林清江先生是臺灣比較教育研究的先驅之一，將比較教育界定為一門結合社會科學、教育與國際研究的科際整合學科，並強調研究應兼顧「科學理論」與「政策改革」的實用性。渠將比較教育研究分為五個層次，從最基礎的「分析制度提供知識」到最高層次的「成為決策輔助工具」。在方法論上採納並發揚了Bereday的描述、解釋、並排、比照研判等四步驟，以及Holmes的問題中心法，來解決教育問題。林清江先生靈活運用社會學研究法（側重結構功能論）及經濟學分析法（重視教育投資），使比較教育研究能超越單純的資料描述，進入深層的理論解釋。渠提醒研究者必須具備四項基本認識：文化相對論的認識、我族中心主義的避免、錯誤比較的避免及比較結果適用程度的認識，以維持研究的客觀性。渠強調區域研究是比較研究的基礎，主張研究者應深入瞭解對象國的歷史、社會與經濟背景，以掌握其制度背後的精神，而非盲目移植。渠最卓越之處在於將比較教育研究成果轉化為具體的教育改革政策，涵蓋高等教育改革、終身學習與成人教育、師資培育制度等，展現了比較教育研究的前瞻性。林清江先生將比較教育從早期的「教育借用」提升至「科學解釋」與「政策實踐」的高度，至今仍是臺灣比較教育學術界值得效法的楷模。

Professor Ching-Jiang Ling, a pioneer of comparative education research in Taiwan, defined the field as an international and interdisciplinary discipline situated at the intersection of social sciences, education, and international studies. Professor Ling categorized comparative education research into five hierarchical levels, ranging from the foundational “analysis of systems to provide knowledge” to the highest level, where research becomes an “auxiliary tool for decision-making”. In terms of methodology, he adopted a Bereday’s four-step framework (description, explanation, juxtaposition, and comparison) alongside Holmes’s problem-solving approach, highlighting the use of hypotheses, verification, and scientific prediction to resolve educational issues. By skillfully integrating sociological methods (with an emphasis on structural functionalism) and economic analysis (focusing on educational investment), Professor Ling enabled comparative education to transcend mere data description and achieve profound theoretical explanation. To maintain research objectivity, he identified four essential understandings for researchers: the recognition of cultural relativism, the avoidance of ethnocentrism, the prevention of false comparisons, and a keen awareness of the applicability of comparative results. He asserted that area studies serve as the bedrock of comparative research, advocating that researchers must deeply investigate the historical, social, and economic contexts of target countries to grasp the “living spirit” behind their institutions, rather than engaging in blind transplantation. Professor Ling’s most distinguished contribution was his success in transforming comparative research findings into concrete educational reform policies, encompassing higher education reform, lifelong learning, adult education, and teacher education systems. He elevated comparative education from early “educational borrowing” to a sophisticated level of “scientific explanation and policy practice”, an approach that remains an exemplary model for Taiwan’s comparative education academic community today.