Latest news

The Arnold Schoenberg Center in Vienna decided to give Avior Byron the Avenir Foundation Research Grant for a one month research trip in Vienna in order to work on two books that he is writing.  

Subscribe to

Enter your email and press the 'Subscribe' button to receive blog posts via email:


Subscribe via RSS

What is RSS?

Follow @avior on Twitter

People reading Bymusic now

Translate this page now

Who is Behind

Avior Byron

My name is Avior Byron and I am a musicologist, blogger and composer. I write books, articles and a blog about music, performance, research, and theory. Read more at my about page

What next?

 Subscribe to the Blog

Click here to add site to your favorites

What I'm doing just now


What is THE best way to find scholarships?

A paper on Huberman in the 2010 Annual Israel Musicology Conference

The violinist Bronislaw Huberman is considered to be one of the greatest violinists in music history. Although his playing is controversial, there were few who did not recognize his greatness as a performer. There is very little academic research on Huberman and his playing. In this paper I will present materials from Huberman’s archive that was not discussed in the literature. I claim that people from different countries and periods conceptualized Huberman’s playing as something that is more than just playing. His performances and interpretations were considered to represent things that are transcendent or even metaphysical. The paper will analyze how important cultural figures, music critics and common listeners, perceived the technique of Huberman, his behavior on stage, his physical appearance, and how he interpreted the scores that he played. The presentation will include listening to historical recordings by Huberman.

Dr. Avior Byron is a musicologist, blogger and composer. Byron published in journals such as Music Theory Online and The World of Music and is currently working on a book on Schoenberg’s Writings on Aesthetics and Interpretation in Performance (Oxford University Press). He received his PhD from University of London (2007) and is currently conducting research on Bronislaw Huberman. Website:

Research proposal for the Avenir Foundation-Research Grant

The Avenir Foundation-Research Grant

Last week I received the following wonderful news from The Arnold Schoenberg Center in Vienna concerning the Avenir Foundation-Research Grant:
Dear Avior,

With pleasure I am writing to you to inform you about our decision to support your research projects by providing an Avenir stipend for travel and accommodation in Vienna/Moedling.

Support for the Research Grants will include:
Housing at the Schoenberg-House in Moedling for a four-week period;
Public transportation passes to and from the Schoenberg-House in Moedling to the Arnold Schoenberg Center in Vienna as well as transportation within Vienna;
Per diem allowance;
Transportation allowance to assist in travel to and from Vienna.

The news made me very happy since it will help me finish two books. The following is the research proposal that I have submitted on 3 September 2009 to the Arnold Schoenberg Center:

From Dr. Avior Byron, Musicology Department, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem

To Dr. Christian Meyer, Director of the Arnold Schoenberg Center


Research proposal for the Avenir Foundation-Research Grant:

I would like to come to the Schoenberg center for one month during August 2010. The aim of the research trip is to work on two books. I am applying for a 2 week grant for my Oxford book (Schoenberg’s Writings on Aesthetics and Interpretation in Performance) and an additional 2 week grant for a second book entitled Schoenberg and Performance: Changing Interpretive Perspectives. In the following I describe the contents of both books.


A. Plan for the book Schoenberg’s Writings on Aesthetics and Interpretation in Performance

I have signed a contract for editing a book on Schoenberg’s Writings on Aesthetics and Interpretation in Performance, which is the fourth out of nine volumes called Schoenberg in Words: Teachings, Correspondence and other Writings (1890-1951), (Oxford University Press).

The main aim of the research trip is to examine the documents listed below and to search for further documents that could be included in this book.

Book description: This volume will be the first published collection and translation devoted to Schoenberg’s writings on performance. Only a handful of these commentaries have appeared in the editions of Style and Idea (1975, 1984). Indeed, from 1923 to 1951, Schoenberg wrote more than thirty manuscripts, two of which he targeted for a proposed book project. Some of these works are reactions to concerts that he heard or reviews or essays that he read, while others discuss the philosophical nature of performance itself. Although they do not deal exclusively with performance, selected correspondence with various musicians often makes a substantial contribution to the understanding of specific works.

