Integrating knowledge of multitasking and interruptions across different perspectives and research methods

Multitasking and interruptions have been studied using a variety of methods in multiple fields (e.g., HCI, cognitive science, computer science, and social sciences). This diversity brings many complementary insights. However, it also challenges researchers to understand how seemingly disparate ideas can best be integrated to further theory and to inform the design of interactive systems. There is therefore a need for a platform to discuss how different approaches to understanding multitasking and interruptions can be combined to provide insights that are more than the sum of their parts. In this article we argue for the necessity of an integrative approach. As part of this argument we provide an overview of articles in this special issue on multitasking and interruptions. These articles showcase the variety of methods currently used to study multitasking and interruptions. It is clear that there are many challenges to studying multitasking and interruptions from different perspectives and using different techniques. We advance a six-point research agenda for the future of multi-method research on this important and timely topic. & 2015 Published by Elsevier Ltd. 1. Multitasking and interruptions: of theoretical and practical interest in many fields How people deal with multiple tasks that are competing for attention has been an active area within the fields of human– computer interaction (HCI) and cognitive science. Researchers have been influenced by a variety of disciplines, from computer science, to experimental psychology, and social sciences. Each field brings its own theoretical perspective and methodological approach. The aim of this special issue is to facilitate the integration of results across these different perspectives and research traditions. In this article we argue for the necessity of this integrative approach. Perhaps one of the core questions driving research into multitasking and interruptions is: how beneficial or harmful is it to multitask? For example, are interruptions disruptive? Researchers have attempted to answer this question using a variety of methods. For example, observational studies have shown that interruptions occur frequently in many workplaces (e.g., González and Mark, 2004), controlled experiments have shown that interruptions take time to recover from and increase the likelihood of errors being made on a task (e.g., Brumby et al., 2014; Li et al., 2008; Monk et al., 2008), modeling and theoretical work has provided detailed explanations of these effects (e.g., Altmann and Trafton, 2002; Salvucci and Taatgen, 2008), which in turn has informed the design of interactive systems to minimize the costs of interruptions (e.g., Böhmer et al., 2014; Iqbal and Bailey, 2010). Some of this work is presented to a dedicated community; other work is presented at interdisciplinary venues. Our aim is to stimulate debates across disciplines. We start the rest of this article with some general background on multitasking and interruptions research. We then assert the need for multiple techniques and perspectives in the study of this important and timely research topic. We then introduce the papers in this special issue with a focus on how the variety in their approaches furthers our understanding. Finally, we advance a six-point research agenda for the future of multi-method research into multitasking and interruptions. 2. Costs and benefits of multitasking and interruptions Multitasking and interruptions are ubiquitous. In some environments, such as offices (González and Mark, 2004), multitasking and interruptions affect productivity but are unlikely to have direct dangerous consequences. In other settings multitasking and interruptions can impact safety. For example, in aviation (e.g., Dismukes et al., 2001; Latorella, 1996; Loukopoulos et al., 2001; McFarlane and Latorella, 2002), healthcare (e.g., Li et al., 2012; Magrabi et al., 2010; Rajkomar and Blandford, 2012; Walter et al., 2014; Westbrook et al., 2010a, 2010b), and driving (e.g., Caird et al., 2008; Horrey and Wickens, 2006; Mccartt et al., 2006). There is a need to understand the potential risks (and benefits) that might arise frommultitasking in these and other environments. This can provide insight into cognition and behavior, but also inform the design and evaluation of interactive systems that are frequently used by people in these settings.