Students’ research experience, self-perceptions, and scientific productivity in undergraduate research programs: a case study of a Brazilian Midwest Institute

ABSTRACT

Scientific and technological initiation programs are developed to introduce students to scientific research and technological development. We use the term undergraduate research (UR) to refer to both initiation modalities. Our study aimed to evaluate undergraduate students’ research experience, self-perceptions, and scientific production during one academic period. Quantitative analysis of curricula vitae and an electronic survey were conducted on students enrolled in a Brazilian Midwest Institute. The results showed that students who had participated in research activities more than once perceived the benefits of UR more positively (p = 0.047) and demonstrated a higher volume of academic production than those were participating for the first time (p < 0.001). Undergraduate students who participate in UR programs contribute positively to academic production and training by providing personal and professional benefits and the opportunity to produce academic work that can help initiate academic careers.

KEYWORDS:

• Scientific initiation
• technological development
• undergraduate research
• higher education
• career development

Introduction

Scientific research is vital for advancing knowledge across various fields and addressing societal issues such as diseases, climate change, and hunger (Bird, 2007), recognised by the United Nations (UN) as one of the main agents of change to confront society’s challenges (Noll et al., 2021). Involving undergraduate students in research programs is crucial for their training as future researchers and their contribution to scientific development. These programs provide valuable opportunities for students to learn scientific epistemology, the scientific method, creativity, teamwork, ethical teamwork, autonomy (A. Wilson et al., 2015); communication skills (Behar‐Horenstein et al., 2010; Zydney et al., 2002); problem-solving (Zydney et al., 2002); as well as a better understanding of project management, research techniques, and the dynamics of postgraduate studies (Russell et al., 2007), among other competencies.

Research conducted in the United States (US) has indicated that Undergraduate Research (UR) programs generate various benefits for the involved students (Hunter et al., 2007; Seymour et al., 2004). Among the numerous advantages are the positive impact of their knowledge of research methods, confidence in their research abilities, and awareness of postgraduate studies (Bauer & Bennett, 2003; Lopatto, 2004; Seymour et al., 2004), distinguishing them from students without this experience (Russell et al., 2007). One of these studies that includes web-based surveys during 2003–2005, involving 15,000 respondents (undergraduates, graduate students/postdocs, faculty mentors, and principal investigators), which indicated that the earlier students have research experiences, the greater the benefits, indicating the importance of encouraging UR from elementary school onwards (Russell et al., 2007). Furthermore, another undergraduate-level study (n = 176) has shown that structured UR programs influence students’ productivity and engagement in the scientific pathway (2.14 times as many scientific presentations; 1.58 times as many scientific publications; and 1.37 times as many academic awards; with p ≤ 0.012) and their inclination to pursue Ph.D. (p = 0.018) (A. E. Wilson et al., 2018). Moreover, research participation can cultivate students’ interest in specific fields of study and foster their aspirations for academic careers (Russell et al., 2007).

In the worldwide context, several other developed countries foster programs in the Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) field, such as Australia (Irwanto et al., 2022; Valko, 2018), New Zealand (Brew & Mantai, 2017; Granshaw, 2016; Mantai et al., 2023), Canada (DeCoito et al., 2016), the Netherlands (Irwanto et al., 2022), South Korea (Kang, 2020), China, Japan, Taiwan, and Singapore (Valko, 2018). These and various other studies indicate a strong relationship in the STEM field with UR activities, with participation in these activities often encouraged and valued in STEM disciplines. Therefore, fostering young individuals’ understanding and engagement in scientific research is crucial for a nation’s progress in reducing reliance on other countries in scientific and technological advancements (Melo et al., 2023).

In the Brazilian context, a study found that students might encounter challenges conducting research activities, proposing comprehensive changes involving all parties to integrate scientific research into education (Guerra & Noll, 2021). Thus, Brazil’s Scientific Initiation (SI) programs offered by educational institutions play a crucial role in the scientific education of students, spanning from secondary school to undergraduate level (CNPq, 2006). The SI fosters the development of essential technical and personal skills, awakening students’ scientific interests and nurturing potential talents (CNPq, 2006), providing students with theoretical, technical, practical, and methodological knowledge (Lopatto & Williams, 2007; Melo et al., 2023). Once combined, this knowledge may encourage the development of skills to deal with problematic situations and challenges, which are not limited to formative experiences but also reverberate in skilled actions in the future (Melo et al., 2023). In addition, the experience gained may contribute to forming critical and active individuals who qualify for citizenship and whose expectations go beyond social and cultural transformations (Heras & Ruiz-Mallén, 2017).

