This article explores key US and European Union policy documents to identify the similarities and differences in the way that the digital divide has been defined in both contexts in recent years. To that purpose, a computer-assisted text analysis was conducted, which identified not only the most frequent relevant terms in each document, but also patterns of semantic association among them. While significant differences related to the political specificities of each context were found, both sets of documents revealed a tendency over time to frame access in economic and market-based terms. The article argues that these results provide useful insights into the study of the globalization and homogenization of telecommunications policymaking.
Carley, K. M. (1997) ‘Network Text analysis: The Network Position of Concepts’, in C. W. Roberts (ed.) Text Analysis for the Social Sciences: Methods for Drawing Statistical Inferences from Texts and Transcripts, pp. 79-100. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates .
2.
Carragee, K. and W. Roefs (2004). ‘The Neglect of Power in Recent Framing Research’ , Journal of Communication54(2): 214-233 .
3.
Commission of the European Communities (2000a) eEurope: An Information Society for All. Communication on a Commission Initiative for the Special European Council of Lisbon, 23 and 24 March 2000, URL (consulted 27 January 2003): http://europa.eu.int/ISPO/docs/policy/docs/e_europe/COM(99)_en.pdf
4.
Commission of the European Communities (2000b) eEurope, 2002: An Information Society for All. Action Plan, URL (consulted 27 January 2003): http://europa.eu.int/information_society/eeurope/2002/action_plan/pdf/actionplan_en.pdf
5.
Commission of the European Communities (2002) eEurope, 2005: An Information Society for All. Action Plan, URL (consulted 27 January 2003): http://europa.eu.int/information_society/eeurope/2002/news_library/documents/eeurope2005/eeurope2005_en.pdf
6.
Cowhey, P. (1995) ‘Building the Global Information Highway: Toll Booths, Construction Contracts and Rules of the Road’, in W. J. Drake (ed.) The New Information Infrastructure: Strategies for US Policy, pp. 175-204. New York: Twentieth Century Fund Press .
7.
Dyer-Witheford, N. (2002). ‘E-Capital and the Many-Headed Hydra’, in G. Elmer (ed.) Critical Perspectives on the Internet, pp. 129-164. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield .
8.
Entman, R. M. (1993) ‘Framing: Toward a Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm’ , Journal of Communication43(4): 51-58 .
9.
Fellenstein, C. and R. Wood (1999) Exploring e-Commerce, Global e-Business and e-Societies. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall .
10.
Gamson, W. and A. Modigliani (1989) ‘Media Discourse and Public Opinion on Nuclear Power: A Constructionist Approach’ , American Journal of Sociology95(1): 1-37 .
11.
Gandy, O. H., Jr (2001) ‘Epilogue - Framing at the Horizon: a Retrospective Assessment’, in S. D. Reese , O. H. Gandy, Jr and A. E. Grant (eds) Framing Public Life. Perspectives on Media and Our Understanding of the Social World, pp. 355-377. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates .
12.
Gitlin, T. (1980) The Whole World is Watching: Mass Media in the Making and Unmaking of the New Left. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press .
13.
Godeluck, S. (2001) Le Boom de la Neteconomie [The Boom of the Net Economy]. Paris: Éditions La Decouverte .
14.
Goffman, E. (1974) Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press .
15.
Grimm, L. G. and P. R. Yarnold (2000) Reading and Understanding Multivariate Statistics. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association .
16.
Kim, J. (1998) ‘Universal Service and Internet Commercialization: Chasing Two Rabbits at the Same Time’ , Telecommunication Policy22(4-5): 281-288 .
17.
Loader, B. (1998) ‘Cyberspace Divide: Equality, Agency and Policy in the Information Society’, in B. D. Loader (ed.) Equality, Agency and Policy in the Information Society, pp. 3-18. London: Routledge .
18.
McChesney, R. (2000) Rich Media, Poor Democracy: Communication Politics in Dubious Times. New York: New Press .
19.
Miller, M. M. and B. P. Riechert (2001) ‘The Spiral of Opportunity and Frame Resonance: Mapping the Issue Cycle in News and Public Discourse’, in S. D. Reese , O. H. Gandy, Jr and A. E. Grant (eds) Framing Public Life. Perspectives on Media and Our Understanding of the Social World, pp. 107-122. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates .
20.
Miller, M. M. , J. L. Andsager and B. Riechert (1998) ‘Framing the Candidates in Presidential Primaries: Issues and Images in Press Releases and News Coverage’ , Journalism and Mass Communcation Quarterly73(2): 312-324 .
21.
Murphy, P. (2001) ‘Affiliation Bias and Expert Disagreement in Framing the Nicotine Addiction Debate’ , Science, Technology and Human Values26(3): 278-299 .
22.