My introduction to the text will engage the primary concepts of Schoenberg’s aesthetics of performance —crucially, the impact of his notion of musical idea on interpretation and the role of the performer in relation to the composer and the score itself. The writings will divide chronologically into three parts (1909-18, 1919-32, 1933-51), which reflect certain changes of attitude toward performances during his career. For example, he strongly altered his views in America where his pieces lacked appropriate venues. Although Schoenberg’s notions of the aesthetics of performance do not define a school of thought that others may readily follow, his ideas contribute to a refined interpretation of his music and the classical canon.

The grand will help me examine the following letters and writings as well as find other ones that might be relevant for the book.


c. 1900  Das Opern- und Konzertpublikum und seine Führer [The Opera- and Concert-Public and Its Leaders, from ‘Seven Fragments’]

1904 Prospectus for the Society of Creative Musicians
1909 Letter to Busoni concerning Op. 11
1909 Tempo annotations on the performance score of his String Quartet, Op. 10
1912 (revision 1948) Excerpt from ‘Gustav Mahler’, about Mahler as conductor.

1912 Berlin Diary about not identifying a clarinet playing in a wrong transposition.
Post 1917 Excerpt from Schoenberg’s annotations on Busoni’s Entwurf einer neuen Ästhetik der Tonkunst (Outline of a New Aesthetic of Music).

1914 Schoenberg’s introduction to Pierrot lunaire
1918 Prospectus of the Society for Private Musical Performances
1920 Letter to Berg and other students
1920 Letter to Erwin Stein
1922 Letter to the singer Marya Freund
1922 Letter concerning Copenhagen performers
1922 Letter to Varèse
1923  Zur Notenschriften ["On notation"]
1923 Vortragszeichen ["Performance indications"]
1923  Noten-Bilder-Schrift ["Pictorial notation"]
1923  Der Moderne Klavierauszug ["The modern piano reduction"]
1923 letter to Josef Rufer
c. 1923 or 1924 Zur Vortragslehre ["For a treatise on performance"]
1924 Zu einigen Punkten der Frage, ob man Krammermusik dirigiren soll ["One point about the question whether on should conduct chamber music"]
1924  Eine neue Zwölfton-Schrift ["A new twelve-tone notation"]
1926 Mechanische Musikinstrumente ("Mechanical Musical Instruments")
1926 Zur Metronomisierung ["On metronome markings"]  

1927 Schoenberg to Stein
1929 Musikalische Dynamik ["Musical dynamics"]
1929 Das ist eine seichte Auffassung ["This is a shallow conception"]
1929 Ein "Urheberrecht nachsch-affender Künstler" ("A ‘Copyright for performers’")
Splitter (shortened form of Gedankensplitter. Aphorisms on opera)
1931  Revolution Evolution (Notierung – Vorzeichen) ["Revolution-evolution, notation (accidentals)"]
1931  Raumton, Vibrato, Radio, etc. ["Tone space, vibrato, radio, etc."]
1931  Phrasierung ["Phrasing"]
1934  Vortrag und Gestalt ["Performance and Gestalt’]
1934  Triolen und Quartolen bei Brahms und Bach ["Triplets and quadruplets in Brahms and Bach"]
Post 1934 Tempo
1936 Schoenberg answered Columbia by telegraph concerning recording of Pierrot lunaire

Late 1930s – Early 1940s EXPRESSION music was from the very beginning…

1939 manuscript with Schoenberg’s claim that critics and conductors were creating a conspiracy against him

