Table 1.

Coding scheme using Habermas’ validity claims for analysis of publications, adapted from Cukier et al. (2004) and Wall et al. (2015).

Validity claim	Evaluation of claim	Specific questions for evaluation
Comprehensibility	Assessment of the intelligibility, completeness and clarity of communication.	•Does the publication clearly define vulnerability? •Are descriptions of vulnerable groups comprehensible and consistent?
Truthfulness	Assessment of the prepositional content of what is said is factual or true as represented by complete arguments and sufficient evidence.	•Why are migrants considered vulnerable? •Which argumentation is used to support conceptualizations of migrants' vulnerability? •What evidence is provided to support these arguments?
Legitimacy	Assessment of how competing logics and views are represented.	•How do definitions and assumptions relating to migrants' vulnerability differ across papers? •Who is considered an expert on migrants' vulnerability, and on what basis? •Which groups and viewpoints are marginalized or excluded from the discourse?
Sincerity	Assessment of whether the way something is communicated is consistent with what the author intends to communicate.	•How are rhetorical devices (choice of metaphors, connotative vocabulary, hyperbolic language) used to describe migrants' vulnerability? •Are generalizability claims made regarding migrants' vulnerability?