Adopting a quantitative and corpus-based methodology, the present research examines the framing of the minority-related themes in academic book reviews in History and Sociology. Two corpora of book reviews (1,000 reviews in total, 500 for each discipline) from 2000 to 2024 were compiled and utilised for data analysis purposes. A theory- and data-driven keyword taxonomy, consisting of seven main themes and 27 keywords, emerged from the literature review, concordance analysis and expert validation. Keyword frequencies were generated, normalised, and transformed into a comparison using AntConc software. Inferential statistics such as Chi-square, Z-test, and hierarchical clustering methods were used to find out significant differences and thematic clusters of keywords in disciplines. Findings show strong disciplinary leanings: reviews in history are much more likely to discuss themes such as “native” and “indigenous”, which is consistent with historical understandings of ethnicity and marginalisation. In contrast, Sociology reviews foreground contemporary and intersecting concerns, frequently employing keywords such as “queer”, “gender” and “racialised”. This lexical pattern reflects a critically engaged stance, highlighting the discipline’s active negotiation of identity, diversity, and social justice in current scholarly debates. These findings demonstrate how book reviews both reproduce and produce disciplinarity, providing important indications toward knowledge dissemination and minority discourse. The methodology exemplifies that thematic patterns can be recognised using corpus-based and statistical analyses. It has significant implications for diversity efforts, disciplinary pedagogy and corpus-based research beyond and including academic discourse analysis, providing insight into the more general disciplinary involvement in marginalisation.

Keywords: minority-related themes; corpus-based; quantitative; book reviews; History and Sociology

Agresti, A. (2018). Statistical methods for the social sciences (5th ed.). Pearson.

Anthony, L. (2022). AntConc (Version 4.1.4) [Computer Software]. Tokyo, Japan: Waseda University. Available at https://www.laurenceanthony.net/software

Bender, T., Katz, P. M., & Palmer, C. (2004). The Education of Historians for the Twenty-First Century.University of Illinois Press.

Breisach, E. (2007). Historiography: Ancient, Medieval and Modern (3rd ed.). University of Chicago Press.

Cheng, C. (2014). A contrastive study of English and Chinese book reviews on linguistics: Perspective of attitudinal meanings. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 4(5), 1009–1016.

Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43, 1241.

Delgado, R. (1984). The Imperial Scholar: Reflections on a Review of Civil Rights Literature. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 132(3), 561–578.

Deo, M. E. (2019). Unequal Profession: Race and Gender in Legal Academia. Stanford University Press.

Ferris, D. (2019). Guiding junior scholars into and through the publication process. In P. Habibie & K. Hyland (Eds.), Novice writers and scholarly publication (pp. 215–231). Palgrave Macmillan.

Hamdan, H., Bellot, P., & Bechet, F. (2016). Sentiment analysis in scholarly book reviews. arXiv preprint arXiv:1603.01595.

Hartley, J. (2006). Reading and writing book reviews across the disciplines. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(9), 1194–1207.

Hérubel, J.-P. V. M. (2008). Historical scholarship, periodisation, themes, and specialisation: Implications for research and publication. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 39(2), 144–155.

Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. Longman.

Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary Discourses: Social Interactions in Academic Writing. University of Michigan Press.

Junqueira, L. (2013). A genre-based investigation of applied linguistics book reviews. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 12(3), 203–213.

Karunakaran, T., & Ang, L. H. (2025). Metadiscourse and Persuasion in Expert-Written Online Product Reviews. GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies, 25(2), 544–563.

Kendrick, A., Krishnan, N., Baharani, J., Tuttle, J., & Szczepura, A. (2025). Gender, race and ethnicity biases experienced by hospital physicians: an umbrella review to explore emerging biases in the evidence base. BMJ Open, 15, e094549.

Laurie, T., & Khan, R. (2017). The concept of minority for the study of culture. Continuum: Journal of Media & Cultural Studies, 31(1), 1–12.

Liu, W., Ding, Y., & Gu, M. (2016). Book reviews in academic journals: Patterns and dynamics. Scientometrics, 109(2), 869–884.

Liu, X., & Zhu, H. (2024). The diachronic change in linguistic positivity in the academic book reviewing of language studies: a text-mining analysis. Scientometrics, 130(1), 133–157.

Martin, J. R., & White, P. R. R. (2005). The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. Palgrave Macmillan.

Motta-Roth, D. (1998). Discourse analysis and academic book reviews: a study of text and disciplinary cultures. In J. Francisco Coll, I. Fortanet, J. Carlos Palmer & S. Posteguillo (Eds.), Genre Studies in English for Academic Purposes (pp. 29–58). Universidad Jaume I Servicio De.

Murtagh, F., & Contreras, P. (2012). Algorithms for hierarchical clustering: An overview. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 2(1), 86–97.

Nicolaisen, J. (2002). The scholarliness of published peer reviews: A bibliometric study of book reviews in selected social science fields. Research Evaluation, 11(3), 129–140.

Rodriguez, M., Barthelemy, R., & McCormick, M. (2022). Critical race and feminist standpoint theories in physics education research: A historical review and potential applications. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 18, 013101.

Römer, U. (2010). Establishing the phraseological profile of a text type. English Text Construction, 3(1), 95–119.

Sinclair, J. (2004). Trust the Text: Language, Corpus and Discourse. Routledge.

Spier, T. E. (2024). Academic book reviews: Who’s writing and citing what in linguistics? Romanian Journal of English Studies, 21(1), 1–22.

Stieg, M. F. (2005). The Origin and Development of Scholarly Historical Periodicals. University of Alabama Press.

Suárez, L., & Moreno, A. I. (2008). The rhetorical structure of academic book reviews of literature. In U. Connor, E. Nagelhout & W. Rozycki (Eds.), Contrastive rhetoric: Reaching to intercultural rhetoric (pp. 147–168). John Benjamins.

Tannen, D. (2002). Agonism in academic discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 1651–1669.

Thompson, G., & Hunston, S. (2000). Evaluation: An introduction. In S. Hunston & G. Thompson (Eds.), Evaluation in text (pp. 1–27). Oxford University Press.

van Dijk, T. A. (2008). Discourse and power. Palgrave Macmillan.

Vassileva, I. (2022). An ‘academic war’ – A case study of confrontation in academia. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 57, 101115.