1940 letter to Moses Smith concerning recording of  recording of Pierrot lunaire

 1940 letter to Fritz Stiedry and Erika Stiedry-Wagner
c. 1940  Das Vibrato hat man in meiner Jugend  ["in my youth the vibrato was called…"]
1941 letter to Stein ‘… though Mrs. Stiedry is never in pitch’
c. August 1944 Koussevitzki-Toscanini
c. 1945 Musical notation is done in rebusses …
post-1945 Theory of Performance
1946 May I state that knowing records, I realized that their performers…
1947 Before Musical notation
1948 Today’s Manner of Performing Classical Music
1949 For the Radio Broadcast of the String Trio
1949  Ich glaube den Anfang von Pelleas ["I believe that the start of Pelleas"]
1949 To Twelve American Conductors
1949 Letter to Steuermann
1949 letter to Daniel Ruyneman

1949 letter to Hans Rosbaud
1950 Letter about Rudolf Kolisch
1950 Letter to Basil Douglas
1951 Letter to Thor Johnson


B. Plan for the book Schoenberg and Performance: Changing Interpretive Perspectives.

This book focuses on Schoenberg’s performance aesthetics and practice as a conductor in relation to the various cultural and social environments in which he lived. It also examines historical recordings from the early interpretive history of Schoenberg’s music. In Part I examine Schoenberg’s history as a performer. I suggest that the common notion that Schoenberg was an unaccomplished conductor was often tainted by issues unrelated to his performance technique. Part II focuses on Schoenberg’s writings. There is a discussion of some of the basic conceptions concerning his performance aesthetics and I inspect his performance-related writings (articles, unpublished manuscripts and letters). I argue that Schoenberg’s performance aesthetics significantly changed during his life.

Part III and IV contain several case studies focusing on Schoenberg’s practice. I examine Verklärte Nacht, Op. 4, dating from his tonal period, and Suite, Op. 29 as well as the Piano Piece, Op. 33a from his twelve-tone period and claim that several key factors affected Schoenberg’s performance practice. Part IV is dedicated to Pierrot lunaire, Op. 21 from the atonal period. There is a detailed discussion of the Sprechstimme enigma (how should the voice perform it?). I examine for the first time the test pressings for the commercial recording. This sheds new light on how Stiedry-Wagner and Schoenberg performed the Sprechstimme in his 1940 commercial recording of the piece. A comparison is made between a broadcast that I have recently discovered and the famous 1940 commercial recording of the piece, showing significant differences between the two. I end this part by suggesting criteria for evaluating Sprechstimme performances and examining early recordings of performers from the 1950s.

Part V includes a review and analysis of video and audio performance of Schoenberg that can be obtained only via the internet. The jump to the twentieth century will grant the reader a perspective to what direction the interpretation of Schoenberg’s music is going to.

Part VI evaluates Schoenberg’s performance aesthetics and practice from a large perspective. In chapter 11 I examine whether Schoenberg’s performance aesthetics and practice shed new light on the analysis of his music. In the final chapter I examine the relation between Schoenberg’s practice as a conductor (Parts III and IV) and his performance aesthetic (Part II), and I point out some of the problems and challenges that it presents to one who wishes to interpret Schoenberg.


I will need access to performance manuscripts and I will try to find more performance related manuscripts. Access to the library as well as to early recordings of Pierrot lunaire will also be of great importance.

Plan of book chapters:

Lists of tables, figures, examples and sound examples
List of Abbreviations

Part I: Introduction
Chapter 1. Demystifying Schoenberg’s conducting

Part II: Aesthetics

Chapter 2. Basic performance conceptions
Chapter 3. Schoenberg’s writings on performance

Chapter 4. Comparison of Schoenberg’s and Adorno’s performance aesthetics  

Part III: Ideas in Practice - compositions from the 1920s
Chapter 5. Verklärte Nacht, Op. 4
Chapter 6. Suite, Op. 29
Chapter 7. Piano Piece, Op. 33a, early performances, 1950s-1960s

Part IV: Ideas in Practice - Pierrot lunaire, Op. 21
Chapter 8. Schoenberg’s broadcast and commercial recording
Chapter 9. Sprechstimme reconsidered

Chapter 10. Evaluating Sprechstimme - early performances, 1940s-1950s

Part V: Performing Schoenberg on the internet
Chapter 11. Video and audio performances on the web

Part VI: Evaluation
Chapter 12. Analysis and performance
Chapter 13. On interpreting Schoenberg

Interview with Dika Newlin

Excerpts from an interview with Schoenberg’s children



Related posts

Arnlod Schoenberg spoke to me in a dream

Evaluating Sprechstimme: what early recordings tell us - the chapter

Cats performing Schoenberg Piano Piece Op. 11 - a must!

