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]

Core Viewpoint - The importance of interdisciplinary knowledge in party history research is emphasized, advocating for a balance between specialization and broad understanding to avoid the pitfalls of narrow focus and fragmentation [1][2][3]. Group 1: Specialization and Its Drawbacks - Specialization can lead to a narrow perspective, making researchers overlook broader connections and meanings in their studies [2][3]. - Historical examples from prominent figures like Liang Qichao and Mao Zedong illustrate the dangers of excessive specialization and the benefits of a more comprehensive approach [2][3]. - The current academic environment shows a trend of excessive specialization, which can result in a fragmented understanding of party history, leading to a loss of overall coherence [3][4]. Group 2: The Concept of "通" (Connectivity) - The term "通" refers to the ability to connect different areas of knowledge, which is crucial for a well-rounded understanding of party history [5][6]. - Four types of connectivity are identified: "纵通" (vertical connectivity), "横通" (horizontal connectivity), "内通" (internal connectivity), and "外通" (external connectivity) [6][7][8][9]. - "纵通" emphasizes understanding historical continuity by linking past and present, while "横通" focuses on the interrelations between various aspects of history [6][7]. - "内通" requires mastery of the discipline's theories and methods, while "外通" involves knowledge of other disciplines to enrich understanding [8][9]. Group 3: The Need for Interdisciplinary Knowledge - Researchers in party history should equip themselves with knowledge from various fields such as history, economics, politics, sociology, literature, and philosophy to enhance their analytical capabilities [11][12]. - The integration of different disciplinary perspectives allows for a deeper understanding of historical figures and events, as exemplified by the study of Mao Zedong [11][12]. - A well-rounded approach not only aids in specific research topics but also enriches the overall discourse in party history studies [11][12].