Research programs play a vital role in students’ academic and professional development within educational institutions and may enable students to become future researchers and scientists (Daniels et al., 2016). However, barriers still need to be overcome (Mahatmya et al., 2017). The lack of information about the programs, little motivation from teachers due to undervaluation and excessive activities, and lack of adequate infrastructure and necessary resources are all examples of barriers (Costa et al., 2024). These barriers can negatively impact student participation, leading to low engagement rates in research programs (Melo et al., 2023). Overcoming these barriers expands students’ perception of science, future career possibilities, and the world, fostering intelligence and maturity (Amaya et al., 2018). To enhance student engagement in UR programs, higher education institutions should provide adequate resources, quality guidance, and recognition for their work. Creating the necessary conditions to expand the number of university students involved in scientific research is necessary, either through scholarship or voluntary programs, in order to contribute to the advancement of scientific knowledge (Melo et al., 2023), to achieve a country’s sovereignty and well-being, and for a nation to reach a developed condition.

Educational institutions should actively engage students in UR, requiring a concerted effort to promote these programs through dissemination and leveraging digital and social media platforms (Mahatmya et al., 2017), and given the limited research in Latin American countries, particularly in Brazil, the present study aimed to evaluate research experience, self-perceptions, and scientific production of undergraduates engaged in UR activities. The analysis uncovered the potential relationship between research experience and academic productivity. Subsequently, academic production was compared between students participating in UR programs for the first time and those who had already completed one or more cycles. Based on the study’s findings, the information and knowledge gathered can contribute to developing institutional strategies and actions to enhance support for UR programs.

Methods

Study type

A quantitative descriptive approach case study characterises this research. A case study can be defined as the study of specific individuals, professions, conditions, institutions, groups, or communities to obtain generalisations based on the cases (Creswell & Clark, 2017; Yin, 2017). This study is part of an umbrella study named ‘Panorama of Undergraduate Research in Brazil’ (PUR-Bra study) (Melo et al., 2023).

Institute context

The evaluated Institute is a Brazilian educational institution with 12 campuses in Goiás state (Galvão et al., 2021), offering secondary to graduate-level programs. All units have institutional research programs, including UR, for one year, allowing students to repeat the experience while enrolled in one specific institution. In 2019, the Institute had 7,890 enrolled students across 13 technology programs, 18 degrees, 32 bachelor’s programs, and 657 enrolled students in 11 master’s and one doctoral degree programs (Brazil, 2019). Specialisations were also offered to 780 enrolled students, and several mid-level technical courses were offered to 8,677 enrolled students.

In this Institute, the SI cycle is annual and occurs through annual public calls, through which students interested in participating must have an advisor and submit a research project. As a counterpart, the selected students receive monthly scholarships of R$400 (from Jan. 2019, equates to approximately U$100). The Institute has established agreements with the national public scientific Agency (CNPq, 2006) to follow national scientific programs and transfer resources for SI scholarships. During the cycle, students must dedicate 20 weekly hours to the research project and submit partial and final activity reports. Furthermore, this dedication is in addition to regular academic activities.

Population and sample

This study focused on undergraduate students participating in research programs between 2018–2019. The study population comprised 612 invited students, with 53.4% females and 46.6% males. Participants were invited via email. A convenience sample was selected where individuals voluntarily agreed to participate and signed an Informed Consent Form, adhering to Brazilian ethical principles. The research design was approved by the Ethics Committee (CEP). The final sample included 213 participating students.

Data collection procedures

Data for this study was collected through documentary research, analysis of curricula on the CNPq’s Lattes Platform (https://lattes.cnpq.br/), and a questionnaire. It is worth noting that this research is part of a more extensive study that explored the broader panorama of UR, comparing the scientific production of students and their advisors and their respective perceptions of UR (Melo et al., 2023). A comprehensive and precise dataset was ensured by including of multiple data sources, such as documentary research, curriculum analysis, and questionnaire responses. This approach to data collection ensured rigour and validity in obtaining accurate results.