Early Performances of Pierrot Lunaire Op. 21 Research Proposal

Artur Schnabel and Schoenberg’s Performance Aesthetics and Practice

Bjork singing Schoenberg’s Pierrot lunaire

The Schoenberg Archive in Vienna

A letter from Oxford University Press: Schoenberg’s Writings on Performance

Email interview with Schoenberg’s Children

Conference paper: Schoenberg’s or Adorno’s Performance Aesthetics?


Early Performances of Pierrot Lunaire Op. 21 Research Proposal

Here is the research proposal I wrote for the Edison Fellowship in the British Library Sound Archive. The proposal was written during January 2008. Now I am actually starting to do the research.  

Early Performances of Pierrot Lunaire Op. 21: Recordings, Reception and Cultural Meanings



The great differences between the early recordings of Op. 21 imply that one should seek to understand them by coming to terms, not only with the score, but also with performance. Most of the literature on Schoenbergs Pierrot lunaire concentrates on compositional aspects of the score or on issues concerning the text of the songs.The few articles that were written on the performance of this piece focused on the voice producing the Sprechstimme. Almost nothing was written on the performance of the ensemble (and its relation to the Sprechstimme and text).   
This study will attempt to reduce the gulf between analysis and the listeners’ and performers’ experiences, by analysing recordings (see the discography below), performance reception and cultural history. The aim is to reveal the musical elements that are most relevant for performers and listeners, and to discuss the cultural meanings that they support.


I wish to spend one month in the Sound Archive in London (1 July 2009 - 1 August 2009, continuous residence with visits on a daily basis), in order to examine recordings and study relevant literature. I plan to study recordings from the 1940s-1960s (all of the recordings are present in the holdings of the Sound Archive), to find any deviations of the recordings from the score indications, the special characteristics of each recording, and also the similarities among them. I will use several computer programs in order to sharpen my listening and for presenting the data (as I did in my publications in MTO and JSMI).


This study is in many ways a natural continuation of my PhD and Postdoctoral research which are focused on Schoenberg performance aesthetics and practice. I plan to write an article as a result of this study, which might develop to be part of a chapter in a book about early performances of Schoenberg’s music.

Potential significance

Schoenberg’s Op. 21 is considered to be one of the most important compositions of the twentieth century. Placing this piece in its early performance context is significant for a more comprehensive and historical appreciation. I wish to contribute to a refined understanding of those early performances as various musical commentaries of both the composer and some of his interpreters on contemporary musical and social trends.    
An understanding of the performance legacy of performers from Schoenberg’s circle, and other performers mentioned in the discography, is important for appreciating the initial historical interpretation of this music. The research will touch upon the issue of the relation between performance aesthetics and practice, and the affects of performance circumstances and technology on the performing. These issues are discussed to various extents in my publications. This study has potential to reveal to performers and listeners, previously unexplored interpretive issues of this music, which may have a significant affect on their experience.  