Murphy, P. and M. Maynard (2000) ‘Framing the Genetic Testing Issue: Discourse and Cultural Clashes among Policy Communities’ , Science Communication22(2): 133-153 .
23.
Nelson, T. E. , R. A. Clawson and Z. M. Oxley (1997) ‘Toward a Psychology of Framing Effects’ , Political Behavior19(3): 221-246 .
24.
Pan, Z. and G. M. Kosicki (1993) ‘Framing Analysis: An Approach to News Discourse’ , Political Communication10(1): 55-73 .
25.
Pan, Z. and G. M. Kosicki (2001) ‘Framing as a Strategic Action in Public Deliberation’, in S. D. Reese , O. H. Gandy, Jr and A. E. Grant (eds) Framing Public Life, pp. 35-66. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates .
26.
Popping, R. (2000) Computer-assisted Text Analysis. London: Sage .
27.
Powell, M. K. (2001) ‘Consumer Policy in Competitive Markets. Remarks before the Federal Communications Bar Association’, 21 June, URL (consulted 23 April 2003): http://www.fcc.gov/Speeches/Powell/2001/spmkp106.html
28.
Reese, S. D. (2001) ‘Prologue - Framing Public Life: A Bridging Model for Media Research’, in S. D. Reese , O. H. Gandy, Jr and A. E. Grant (eds) Framing Public Life, pp. 7-31. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates .
29.
Roberts, C. W. (1997) ‘Introduction’, in C. W. Roberts (ed.) Text Analysis for the Social Sciences: Methods for Drawing Statistical Inferences from Texts and Transcripts, pp. 1-8. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates .
30.
Sabatier, P. A. (1999) ‘The Need for Better Theories’, in P. A. Sabatier (ed.) Theories of the Policy Process, pp. 3-17. Boulder, CO: Westview Press .
31.
Schement, J. R. (2001) ‘Of Gaps by Which We Measure Democracy’, in B. M. Compaine (ed.) The Digital Divide: Facing a Crisis or Creating a Myth?, pp. 303-308. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press .
32.
Schiller, D. (1999) Digital Capitalism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press .
33.
Schön, D. A. and M. Rein (1994) Frame Reflection: Toward the Resolution of Intractable Policy Controversies. New York: Basic Books .
34.
Shaw, J. K. (2001) Telecommunications Deregulation and the Information Economy (2nd edn). Norwood: Artech House .
35.
Stewart, C. M. , G. Gil-Egui and M. S. Pileggi (2001) ‘Examining the Digital Divide: Toward a New Theoretical Framework for Policy-Making in Cyberspace’ , paper presented at the IAMCR/ICA Symposium on the Digital Divide, Austin, TX, 21-23 November.
36.
Stone, P. J. (1997) ‘Thematic Text Analysis: New Agendas for Analyzing Text Content’, in C. W. Roberts (ed.) Text Analysis for the Social Sciences: Methods for Drawing Statistical Inferences from Texts and Transcripts, pp. 35-54. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates .
37.
The White House (1997) ‘A Framework for Global Electronic Commerce’, URL (consulted 3 May 2003): http://www.technology.gov/digeconomy/framewrk.htm
38.
US Department of Commerce (1995) Falling through the Net: A Survey of ‘Have Nots’ in Rural and Urban America, URL (consulted 3 October 2002): http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/fallingthru.html
39.
US Department of Commerce (1998a) Falling through the Net II: New Data on the Digital Divide, URL (consulted 3 October 2002): http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/net2/
40.
US Department of Commerce (1998b) Towards Digital eQuality: The First Annual Report of the Electronic Commerce Working Group, URL (consulted 3 October 2002): http://www.doc.gov/ecommerce/E-comm.pdf
41.
US Department of Commerce (1999) Falling through the Net: Defining the Digital Divide, URL (consulted 3 October 2002): http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/fttn99/contents.html
42.
US Department of Commerce (2000) Falling through the Net: Toward Digital Inclusion, URL (consulted 3 October 2002): http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/fttn00/contents00.html
43.
US Department of Commerce (2001) Leadership for the New Millennium, Delivering on Digital Progress and Prosperity, Third Annual Report of the Electronic Commerce Working Group, URL (consulted 31 May 2006): http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/stsci.html
44.
US Department of Commerce (2002) A Nation Online: How Americans Are Expanding Their Use of the Internet, URL (consulted 2 February 2003): http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/dn/
45.
US Department of Commerce (2003) ‘Service Sector Statistics’, URL (consulted 21 November 2003): http://www.census.gov/mrts/www/current.html
46.
Warschauer, M. (2003) Technology and Social Inclusion: Rethinking the Digital Divide. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press .
47.
Woelfel, J. K. , S. Danielsen and J. Woelfel (1995) CatPac® for Windows. Troy, NY: Terra Research and Computing Co./Galileo Company .
