Of course you will want to show central tendency such as means and medians. Ok as long as you also show variance. There are a couple of good ranking type correlations showing a tendency to agree that can be used on scales.

I don't think means and variances would be much use here, because of the small N problem -- the standard errors associated with those estimates would be so large that there wouldn't be much information about central tendency. So, I personally would stick to percentages.

But can you tell us more about what your purposes are for the quantitative data?

Yes I was definitely sticking with percentages. The research is on speciality coffee businesses. There are very open-ended questions such as what brought you into the business? The answers could , although mostly, perhaps, rather obvious actually be anything. A less obvious answer might be "because I'm a single parent and need flexible working hours." " Why do you stay in the business?" could be another such question. "Is your knowledge of coffee important to your customers?" could be y/n box ticking or turned to a Likert "My knowledge of coffee is important to my customers" Strongly Agree, Somewhat Agree, etc Or similarly "It is important that my premises are presented to be highly Instagramable by my customers". The open-ended question answers through interview will be subject to thematic content analysis. The closed questions from the questionnaire will be subject to descriptive statistical analysis. There is neither need for inferential analysis as no hypotheses, no multi-variate analysis, etc nor the ability to successfully undertake same in Cronbach terms, given such small respondent numbers. I think it all quite straightforward in terms of a plan of work. What I think not straightforwardly obvious is reactions to the piece of work, however accurate it might be. I'm always concerned with the political environment a piece of work is received into as much as actually being analytically accurate. Let's be totally frank about what I mean and solicit views on. My sense is that statisticians faint and clutch at their chests if descriptive statistics are presented unaccompanied by inferential statistics. My sense is that workers in the qualitative tradition still faint and clutch at their chests if even an electronic calculator is drawn from its case. So what I'm really asking is about acceptability in the political environments of academe, with a hoped for response that I'm way out of date and anything goes now. Thoughts?

I think qualitative researchers might not have any trouble accepting per cents. In particular, I see many qualitative articles that begin with a table that provides descriptive, demographic data about the participants.

In moving beyond demographics, what you need is an argument that convinces your readers that the quantitative data will clearly add something to the analysis and the results. One thing you might do in advance is to prepare some "dummy tables" that lay out the kind of presentation you will make, once you have data to fill in those tables.

For hypotheses, you can use non-parametric tests.

David that is certainly exactly how I tackled the one article that I have written in this way "ish" to date. As said, I have no great worry about any of the technical angles, although this time would be somewhat different, which arises out of the sheer volume of closed questions and differences in their types, style, and purpose. The dummy approach is a brilliant idea - thanks so much. My guess is a shape this time that would run descriptive stats, qualitative data and commentary (out of thematic content analysis), further descriptive stats. My point there is starting with demographics and certain other descriptive material, on to the core qualitative work, then using other descriptive statistical material for deep detail illustration of points made by participants at interview which they didn't themselves make but are highly important as both illustration and to overall shape of the study. Let's run it. Participant says " I feel myself very much part of the third wave coffee movement and we are very concerned with customer service and presentation" This is a great interviewee and goes on with only slight prompt to say "Our latte art is a great illustration of the point". This is good stuff, but the clock is ticking and we need to move on. But in write-up I come back to these points from my closed questions/descriptive stats. I find further support and interesting illustration which does a lot of truthful theme extension out of the answers to the questionnaire question "Do you present your premises to be Instagramable? (85% strongly agreed the proposition). BTW total aside but you might find interesting. I know a lot about the coffee industry and the Instagram effect - people often, indeed, visiting only to take pics. I was at a meeting of Michelin starred chefs yesterday and they were saying how they cook for the on-plate look, not taste, and a huge element of chef training is on plating. I knew that last point, but not that taste has become something of an aside. But they reckoned that even at that level clients could often be clueless about food, about taste, but were monied and present to take pics. They were saying that as Thais/preparers of Thai food they were always at a disadvantage as Thai food always looks a mess. One was saying that the workaround - totally, totally inauthentic workaround - is to plate with a jungle on top of that green curry! It's a good point - how do you distinguish a Thai curry? Similarly, of course, how do you visually distinguish one coffee from another? Often the answer is through the interior design of the premises! There's only so much you can do by way of latte art and the customer is unlikely to taste difference. Though they might like boasting rights of having tried an Outer Mongolian honey wash!! That and having had a coffee by barista blah (who must therefore attend coffee competitions, just a as chefs do Michelin etc)

To add a bit of reflection to your question, you could ask yourself in what fields, journals, and conferences you are looking to establish (or further establish) yourself. These will provide insights to the typically accepted and encouraged methodological approaches. Likewise if you find yourself at the periphery there may be “innovative” special interest groups within a conference for instance where your work could fit well.