1.       Erika Stiedry-Wagner, voice; instrumental ensemble (Leonard Posella, flute & piccolo; Kalman Bloch, clarinet & bass clarinet; Rudolf Kolisch, violin & viola; Stefan Auber, violoncello; Edward Steuermann, piano); Arnold Schoenberg, conductor (recorded: Los Angeles, CA, 24 September 1940)  *CBS MPK 45695 mono ADD (1989) CD
2.       Ellen Adler, voice; Paris Chamber Ensemble (Jean-Pierre Rampal, flute & piccolo; Ernest Briand, clarinet; André Dupont, bass clarinet; Francine Villers, violin; Colette Lequien, viola; Sean Barati, violoncello; Claude Helffer, piano); René Leibowitz, conductor  *Dial DLP 16 mono (1951?) LP  
3.       Ethel Semser, soprano; Virtuoso Chamber Ensemble (Edward Walker, flute & piccolo; Sidney Fell, clarinet; Walter Lear, bass clarinet; Lionel Bentley, violin; Gwynne Edwards, viola; Willem De Mont, violoncello; Wilfrid Parry, piano); René Leibowitz, conductor (recorded: 1954?)  *Argo RG 54 mono (1955?) LP
4.       Alice Howland, voice; Lois Schaefer, flute & piccolo; Donald Lituchy, clarinet; David Kalina, bass clarinet; Robert Koff, violin & viola; Seymour Barab, violoncello; Edward Steuermann, piano; Arthur Winograd, conductor *MGM E 3202 mono (1955?) LP
5.       Jeanne Héricard, voice; members, Sinfonie-Orchester des Südwestfunks, Baden-Baden (Kraft-Thorwald Diloo, flute; Otto Voigt, piccolo; Sepp Fackler, clarinet; Hans Lemser, bass clarinet; Günther Weigmann, violin; Ulrich Koch, viola; Anton Käsmeier, violoncello; Maria Bergmann, piano); Hans Rosbaud, conductor (recorded: Musikstudio, Südwestfunk, Baden-Baden, West Germany, 4-5 April 1957) *Wergo WER 6403-2 (286 403-2) mono AAD (1993) CD
6.       Patricia Rideout, soprano; Suzanne Shulman, flute; James Campbell, clarinet; Coenraad Bloemendal, bass clarinet; Adele Armin, violin; Peter Smith, violoncello; Glenn Gould, piano (recorded: CBC Studios, Toronto, Canada, 1974) (1st-7th songs) *Nuova Era 2310 mono ADD (1989) CD (recorded: 1960?/1962?/1967?!) (1st-2nd & 5th songs) (1:51; 2:20; 1:59) *Sony Classical SM2K 52664 mono ADD (1994) CD

Related posts

Review of The Glenn Gould Reader

Artur Schnabel and Schoenberg’s Performance Aesthetics and Practice

Listening to performance of Pierrot lunaire and Sprechstimme

Pierrot lunaire, Sprechstimme in video performance

Bjork singing Schoenberg’s Pierrot lunaire

Email interview with Schoenberg’s Children

Follow my research of Pierrot lunaire early recording live of Twitter



How to write good texts about music

I wrote yesterday about a sad telephone call that I received from Prof. Dalia Cohen. She attacked me for “thinking that there is only one way of how to write on music”. I told her that this is not true, and I pointed out several authors, such as Ethan Haimo, who cannot be considered part of “new” musicology, and who are, I believe, distinguished scholars.

Yeshayahu Leibowitz once wrote that whatever one will write, and no matter how much one will be careful, you cannot avoid sometimes being misunderstood.

In this post I will state my thoughts concerning what makes an author a good writer about music. I will immediately note that it is not whether he or she belong to this or that camp. Anyone who will bother reading the conclusion of my PhD or the last part of my article draft on Schoenberg’s Op. 33a will see that I criticize, not only “old” musicology, but also some of the basic assumptions of “new” musicology (it is funny to read in this wikipedia link that “Many of the scholarly concerns that used to be associated with New Musicology have now become mainstream.” What does this make of much of the Isareli musicology?). So lets move on to the points that might help you write good texts about music:

Read all about it
Good scholars need to give much time to reading all that was written about the issues and problems that they are dealing with. Look at the end of books to see what bibliographical items the author is refereeing to. Perhaps something is also relevant to you? You could consider using my general research links to accesses the biggest libraries and search sites such as “Google scholar” and “Google books”.

