为何党史研究者还要具有“门外汉”的眼光？

Group 1 - The core argument emphasizes the importance of both specialization and broad knowledge in party history research, suggesting that a researcher should not only master their field but also possess an outsider's perspective to identify issues [1][2] - The drawbacks of excessive specialization are highlighted, including the risks of narrow focus and fragmented knowledge, which can lead to a stagnant and isolated field of study [2][3][4] Group 2 - The article outlines the concept of "通" (communication) in research, which includes four dimensions: "纵通" (vertical communication), "横通" (horizontal communication), "内通" (internal communication), and "外通" (external communication) [5][6] - "纵通" refers to understanding historical continuity by connecting past and present, while "横通" emphasizes the interrelation between different aspects of party history and its context within broader historical narratives [6][7] - "内通" focuses on mastering the theories and methods within the discipline, and "外通" stresses the importance of knowledge from other disciplines to enrich understanding and analysis [8][9]