One of our readings for this week touched on the topic of multi-tasking and how much of the time the term is an inaccurate descriptor of what the writer means. Taken literally, multi-tasking refers to the ability to engage in two or more tasks concurrently; an ability that few can master perfectly. But as explained by Kirschner & De Bruyckere, when people refer to 'multi-tasking,' the meaning likely meant by writers is the ability to quickly and seamlessly transition between a series of different tasks. A key difference is the time order - simultaneously versus sequentially. What strikes me as most important about this distinction is the effect the misconception may have on young graduates entering the workforce. If you take the time to look at employment ads, many will invariably use the phrase "ability to multi-task." When I see this phrase I interpret it to mean the latter definition, but it makes me wonder if employers have a genuine misconception about people's abilities due to the ubiquity of internet/web 2.0 among young people today or if it is simply a misused term. I'm interested to hear your thoughts!
One of the distinct advantages of Web 2.0 is that it has helped not only in democratizing art but also facilitating its creation. As a (former) musician, I adore that people now have the technology to create music irrespective of temporospatial boundaries and without onerous financial investments. Musicians can now live in disparate parts of the country or world and still make music together thanks to file-sharing and reasonably-priced software. Another outgrowth of this phenomenon is the culture of mash-ups. To give a brief bit of background, mash-ups are essentially additions to or the manipulation of previously recorded material. One of the earliest and most notable examples of mash-ups was known as 'The Grey Album," which was released by an artist named Dangermouse in 2004. The Grey Album combined previously recorded music by the Beatles and Jay-Z. Predictably, EMI, the owner of the Beatles recording copyrights balked and distributors of the Grey Album were sent Cease an...
Hi Lauren C,
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your post about multi-tasking. I was thinking about this as well this week. What came to mind for me is that I have a colleague in the pharmacy program that has done research in the role of multi-tasking for pharmacy students and pharmacists. I didn't see a clear definition in the article I pulled. However, based on the study design it appears that multi-tasking relates to changing tasks during a period of time. This may be 10 minutes or a whole shift. One study looked at pharmacy students learning to verify prescriptions. They had 10 minutes with and without another task to complete - a ringing phone. Those with the phone took longer and were more likely to make errors.
This made me think that maybe employers are considering the number of tasks in a window of time. While you may switch tasks, sequentially, I wonder if you might mentally still be thinking about the other task, making it more simultaneous. Just a thought. Thanks for your post.
Hi Lauren!
ReplyDeleteGreat topic! I remember tackling this topic in EDP 5216, on whether or not I believe it was possible for someone to multi task. From a very objective perspective, I think that it is only possible for someone to achieve this for very simplistic tasks in which we have achieved automacity (such as doing my readings while drinking coffee and typing a text message at the same time).
However, regarding your point about prospective employees including their "ability to multi-task" in their resumes, I do believe that this term is used rather loosely (I was guilty of it as well). In my mind, when I included that "ability" in my resume, what I wanted to convey was that I could handle several projects at the same time without dropping the proverbial ball and not that I could literally do several things at the same time. Does that make sense?