Distinguish levels of scholarship
Not everything that was written about these issues will be interesting or noteworthy in your article. It is important to demonstrate that you did the reading (especially if you are a PhD student). However, quote only what is helpful for building your own argument.

When you get to know the literature in one field you will start knowing the names of some of the most important scholars. They usually receive most of the quotations in the field. This will be helpful in the future in order to decide what literature you would prefer to scan though (due to limitations of time) and what literature you will read very carefully, perhaps even several times.

Many scholars have tendency to complicate things. I believe that one should try to write in a clear and accessible manner. There are trends in scholarly writing that aim to write a complicated an inaccessible text. I think that one should find a balance between writing in a way that the general public will be able to read, and writing in an artistic way. When I write, I always ask myself, can I write this in a clearer way without compromising my argument? Compare the two books John Rink edited on performance (The Practice of Performance: Studies in Musical Interpretation and Musical Performance: A Guide to Understanding) and you will see how the second one is much more accessible, yet not less authoritative from the scholarly point of view.

It is important to write a clear introduction and conclusion to your text. When you start a new section, consider adding “sign posts” before it: something like “Now we will move on to discuss the ….”. This is helpful in orientating your readers. When you write, always think about your readers – have mercy (the Aramaic word ‘mercy’ is equivalent to the world ‘love’ in Hebrew’). Love your readers.

Doubt accepted truths
When you examine the arguments of others, read them slowly. Doubt accepted truths. See if there is another way to look at things. Try to find “wholes” in the works of others; see if there are perspectives where these arguments do not stand scrutiny. This is one of the most important things in order to be critical.

It is also important not to be too critical. Even if you find some problems in the writings of others, there probably is some truth in them and this should be respected.

Be critical to your own assumptions

It is always easier to be critical to others than to yourself. Every person has defense mechanisms that can be an obstacle in the way of self criticism. One of the ways to do so is to imagine what another scholar or friend would say about what you have written. Another way is to leave your writings for sometime (a weeks, or even several months) and return to them thereafter. This way you become slightly detached from what you have written, your defense mechanisms are less defensive and you are able to refine your arguments.

Imagine possible attacks
When my supervisor, Prof. John Rink, prepared me to my viva (a preparation that started several years before the event), he encouraged me to imagine possible attacks and arguments against what I claim. The philosopher Gadamer wrote about his teacher Heidegger that he would listen to his student and say “yes, you are right”, but after a moment he would add something like “but perhaps it could be seen from different perspective, how about…”, and he would raise objections to the student’s argument. Show your work to others. If you are writing a PhD, try to publish some of the chapters as articles in peer-reviewed journals. This way you will receive, free of charge, the criticism of experienced scholars.

Publish makes perfect
Do not publish rubbish. Yet, write with the intention to publish your work (I owe Zohar Eitan much for this tip, which he gave me before I moved to England to start my postgraduate studies). I published four articles during my PhD studies and I found it very useful when I had to defend my work in the viva. The process of publishing your work is not easy; however, it makes you rethink again and again your arguments and style of writing.

Examine new research methods
Scholars who are serious will examine various research methods and use several ones in different circumstances. Why be faithful to a single school or method when others can be more useful for your aims?

Support your arguments with solid evidence
Try to find as much quality evidence as you can to support your arguments. Read though many documents and books. Spend much time in archives and libraries. Go for long walks in the woods (preferable where Beethoven and Schoenberg walked – there are great woods in Mödling), and think hard what could sustain your claims.

Gideon Levinson once told me that he doesn’t like that I use the metaphor of a “court of justice” in order to describe what a student should imagine when he writes. It would be romantic to imagine that a writer should only express his or her inner impulses without considering what others will say. This is perhaps something that composers can do (and I doubt that this can happen in serious places). I believe that one must imagine that what one writes will have to stand a close examination of others. Just as people must defend their claims in court by bringing evidence, so scholars must try to be convincing as possible by gathering evidence, presenting it in a clear manner and quoting writers and sources who have great authority.