The electronic questionnaire included 21 multiple-choice questions (Melo et al., 2023) and was distributed to the students via email using the Google Forms tool. The questionnaire’s purpose was to gather information about the students’ profiles and their potential contributions to scientific research in the academic setting. A follow-up reminder email was sent to students who did not respond within two weeks. The collected data made it possible to examine the following aspects related to the students: age group, level of experience with research, whether it was their first time participating in a UR project, and their perceptions of research programs.

Lastly, a complete analysis of the student’s curricula vitae on the Lattes Platform was performed after the academic term had ended. The volume of scientific articles, scientific articles in English, abstracts, extended abstracts, books/chapters, and registered patents were calculated to determine the student’s academic production.

Statistical analysis

Descriptive and inferential statistics were conducted using the software Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (IBM^™ SPSS^™ Statistics), version 26 for Microsoft Windows^™, to analyse the data. Students were categorised into two groups: novice students (participating for the first time) and experienced students (with previous research cycle participation). The Pearson’s chi-square test (α = 0.05) was used to calculate the chi-square (χ²) value.

The analysis of students’ academic production involved two groups: novice and experienced students. Subsequently, the second group was further divided into students in the first to fifth periods and those in their respective undergraduate programs’ sixth to tenth periods. As the sample distribution deviated from normality (Kolmogorov-Smirnov test), we performed the Mann-Whitney U-test to determine whether there was a statistical difference (α = 0.05).

Results

We show the results by profiling undergraduate students engaged in UR and comparing the two groups based on their perception of UR and scientific production.

Students’ profiles

A total of 213 students (115 female, 54.0%) who partook in the research programs during the 2018–2019 academic term participated in the study. The students who answered the questionnaire were divided by age: 22.5% were 19–20 years old, 46.6% were 21–22 years old, 19.2% were 23–24 years old, and 11.7% were 25 or older. A diversity of undergraduate programs was observed in the analysis and the Agronomy, Biology, and Zootechnics programs had the largest enrolments (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Undergraduate programs of study participants (n = 213).

The students were divided into two groups according to their undergraduate periods: 108 (50.7%) were in the first to fifth periods, and 105 (49.3%) were in the sixth to tenth periods. When questioned whether it was the student’s first time in a research program, 110 (51.6%) answered ‘yes’, and 103 (48.4%) answered ‘no’, which is relatively balanced considering that not all students continue to be involved in research activities after the first time.

Novice vs. Students with experience in UR: Statistical association test

The comparison between novice and experienced students performed through the Mann-Whitney U-test indicated that they believed they had superior academic performance in postgraduate programs compared to novice students (p = 0.047) (Table 1).

Table 1. Comparison between novices’ students with experience in UR.

