Ryszard - of course, statistical analysis cannot be applied to qualitative narrative. However, in your case, it seems a bit strange that two different editors have said the same thing. It may stem from the fact that there are different case study methods for both qualitative and quantitative approaches - and mixed methods as well. The editors may be unclear as to which exact case study method and make different assumptions to what you hope that they will interpret. I also assume that you haven't submitted outside the scope of the journal i.e. they accept quantitative submissions only.

Might it be the specific journal that you are targeting? Try targeting a journal that might value such methods - and specifically the topic you are writing about.

Hey Ryszard, I hope Iunderstand your questio right. If I did so, I would say yes there is method of studying the qualitatifs arguments. I would suggest the method of Multiple correspondence analysis (MCA).

I think that your article was rejected on the ground that some people hold the opinion that 'Case studies should not be confused with qualitative research' and they can be based on any mix of quantitative and qualitative evidence. For e.g., Single-subject research provides the statistical framework for making inferences from quantitative case-study data.

Thank you for your contributions. You softened (moderated?) my feeling of being rejected. A propos 'a journal that might value such methods', I observe different=unequal valuations of such methods among professors and academic authorities also.

I had a situation where editor claimed journal's strong preference for quantitative studies although I couldn't find anything about it in journal description. Fot me it would be fair to let reviewers to decide about article quality. Try to find another journal that has no such limitations. I can recommend Ekonomski vjesnik/Econviews, the journal of my school.

Scholarship struggles to understand case study. We have two primary frames of investigation - hypothetico-deductive (HD) frame and case study. We use case study when investigating complex phenomena that don’t subscribe to HD. Case study should use both qualitative and quantitative tools, and statistical analysis of empirics is just one of the tools. Cf. Article Parsing Competitive Dialogue in Public-Private Partnerships:...

As a gerneral point: Purely qualitative studies are very rare in psychology. I can absolutely understand the argument that qualitative studies can explore complex phenomena and generate new hypotheses. However, most psychologists would then like to see these hypotheses tested experimentally. In other words: Case studies may be a good first part of a paper, whereas the latter part details experimental studies that then test the ideas you have derived from the case studies.

Alternatively, you could try to expand your article into a theoretical paper, using the case studies to illustrate theoretical points and laying out a research agenda for the future. However, such papers are usually done by prominent researchers in a field.

Hi Ryszard, I think that you can use both qualitative and quantitative methods for a case study. Those methods complete each other. Doing that depends on what kind of data you have collected and how you did it. I recommend you to submit your paper to another journal that admits this kind of analysis.

Dear Ranjit Konrad Singh

Researchers in economic sciences (to which I belong) try to overcome the psychological approach in research using, among others, sociological categories to study the process of value creation.

New sciences (action research, Design Thinking), theories (Social Practice Theory) and scientific schools (Nordic School) suggest that qualitative research gives an independent contribution to the development of knowledge. They do it in research.

There are two questions about case study research:

1. What methods should be used in case study research? the methodological question.

2. Is a qualitative case study research the first part of the research process, the second part being quantitative research? the question of the culture of science. The answers yes or not delineate two scientific cultures.

Richard

PS

One editor wrote to me that the experiment is a better method of research than case study research based on replication.

Dear Richard,

I understand your arguments. My point was not that qualitative research is useless. My point was that psychological journals usually do not accept it easily.

Your argument goes along the line of qualitative and quantitative research being equally valuable. In contrast, the common position in psychology is that qualitative research is valuable, but only as a preparation phase for eventual quantitative research: Qualitative research generates hypotheses, quantitative research tests hypotheses. And usually, journals want you to present research that has reached the hypothesis testing phase.

Please note that I'm not arguing about what is "right" or "wrong" here. I just try to explain the culture of the scientific discipline, which determines the chances of you getting your article published.

As such you might have better luck publishing in an economics journal, for example.

Or try open access journals if you have the funding for it. Frontiers in Psychology is a good outlet for research that does not fall into traditional lines. I have managed to publish a non-significant finding there, for example.

All the Best,

Ranjit

Dear Antonio.

Maybe my understanding of your point is not complete, but my point is that qualitative case study research has a wholesome and independent value. Please look at the classic article (attached):

Author(s): L. J. Bourgeois, III and Kathleen M. Eisenhardt (1988) Strategic Decision Processes in High Velocity Environments: Four Cases in the Microcomputer Industry. Management Science, Vol. 34, No. 7 (Jul., 1988), pp. 816-835 Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2632297