Think big
A good text on music should relate to issues that transcend the particular music in discussion. One should have a feeling the greater issues are at stake. Why speak about a particular music? How does it relate to other music? How does it relate to philosophical problems that trouble man since history began.

It is all about significance
Why are you writing your text? Who cares? Is it at all important? Your readers will scan through your abstract and perhaps also the first paragraph. Make sure that you state the significance of your research at an early stage. You readers will ask: what is in it for me? Give them an answer!

Did I forget anything? Do you have other points that you think can be helpful for “How to write good texts about music”? Don’t agree with what I wrote here? Feel free to comment.

How to write a research proposal: structure

How to write a research proposal: structure

A powerful research proposal is something that is not easy to achieve. One needs a good idea, lots of inspiration and experience. However, there are several rules that can help you write a good research proposal. In this post I will write about the structure that I use when I write research proposals. You will also find here an example of one of my research proposals. A research proposal in music should include the following sections: context, research questions, aims/objectives, methodology, outcomes, potential significance, bibliography and discography (before you continue reading you may wish to consider subscribing to this blog in order to be updated by receiving future posts via RSS or email).


The ‘context’ section should be more than an introduction. It should give the readers a clear idea about the problems and issues that you are dealing with. In this section you will draw the frame of the picture and decide what will be part of the research, and what is not. You also give a brief reference to what other authors wrote on the subject. It is very important that this part will be focused. Try not to write about all the things in the world. Focus only on the most important issues that bother you. This will save you much energy in the future.

Research questions

‘Research questions’ deals with the questions that you want to answer after the research ends. When you write the proposal you do not know the answers yet. You might have a good guess or a direction, but you do not know for sure what the data will tell you after you will collect it.

Aims and objectives

This section presents to the readers of the proposal what you want to achieve. For example: ‘To understand the reception history of Op. 33a.’ or ‘To explore connections between the musical interpretations of Schoenberg’s circle, and other early performers, and their cultural contexts.’


Methodology is very important since it demonstrates what tools do you have or intend to use in order to answer your research questions and achieve your aims and objectives. Methodology should also include the duration of the research and the library and archives that you plan to use.


This section includes information about what you plan to do with your research after it will end. Will you publish an article? Will it be a paper in a conference? Will it be a book chapter? The ability to publish is considered as a sign of scholarly strength.

Potential significance

Here you want to convince that your research is dealing with issues that may influence others. Both ‘context’ and ‘potential significance’ should give your readers a feeling that your research is dealing with problems that transcend your particular research.

Bibliography and discography

This section should contain a selected list of items that are most relevant to your research. I use a few research links that help me build this section in my proposals. People who sit in comities value good research proposals since they often predict whether or not a research will succeed. Investing thought and time in your proposal is extremely important. Here is an example of the research proposal that I have written for my postdoctoral fellowship in Berlin. If you will read the article draft you will see that there is a gap between the two. Nonetheless, the proposal was very helpful in focusing my research efforts. After the research starts, you should let the data tell you the story. Only this way one can really discover new things. If you have questions do not hesitate to comment on this post in the form below.

Enjoyed this post? Subscribe and receive more.

A subject that you love for your research proposal

The most important rule of any research proposal, especially of a PhD proposal or a proposal for a book, is that the subject should be interesting for the researcher. You will spend much time in libraries and archives. Much of the research may be boring: lots of time spent on collecting data, removing dust from old documents in archives and reading stuff that is not always that interesting (although sometimes it is very interesting). It is, of course, ideal to enjoy the process. However, when the process is not that interesting at certain phases, it is good that the subject in general is interesting for you. It helps you keep going when things get though.

And things get though at many stages. One can always fail. You never really know if you will discover something substantial. So remember, when you choose a subject for your PhD, book or article, make sure that you feel close to the subject. There are people who do research on things that they do not like. Yet, it would be better that you subject will be on something that you love.

Copyright Avior Byron 2023 .