Variables		Experience with UR
	Total (N = 213) n (%)	Novice (N = 110) n (%)	Experienced (N = 103) n (%)	p-value
a) Do you intend to continue in the UR program?
Yes	131 (61.5)	65 (59.1)	66 (64.1)	0.093
No	30 (14.1)	12 (10.9)	18 (17.5)
Not sure	52 (24.4)	33 (30.0)	19 (18.4)
b) In the future, will you intend to apply to a postgraduate program?
Yes	152 (71.3)	76 (69.1)	76 (73.8)	0.635
No	11 (5.2)	7 (6.4)	4 (3.9)
Not sure	50 (23.5)	27 (24.5)	23 (22.3)
c) Is the research important in undergraduate studies?
Totally agree	187 (87.8)	96 (87.3)	91 (88.4)	0.276
Partially agree	24 (11.3)	14 (12.7)	10 (9.7)
Indifferent, partially, or totally disagree	2 (0.9)	0 (0.0)	2 (1.9)
d) What was your relationship with your project advisor?
Very good	161 (75.6)	83 (75.4)	78 (75.7)	0.758
Good	37 (17.4)	18 (16.4)	19 (18.5)
Normal, bad, or very bad	15 (7.0)	9 (8.2)	6 (5.8)
e) What was your relationship with your other professors?
Very good	101 (47.4)	48 (43.6)	53 (51.5)	0.519
Good	96 (45.1)	53 (48.2)	43 (41.7)
Normal, bad, or very bad	16 (7.5)	9 (8.2)	7 (6.8)
f) What was your relationship with the students who developed the study with you?
Very good	128 (60.1)	62 (56.4)	66 (64.1)	0.152
Good	59 (27.7)	30 (27.2)	29 (28.1)
Normal, bad, or very bad	26 (12.2)	18 (16.4)	8 (7.8)
g)Will your academic skit improve in the postgraduate program due to this experience in the UR?
Totally agree	145 (68.1)	71 (64.5)	74 (71.8)	0.047 *
Partially agree	62 (29.1)	33 (30.0)	29 (28.2)
Indifferent, partially, or totally disagree	6 (2.8)	6 (5.5)	0 (0.0)
h) Could the UR activities help you in any way to get a good job in the future?
Totally agree	126 (59.2)	62 (56.4)	64 (62.2)	0.633
Partially agree	65 (30.5)	35 (31.8)	30 (29.1)
Indifferent, partially, or totally disagree	22 (10.3)	13 (11.8)	9 (8.7)
i) Did you participate in scientific events in the 2018–2019 academic term?
Did not participate in any events	21 (9.9)	13 (11.8)	8 (7.8)	0.103
Participated in 1–2 events	141 (66.2)	77 (70.0)	64 (62.1)
Participated in 3 or more events	51 (23.9)	20 (18.2)	31 (30.1)
j) Did you give oral presentations at the events?
Yes	118 (61.5)	55 (56.7)	63 (66.3)	0.171
No	74 (38.5)	42 (43.3)	32 (33.7)
k) Did you encounter other students or researchers with studies that relate to yours at events?
Yes	134 (69.8)	63 (64.9)	71 (74.7)	0.140
No	58 (30.2)	34 (35.1)	24 (25.3)
l) Did you write abstracts and articles?
Yes	205 (96.2)	104 (94.5)	101 (98.1)	0.178
No	8 (3.8)	6 (5.5)	2 (1.9)

‘N’ represents the number of participants; ‘N’ represents the number of responses for an alternative of the question. Mann-Whitney U-test (α = 0.05): * statistically significant value. To avoid statistical power loss, the last three answer options for each question were grouped and classified as ‘very good’, ‘good’, and ‘fair/weak/very weak’ options (see Supplementary Material: questions 8–19). UR is the acronym for Undergraduate Research.

We compared students’ novice and experienced levels and those in their coursework’s first and fifth periods to those in the sixth and tenth periods (Table 2). The statistical test indicated that experienced students had more publications of scientific articles, scientific articles in English, extended abstracts, and abstracts, all these (p < 0.001) than novice students. Also, the statistical test pointed out that students who are studying in more advanced periods (i.e. from 6^th to 10^th periods) have better performance in the production of scientific articles (p = 0.017) and scientific articles in English (p = 0.005).

Table 2. Mean and standard deviation of the academic production of novice and experienced students and the period of the student’s coursework.

	Experience with UR
Variables	Novice M ± SD	Experienced M ± SD	p-value
Scientific articles	0.07 ± 0.35	1.18 ± 3.02	<0.001*
Scientific articles in English	0.03 ± 0.16	0.52 ± 1.53	<0.001*
Extended abstracts	0.90 ± 2.28	4.70 ± 5.54	<0.001*
Abstracts	0.99 ± 2.09	4.75 ± 5.86	<0.001*
Books and chapters	0.08 ± 0.34	0.11 ± 0.42	0.690
Patents	0.03 ± 0.29	0.13 ± 1.03	0.525
All productions	2.10 ± 4.02	11.38 ± 12.89
	Period
Variables	1^st−5^th periods M ± SD	6^th−10^th periods M ± SD	p-value
Scientific articles	0.30 ± 0.94	0.92 ± 2.92	0.017*
Scientific articles in English	0.13 ± 0.75	0.41 ± 1.35	0.005*
Extended abstracts	2.04 ± 3.67	3.44 ± 5.29	0.087
Abstracts	2.09 ± 4.09	3.53 ± 5.21	0.096
Books and chapters	0.13 ± 0.46	0.06 ± 0.27	0.196
Patents	0.12 ± 1.01	0.03 ± 0.29	0.580
All productions	4.81 ± 7.85	8.38 ± 12.38

‘M’ and ‘SD’ represent mean and standard deviation, respectively. Mann-Whitney U-test (α = 0.05): * statistically significant value. UR is the acronym for Undergraduate Research.

