The analysis of the oral interview I conducted

Description of the Person Being Interviewed 

Despite the pandemic, there United States experienced an increase in mass shootings in 2020. Day by day, over 100 American citizens are murdered with guns, and 200 more are shot and wounded. In 2020, the Gun Violence Archive reported that there were 585 mass shootings in the United States. However, the adverse consequences of gun violence extend far beyond the reported casualties as gun violence influences the lives of Americans are witness to it, know somebody who was shot or are living in fear of the next shooting. Today, the number of deaths committed with firearms is now at par with those caused by automobiles. For this reason, I decided to interview David Hemenway, an economics expert, and the professor of Health Policy at the Harvard School of Public Health. Professor Hemenway is also the director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center and the Harvard Youth Violence Prevention Center. Professor Hemenway describes the strategies in public health that can be used to save lives without the need for political intervention. 

Verbal and Non-verbal Communication Concepts 

I found professor Hemenway to be a proficient communicator because of his clarity of speech and the modulation of his voice. Professor Hemenway spoke loudly enough, and I was able to hear him comfortably 1 . During our conversation, the professor did not employ the use of filler words. Also, I did not use any type of filler words during the interview, as they would have made our conversation unprofessional. 

Talking fast is one of the most common causes of unclear speech. This results in vowel sounds getting shortened, mumbling, and words becoming a jumble of consonants. I noticed that the professor maintained a speed of about 120 words a minute. This speed was appropriate while explaining concepts relating to gun violence and where we went wrong as a country. 

During the interview, the professor and I presented a calm and relaxed face that enabled us to proceed with the meeting. This showed that we respected and understood each other as we talked about gun violence's effects on the American people 2 . When I seemed agitated, professor Hemenway smiled warmly and maintained intermittent eye contact throughout the interview process. 

I believe that we were both able to interpret each other's verbal and non-verbal messages. To signify that I was speaking loudly, professor Hemenway moved his head back. To avoid this from happening, I mimicked the professor's talking spend and volume. This was important because I was being sensitive to the professor's reactions and evaluating my speed and volume accordingly. During the interview, I adjusted my approach for what seemed to best keep professor Hemenway comfortable and engaged. 

The professor was an active listener. For every question or response, professor Hemenway gave me his undivided attention and acknowledged the message that I was putting across 3 . To show that he was listening, he nodded occasionally and made his posture open and interested. Also, Professor Hemenway responded appropriately to any of my concerns. This promoted respect and understanding between us. 

Professor Hemenway was empathic with the families and victims of mass shootings. Often than not, human beings tend to improve, grow, or thrive when they feel understood. The empathetic response provided by professor Hemenway reflects on the feelings victims of mass shootings are experiencing and the reasons why they are feeling that way. 

I adapted my communication style to match that of professor Hemenway to maximize the impact of our communication. Through this, I was able to connect with professor Hemenway, lower the barriers to hearing, and enhance my message's deliverability. Professor Hemenway was able to adapt his communication style by showing that he cared 4 . The professor showed that he cared by paying attention to our personal differences, experiences, values, and strengths. Professor Hemenway was able to match my communication preferences, and this ensured that I had a chance to be heard and involved in the conversation. Adapting our communication styles met the platinum rule standard that allowed us first to understand each other before we could ascertain how to act ethically. 

Cultural Influence in the Interview 

There were no significant cultural differences during the interview. Professor Hemenway and I had the same attitude towards conflict as we dealt with them as they arise 5 . We focused on the objectives of the interview questions, leaving our relationship to develop along the way. These cultural influences positively affected the outcome of the interview because we understood each other's reactions and behaviors, thus coming to a common understanding. 

Active Listening 

Professor Hemenway is a good listener because he did not only nod when being talked to or used facial expressions to let me know that that he was listening to me, but he periodically asked questions to encourage insight and discovery 6 . This indicated that professor Hemenway had not only had what I said but understood it well enough to seek additional information. 

My listening skills were impeccable. Throughout our interaction, there was a smooth flow of feedback in both directions, and neither party became offensive about the comments made by the other 7 . I was not only listening to identify errors in logic but also to challenge the assumptions made by professor Hemenway. This because we understood each other's feelings and emotions concerning gun violence. In the interview, we identified and acknowledged our differences 8 . We also asked questions that shed light on the assumptions we held, which helped us see the issue in a new perspective. We both positively contributed to the topic by injecting ideas and thoughts that were useful to the other person. 

Power Structure in the Interview 

I would describe the interview's power structure as 70 - professor Hemenway and 30 – for me. This is because the interview's main objective was to seek professional advice from professor Hemenway on the causes of increased mass shootings in the United States and how they can be prevented. Grounded on the questions, professor Hemenway held all the power to influence others based his language patterns 9 . I did not want to distract professor Hemenway from providing informative answers to the interview questions because my knowledge of gun violence is limited. At the same time, he possesses the required expertise in the field 10 . My other purpose was to set the agenda for the discussion and lead the conversation. Although professor Hemenway had some control over the interview, I am the one who was in charge of the interview. 

Communication Competence 

Communication is one of the forms used in expressing thoughts. For the interview, communication between the professor and I was used to identify public health strategies that can be used to prevent mass violence 11 . Before the interview began, I defined this goal in my analysis and set the expectations. This is important because it helped identify and resolve any misunderstanding so that everyone on the right track. I clearly communicated this objective with professor Hemenway and explained the expectations that the interview was to achieve. 

Professor Hemenway presented the ideas on gun violence clearly based on the interview questions that were administered. Before every interaction, professor Hemenway identified each interview question's critical message that helped him guide the interaction and present ideas distinctly and reasonably. Each time, professor Hemenway presented the main idea, he supported it with more information for clarification purposes. 

Interview Questions 

Did you grow up around guns or gun use? 

What can be done to reduce gun violence? 

As there countries with as many guns as the United States but experience less crime? 

What state laws work best to reduce gun violence? 

How many guns and gun owners are there in the United States? 

Are there any federal requirements for private gun sellers? 

Have you ever been held at gun point or threatened by someone with a gun? 

How many times have gun owners actually prevented crime? 

Can you shoot a person in self-defense? 

Chris Rock once said that it is gun control but rather bullet control that should be taken into account. Do you think there is any validity to that? 

References 

Adler, R., & Proctor, R. (2016). Looking out looking in (15th ed.). Cengage Learning. 

1 Adler, R., & Proctor, R. (2016). Looking out looking in (15th ed.). Cengage Learning. 

2 Adler, R., & Proctor, R. (2016). Looking out looking in (15th ed.). Cengage Learning. 

3 

4 Adler, R., & Proctor, R. (2016). Looking out looking in (15th ed.). Cengage Learning. 

5 

6 

7 Adler, R., & Proctor, R. (2016). Looking out looking in (15th ed.). Cengage Learning. 

8 

9 . 

10 

11 Adler, R., & Proctor, R. (2016). Looking out looking in (15th ed.). Cengage Learning.