I then applied for admission to the program of the Committee on the History of Culture and, against the objection of the German Department, was accepted there on a trial basis. Thus, I was able to design my own study program. At the end of the trial period, I was not only finally admitted based on the best performance in all my courses, but I also received a scholarship that paid for my tuition. In the Committee on the History of Culture, I had a lot of freedom to determine my own course of study. The downside was that I was virtually unsupervised. I was left alone, which was pleasant at first. After my doctorate, however, no one felt responsible for my professional future; the historians did not consider me a historian, the Germanists did not consider me a Germanist, and the philosophers did not consider me a philosopher. Nor did the committee have any information about any open positions, nor did it have a secretariat that could have taken care of them. Similar to the Department of History, before one was admitted to the dissertation, one was examined in five areas; in the Committee on the History of Culture, these five areas were to be centered on a central theme or period. I chose Europe in the period 1789 to 1852, focusing on Germany and France, and examinations in German and French history, philosophy, religion, and literature. (…)
Of all my instructors, Adams cared for me the most and followed my work. I rarely got to see Gottschalk, who officially became my doctoral advisor and who always gave my work a very positive evaluation. A friendly relationship developed between me and Adams that lasted until his death in 1994 at the age of 92. I dedicated my book on historicism to him, not only because I had received a variety of suggestions from him, but also because he came closest to my ideal of a scholar who combines science with active social engagement.
Source: Wilma and Georg Iggers, Zwei Seiten der Geschichte. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2002, p. 90f (translation)