Scholarly Circle – Professional dog trainers’ perspectives on training methods: ethical and evidentiary insights with Dr. Jamie DeLeeuw

Recorded April 7, 2026.   You can download the research paper ⁠here⁠. This research was funded by the Pet Professional Guild’s Pet Training Science Alliance Program. The APC was funded by Grand Valley State University.Academic Mentor: Jamie DeLeeuw, PhD, is a community psychologist and evaluation leader specializing in animal welfare systems. She is the Founder of Community Research Plus, where she leads mixed-method research and evaluation initiatives grounded in ecological systems theory and an implementation science lens. Her work examines professional decision-making, governance structures, stakeholder attitudes, and policy-to-practice gaps shaping humane outcomes for animals. She previously served as Director of Evaluation and Impact for Austin/American Pets Alive!, leading national performance measurement and data initiatives across shelter networks.Academic Paper AbstractThe professional dog training field sits at the intersection of applied behavioral science, ethics, and lived experience. Despite its significant animal welfare implications, it remains largely unregulated. This primarily qualitative study, complemented by quantitative analyses, examined how professional trainers with differing methodological orientations conceptualize humane and effective practice. Using stratified sampling, 35 trainers affiliated with independent certification directories (17 reward-based; 18 mixed methods) completed a pre-screen survey and semi-structured interviews. Data were analyzed to explore associations among training approach, certification, and demographics, as well as differences in ethical reasoning, evidentiary interpretation, and views on industry regulation. Across orientations, trainers consistently identified positive reinforcement as their most frequently used and effective method, expressed strong commitments to canine emotional well-being and owner education, and voiced concern over the industry’s lack of professional regulation. However, ethical and epistemic orientations diverged. While both groups evaluated methods in relation to canine welfare and behavioral outcomes, reward-based trainers more often grounded their practice in behavioral science and articulated deontological concerns regarding the intentional use of fear or pain. Mixed methods trainers more frequently employed consequentialist reasoning, supporting conditional use of aversive methods in specific contexts and placing comparatively greater emphasis on practitioner-based expertise when interpreting evidence. Although mixed methods trainers reported using positive reinforcement most often, they rated positive punishment and positive reinforcement as equally effective in independent assessments. Overall, the findings depict a profession characterized by ethical pluralism and epistemic tension, yet marked by sustained reflection and adaptive learning. To strengthen professional cohesion and enhance the practical relevance of future research and ethical frameworks, we recommend structured adversarial collaboration embedded within a community-based participatory research approach.