Discussion

Our study has evaluated research experience, self-perceptions, and scientific production of undergraduate students engaged in UR due to this lack of knowledge on this theme in Latin American countries. Our findings indicated that more experienced students in UR programs, particularly those in more advanced study periods, exhibit higher productivity in scientific publications and hold more positive perceptions regarding the UR’s benefits than novice students or those in the initial stages of their undergraduate courses. This lack suggests that UR is a valuable experience for these students, as evidenced by their questionnaire responses and curricula on the Lattes Platform. Students’ perceptions of research evolve throughout their academic journey, mainly when they engage in multiple UR cycles.

Research experience and self-perceptions of UR students

In recent decades, there has been an increase in the number of women participating in various scientific fields. Even when considering the obstacles to equal opportunities during schooling, at higher levels or in the job market, women are predominant in various areas of Brazilian education (Brazil, 2022). These pieces of evidence indicate that a greater number of undergraduate and an increasing number of female postgraduate students are female researchers at many Brazilian universities (Mello-Carpes et al., 2019). On the other hand, when these data are hierarchised by area, in science-related careers, the percentage of women is still lower than men (Mello-Carpes et al., 2019). Regarding our study, there was a predominance of female students during the academic period under consideration. However, despite the increasing participation of women in science, some textbooks still perpetuate the stereotype that more men are working in science (Amaral & Rotta, 2022; Block et al., 2022; Kerkhoven et al., 2016).

Another observed aspect is the prevalence of Agronomy students participating in UR programs (38.5%). From this perspective, the predominant agricultural vocation of the Institute campuses (Melo et al., 2023), whose origin was due to the consolidation of the extinct agrotechnical schools, may have exerted some influence on these results. Supporting this, data from the CNPq’s panel on institutional programs for scientific and technological initiation, updated until July 2017, confirms that Agrarian Sciences are the most researched field (CNPq, 2017).

The challenges faced during studies and research activities can increase the independence of novice students; our study delves into the nuanced aspects that contribute to this development, transcending traditional demographics such as sex, ethnic background¹, or social class. Previous studies have mentioned that this experience yields academic and learning advantages, directly proportional to the time dedicated to research (Melo et al., 2023; Thiry et al., 2012; Walkington & Ommering, 2022); as evidenced by our findings, our investigation has gone beyond these studies, which are scarce in the Brazilian context. Additionally, other research in the US has observed that students who engage in UR activities are more inclined to pursue scientific careers and perform better in the professional field (Adedokun et al., 2014; Sanders et al., 2022).

Regarding the professional field, the data from our study indicated that students generally have high expectations regarding the potential of UR activities to contribute to their future employment prospects (totally agree: 59.2%; partially agree: 30.5%). One of few previous research has highlighted the growing awareness of diverse career specialisation opportunities (Adedokun et al., 2014). As students gain experience in UR, they develop personal skills and attributes crucial for their professional performance, including enhanced organisation, sense of responsibility, creativity, and practical interest in knowledge (Lopes & Sousa Júnior, 2018). These aspects further solidify with maturity and contribute to their overall career development.

Concerning the academic sphere, UR activities offer several benefits, including improved research idea organisation and data interpretation skills, enhanced confidence in research design, a better understanding of scientific paper writing for publication, improved performance in undergraduate courses, increased collaboration, and the opportunity to establish contacts with supervisors and researchers (Eagan Junior et al., 2013; Webber et al., 2013). Our study corroborates with the findings of these studies, with participants strongly indicating the importance of UR for their undergraduate studies (totally agree: 87.8%) and reporting increased engagement with other researchers and students during participation in events (69.8%).

