do! I would be curious if the disparity in ambient belonging remains if even just these two focal objects were removed from the "stereotypical computer science" workspace. Technical books and papers are one thing, but a huge color poster and unrelated video games are not what I would consider to be present in any sort of professional environment (short of a movie studio, or game development office), nor what I would think appropriate for a general use classroom at a University.

Prior work has shown that kids and teens (and by extension, I'll wager college-aged young adults) don't actually feel that the common stereotypes are descriptive of people who work in STEM fields. While I will agree that certain aspects of technical fields can be off-putting to individuals who don't know the field—compounded by arrogant jerks who revel in their smug superiority over such unenlightened people—it has been shown that by and large, people are interested if someone gives them the time of day to answer questions.

Many STEM fields suffer from a chicken-and-egg type problem. A group that is not adequately represented in teaching or high-ranking positions is by definition not present to mentor new people from that group, hence perpetuating a cycle that is very hard to break. While cleaning up the first impressions that may be perceived by those outside or new to the field will help, it will not instantly resolve the underlying issues. As the cryand for more competent technical individuals increases, however, every little bit of information that helps bring more people in is good.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2009, 97 (6) 1045-1060.

Listing image by Flickr user compujeramey