Despite the imperative to pay attention to the words we use as a routine dimension of research, the methodological and pedagogical tools illustrating how to work on our own use of language are largely missing within and beyond international relations (IR). To address this gap, we develop a method—the “Reflexive Review”—which adds a linguistic and reflexive dimension to the common practice of a literature review. This method is accessible for researchers who are neither linguistic specialists nor working on language and can be integrated within a standalone research project. First, we review the existing traditions used in IR to investigate language—quantitative text analysis, conceptual analysis, discourse analysis, deconstruction, and problematization—and assess their interest and limits regarding linguistic reflexivity. Second, we introduce four methodological steps for conducting the Reflexive Review, by reviewing literature to: (1) build a list of “priority words” that may need reflexive attention; (2) look for metalinguistic statements to synthesize how the literature has explicitly discussed these words; (3) identify patterns of word use, as collectively shared meanings that coexist and that we should become aware of; and (4) compare the identified uses of language with our own. Third, we demonstrate the Reflexive Review in practice based on a word commonly used in IR: “local.” We identify four patterns of the word use of “local” in IR literature as: a class of actors, a level of analysis, community, and experiences of the everyday. In sum, we demonstrate how a Reflexive Review enables us to implement reflexivity in practice and make more conscious linguistic choices, to support more nuanced, ethical, and rigorous analysis and empirical work.

中文翻译：

---

如何注意我们使用的词语：作为语言反思方法的反思评论

尽管必须注意我们作为常规研究维度使用的词汇，但在国际关系 (IR) 内外，说明如何使用自己的语言进行工作的方法和教学工具在很大程度上是缺失的。为了解决这一差距，我们开发了一种方法——“反思性评论”——它为文献回顾的常见做法增加了语言和反思性维度。既不是语言专家也不是语言工作的研究人员可以使用这种方法，并且可以将其集成到独立的研究项目中。首先，我们回顾了 IR 中用于研究语言的现有传统——定量文本分析、概念分析、话语分析、解构和问题化——并评估它们对语言反身性的兴趣和局限性。第二，我们通过回顾文献来介绍进行反思性审查的四个方法步骤：（1）建立一个可能需要反思性关注的“优先词”列表；(2) 寻找元语言陈述来综合文献是如何明确讨论这些词的；(3) 将词语使用模式识别为共存的集体共享意义，我们应该意识到这一点；(4) 将已识别的语言用途与我们自己的比较。第三，我们基于 IR 中常用的一个词：“本地”，在实践中展示了反思性审查。我们将国际关系文献中“本地”一词的四种使用模式确定为：行为者类别、分析水平、社区和日常生活体验。总共，