From the perspective of studies already conducted indicating that students participating in UR programs show better academic performance in postgraduate programs (Eagan Junior et al., 2013; Webber et al., 2013), our study’s data revealed that the majority of students who have participated in research programs referred ‘totally agree’ that their experience in the UR will contribute to better academic performance in postgraduate programs (novice: 64.5%; experienced: 71.8%). On the other hand, the obtained data do not indicate a significant statistical difference between novice and experienced students. This enhancement can be attributed to their improved theoretical understanding and practical knowledge – or the improved expectation – of what postgraduate programs entail (Adedokun et al., 2014). Through participation in research, students develop scientific skills, enhance their understanding of academic career opportunities, and cultivate scientific reasoning and methodologies (Nyutu et al., 2021). Collaborating with mentors in the laboratory allows students to gain insights into their academic and professional future, as they acquire research skills and techniques (Limeri et al., 2019). As students gain more experience in UR, their belief in achieving better academic performance in undergraduate and postgraduate programs, driven by the benefits of UR (Hayward et al., 2017; Mahatmya et al., 2017), grows, subsequently advancing their expectations for their professional lives (Auchincloss et al., 2014; Hunter et al., 2007; Rufino et al., 2022).

Furthermore, students who participate in research begin to think like scientists based on their research experience (Brownell et al., 2015; Lopes & Sousa Júnior, 2018). They develop a heightened curiosity and critical thinking abilities, while gaining proficiency in scientific methods and data analysis. Students learn from their mistakes, driven by curiosity, and acquire skills in group work and laboratory settings. In essence, research offers practical experiences that complement the coursework in undergraduate studies and empowers students with greater autonomy to cultivate diverse academic skills (Olimpo et al., 2016; Vidal et al., 2022).

Research programs, like the Brazilian UR, play a crucial role in shaping students’ academic futures (Melo et al., 2023). Firstly, these programs assist students in overcoming common misconceptions regarding scientific writing, including challenges in starting the writing process, organising paragraphs and the overall text, and ensuring concise and clear communication (Silveira et al., 2022). Secondly, studies have demonstrated that mentorship from researchers during postgraduate studies enhances students’ awareness of professional and academic prospects (Adedokun et al., 2014). Lastly, research participation positively impacts students’ academic performance and increases their likelihood of completing their degree (Pinto et al., 2016; Rodenbusch et al., 2016). So, research on this thematic topic is essential to understand these programs’ impact better and more deeply, considering other dimensions, especially given the scarcity of quantitative studies related to this theme in the Brazilian context.

Supervisor roles

An effective mentor plays a pivotal role in facilitating the learning process and acquiring skills during research. The student-advisor interaction is paramount for personal growth regarding knowledge and expertise (Daniels et al., 2016), and the students often report substantial benefits in thinking and working like scientists and express intentions to pursue postgraduate programs based on the positive attributes of their advisors. Various factors associated with the advisor’s role, including leadership skills, effective communication, feedback provision, ethical conduct, commitment, and ability to motivate and inspire students, among others, significantly influence on students’ research experience (Aikens et al., 2016). Our study’s findings indicated a strong positive relationship between students and their advisors (very good or good: 93.0%). A solid and respectful relationship based on trust between the student and their advisor often increases the productivity of scientific publications (Morales et al., 2017). Moreover, a fruitful relationship was observed between students and their other professors (very good or good 92.5%) and among students involved in the same research area (very good or good 87.8%). From this perspective, we can deduce that advisors are pivotal role in shaping students’ career paths. In the Brazilian context, where research is primarily conducted in public universities, emphasising the connection between advisors and the formation of students becomes particularly relevant. A thorough understanding of this connection has been established, and its dynamics can positively impact the development of science, technology, and innovation in the coming decades.

Research output of UR students

Our data indicate that experienced students in UR programs exhibited a higher volume of scientific production, consistent with previous research (Saliba et al., 2019). While not all students publish their scientific work (Gonçalves et al., 2017), a significant difference was observed in terms of scientific articles, scientific articles in English, extended abstracts, and abstracts, particularly in the average number of scientific articles published per student (Table 2). Furthermore, a majority of participating students expressed their intention to continue their involvement in UR (novice: 59.1%; experienced: 64.1%), indicating the positive trajectory of Brazilian UR programs.

Finally, we have shown that students with greater research experience exhibited higher agreement levels regarding UR’s benefits than novice participants. Previous studies have found that students’ perception of research benefits is proportional to the amount of time they dedicate to it (Adedokun et al., 2014; Bauer & Bennett, 2003). Therefore, research-related activities offer a significant experience in the student’s academic, professional, and scientific formation (Hernandez et al., 2018; Lopatto, 2004). Our result was prevalent regarding UR benefits (Table 1). Consequently, undergraduate students engaged in longer-term UR programs tend to experience positive personal, academic, and professional progress. As a result, negative stereotypes that some students may have about a scientist’s image (Chionas & Emvalotis, 2020) may dissipate.

