歐洲和比較教育是兩個相互感興趣的實體，歐洲是比較教育感興趣的研究對象，而比較教育又被視為歐洲整合的關鍵要素。本文旨在探討歐洲地區的比較教育在歐洲化過程中的角色、反省與重建，發現全球化及歐洲化為歐洲地區的比較教育研究開拓新的機會，但此風光年代之下卻隱藏著一些危險，故歐洲學者在反省之餘，也同時為重建比較教育學而努力。本文提出兩個論點，其一，比較教育研究在歐洲整合過程中大放異彩，但此現象卻是建基在政策工具價值更甚於學術價值；其二，比較教育研究在面臨全球化、歐洲空間的工具化，以及「歐洲」與「國家」這兩個思維的衝突之際，有些歐洲學者又開始回到歷史觀點這個比較教育源頭，嘗試調合一向對立的歷史與比較，希冀為未來的比較教育研究建立一個新觀點，也為歐洲整合帶來真正的裨益。最後，基於歐洲經驗的啟示，本文從目的、實用、本質、比較性、理論反省與實務的連結等角度，提出五個值得未來比較研究者思考的問題。依此對未來的比較教育研究提供五個建議：一、思考何為真正的比較教育研究；二、以理論為基礎並努力建構比較教育理論；三、尋找比較對象之間的關係而非單純比較異同性；四、將比較對象的歷史時間性納入「可比較性」的考量因素；五、連結「理論／方法學反省」與「比較教育研究實務」。

Europe and comparative education joined together by interacting each other. Europe, on the one hand, is a target in which the comparative education researchers are interested. On the other hand, comparative education is regarded as a key element to success of European integration. The purpose of the article is to explore the role, reflection, and reconstitution of comparative education studies in the context of Europeanization. The findings indicate the European integration bring the comparative education studies a new opportunity, but at the same time, it also endangers the development of this discipline under such a climate. This article argues that the contribution of comparative education in the process of European integration is based on the values of its political tool rather than its academic values. Furthermore, it also illustrates that some European comparatists gradually returned to the origin of comparative education – historical perspective, for reconciling the contradictory of history and comparison to establish a new perspective for future studies and to bring benefit for European integration. Finally, the article presents five questions deriving from European experience and then propose some suggestions for future studies: (1) to consider what the true comparative education study is, (2) to practice a comparative study based on theory and to construct comparative education theories, (3) to seek the relationship between comparative realities rather than their similarities and differences, (4) to take the respective historical temporality in account while considering the comparability between comparative objects, and (5) to couple the reflections on theory and method with comparative practices.