Research Methodology
How we conduct independent, evidence-based analysis of UK hair and beauty sector claims
Our Core Principle
Every claim on this site can be verified through official government sources. We publish our methodology, show our calculations, and cite our sources. Unlike industry lobbying groups, we have no membership fees to protect, no insurance commissions to earn, and no political agenda beyond truth.
1. Source Selection
All analysis begins with official, verifiable sources. We use a strict hierarchy of source credibility:
Primary Sources (Highest Credibility)
- Official statistics: ONS, HMRC, DfE, Companies House
- Statute law: Acts of Parliament from legislation.gov.uk
- FOI responses: Freedom of Information requests we submit directly to government departments
- Tribunal judgments: Employment tribunal decisions (public record)
- Government publications: Official reports, ministerial statements, parliamentary evidence
Secondary Sources (Verification Required)
- Industry body claims: Statements from trade associations, membership organisations
- Commissioned research: Reports funded by advocacy groups
- Media reports: News coverage of sector issues
These sources are never accepted at face value. We trace claims back to primary sources and verify calculations.
Sources We Reject
- Surveys with undisclosed methodology
- Claims without cited sources
- Statistics that cannot be traced to official data
- Phone conversations refusing written documentation
- "Estimates" or "projections" presented as facts
2. Data Verification Process
When we encounter a claim in industry lobbying or media coverage, we follow a systematic verification process:
- Identify the specific claim (e.g., "24% of UK bankruptcies come from hair and beauty")
- Request source documentation from the organisation making the claim
- Trace to original data by contacting the cited source (if provided)
- Obtain raw data through FOI requests if not publicly available
- Replicate calculations to verify claimed results
- Identify discrepancies between claims and verifiable data
- Document findings with full citations and source links
Example: The 24% Bankruptcy Claim
Claim: "24% of UK personal bankruptcies come from hair and beauty sector"
Our process:
- Requested source data from organisation making claim → No response
- Contacted Insolvency Service → Confirmed they don't collect bankruptcy data by sector
- Obtained company insolvency data → Shows 1.31% from sector, not 24%
- Manually counted London Gazette bankruptcies → Found ~30 cases (0.15% of total)
- Published analysis showing claim is impossible and off by 16-20x minimum
3. Statistical Analysis Standards
When analysing numerical claims, we apply rigorous statistical standards:
Sample Size and Representativeness
We assess whether samples are large enough and representative enough to support claims:
- Calculate what percentage of total population was surveyed
- Identify potential selection bias in sampling method
- Compare sample characteristics to known population characteristics
- Reject claims based on tiny samples presented as sector-wide facts
Calculation Verification
We don't accept calculations at face value:
- Replicate all calculations using the same source data
- Identify errors in methodology or arithmetic
- Check if percentages, rates, and totals are internally consistent
- Verify that conclusions follow from the data presented
Projection vs Forecast
We distinguish between mathematical projections and evidence-based forecasts:
- Projection: Extending a trend line into the future (not a prediction)
- Forecast: Prediction based on causal analysis and multiple factors
- We reject projections presented as inevitable outcomes
- We examine whether forecasts account for known variables and interventions
4. Freedom of Information Requests
When official data isn't publicly available, we submit FOI requests to obtain it:
Our FOI Approach
- Submit requests in writing to create paper trail
- Request raw data not just summaries or interpretations
- Specify exact time periods to match claims being verified
- Publish all responses in our data archive, including refusals
- Follow up on inadequate responses through internal review process
All FOI responses are available at: data.salonlogicpro.co.uk
5. Transparency Requirements
Every analysis we publish meets these transparency standards:
✓ Full Source Citation
Every factual claim includes citation to original source with:
- Source organisation and document name
- Publication date or FOI reference number
- Direct link to source where available
- Page numbers for specific claims from reports
✓ Methodology Documentation
For any calculations or analysis, we document:
- Data sources used
- Calculation methods and formulas
- Any assumptions made
- Limitations of the analysis
✓ Source Archive
All source documents are archived and publicly accessible:
- PDF downloads of FOI responses
- Screenshots of claims from industry body websites
- Links to government statistical publications
- Copies of correspondence
6. Intellectual Honesty Commitment
We hold ourselves to strict standards of intellectual honesty:
What We Do
- Change our position when data contradicts it
- Acknowledge errors immediately and publicly
- Present contrary evidence even when it weakens our argument
- Distinguish between facts, analysis, and opinion
- State limitations of data or methodology
What We Don't Do
- Cherry-pick data to support predetermined conclusions
- Misrepresent sources through selective quotation
- Use correlation to imply causation without evidence
- Present projections as predictions
- Make claims without verifiable sources
7. Correction Policy
We're committed to accuracy over ego:
- Submit corrections: analysis@salonlogicpro.co.uk
- Include: Specific claim you believe is incorrect, correct information with source
- We will: Verify your correction, update article if correct, publish correction notice
- Response time: Within 48 hours for factual errors
Truth matters more than being right. If we're wrong, we'll say so.
8. Independence and Conflicts of Interest
No Industry Paymasters
SalonLogic Pro analysis is:
- Self-funded by Andrew Clelland after 18+ months of independent development
- Not funded by trade bodies, membership organisations, or commercial interests
- Not commissioned by any organisation or political group
- Not monetised through advertising, sponsorship, or membership fees
This independence means we can challenge any claim from any organisation without fear of losing funding or commercial relationships.
9. How to Challenge Our Work
We welcome scrutiny. If you believe our analysis contains errors:
- Identify the specific claim you believe is incorrect
- Provide evidence from official sources showing why it's wrong
- Explain your methodology if challenging our calculations
- Email us: analysis@salonlogicpro.co.uk
What we won't respond to:
- Assertions without evidence
- Opinions about whether our conclusions are "fair"
- Phone calls refusing written documentation
- Attacks on credentials rather than data
Challenge our data. Challenge our calculations. We'll respond in writing with evidence.
10. Who Conducts This Research?
Andrew Clelland - Former salon owner, former wholesaler, independent analyst
- 18+ months full-time research into UK hair and beauty sector
- 450+ employment tribunal cases analysed
- 15+ HMRC Freedom of Information requests submitted
- Direct communication with HMRC, ACAS, Insolvency Service, and government departments
- Zero industry funding or commercial conflicts
Full background: About Andrew Clelland
Our Promise
We will never publish a claim we cannot verify through official sources. We will never hide contrary evidence. We will never refuse to correct errors. And we will never let commercial interests determine what truth we're allowed to tell.
The UK hair and beauty sector deserves honest analysis. That's what we provide.