Limitation and strong aspects

Some limitations need to be highlighted in our study, such as the fact that we only evaluated students from one research cycle at a single institution, which may not provide a comprehensive view of the impact of UR programs on students’ profiles and perceptions. Additionally, the self-administered questionnaire may have introduced a bias in data collection, as there is no guarantee that all students responded honestly. Furthermore, these self-perceptions are part of the results related to UR intervention, not exhausting other factors that should influence research activities. However, this study has a strong point in deepening the understanding of students’ perception of UR in Brazil. These data help to understand the importance of the Brazilian’ UR programs, strengthen them, and provide directions based on developing strategies to improve UR and potentially all the benefits related to the short, medium, and long term. Future studies should encompass multiple institutions and periods and utilise alternative data collection methods, such as interviews, to minimise the risk of bias in the data. A longitudinal study should also be conducted, starting with students’ entry into undergraduate research and following them throughout their academic trajectories, adopting a cohort format. Furthermore, on a worldwide scale, it would be relevant to compare undergraduate research programs across different countries, exploring their characteristics, objectives, production, benefits, successful experiences, and challenges.

Conclusion

Our study shows that the experience in UR is associated with a positive perception of academic performance and yields beneficial outcomes for participating students. These outcomes include increased academic production, enhanced career prospects in academia or the job market, and heightened motivation for pursuing further specialisation in graduate school. The findings reveal a proportional increase in the number of scientific articles published based on the duration of engagement in multiple UR cycles. Moreover, students with UR experience exhibit are more willing to participate in scientific events and demonstrate improved interpersonal skills. In summary, our study confirms that an extended engagement in UR positively influences personal, academic, and professional development. From all of this, we understand that the development of UR is the first step in expanding strategies to encourage student participation in research programs and enable them to continue their academic and scientific careers.

Informed consent statement

We obtained informed consent from all study participants, and the research was approved by the Ethics Committee (Protocol n^o 08499119.9.0000.0036).

Acknowledgments

We thank the IF Goiano and the Research Group on the Health of the Child and the Adolescent (GPSaCA - www.gpsaca.com.br) for their support.

Supplementary material

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed online at https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2024.2339312.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Woska Pires da Costa

Woska Pires da Costa holds a Mathematics Degree, is a ProfEPT master’s student, and is employed at IF Goiano.

Angélica Ferreira Melo

Angélica Ferreira Melo holds ProfEPT Master’s Degree, and is employed at IF Goiano.

Patricia Espíndola Mota Venâncio

Patricia Espíndola Mota Venâncio holds a PhD and Master’s Degree in Physical Education. Currently, is a teacher and researcher at the professional graduate program at IF Goiano.

Mirelle Amaral de São Bernardo

Mirelle Amaral de São Bernardo holds a PhD and Master’s Degree in Linguistics. Currently, is a teacher and researcher at IF Goiano, associated with the ProfEPT Program.

Priscilla Rayanne E. Silva Noll

Priscilla Rayanne E. Silva Noll holds a PhD in Sciences and Master’s Degree in Collective Health. Currently, is a nutritionist and researcher at IF Goiano, and head of the GPSaCA.

Matias Noll

Matias Noll holds a PhD in Health Sciences. Is an editor and reviewer of the international scientific journals. Professor at IF Goiano. Currently, holds the position of Research, Postgraduate, and Innovation Manager, and head of the GPSaCA.

Notes

1. The ethnic background was based on the official model adopted by the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE), which categorises individuals according to their skin colour: white, black, yellow, indigenous, or mixed (Baqui et al., 2020; Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics [IBGE], 2022). Due to the complexity and potential pejorative connotations that may exist for some of these terms, internationally recognised denominations were chosen: white skin for Caucasian descendants, black skin for afro-descendants individuals, yellow skin for East Asian descendants, indigenous for Brazilians of indigenous heritage, and mixed ethnicity for individuals with African ancestry combined with other ethnicities (Melo et al., 2023)