Filtering by
- Peer-reviewed: Peer-reviewed
- Resource Type: Text
- Status: Published
![190499-Thumbnail Image.png](https://d1rbsgppyrdqq4.cloudfront.net/s3fs-public/styles/width_400/public/2023-12/190499-Thumbnail%20Image.png?versionId=HZM2ES4QqmSwgMLurz7jOoxpV3uCr9JH&X-Amz-Content-Sha256=UNSIGNED-PAYLOAD&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=AKIASBVQ3ZQ42ZLA5CUJ/20240619/us-west-2/s3/aws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20240619T140201Z&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Expires=120&X-Amz-Signature=29bd905edcf319bc40229b2b55a826cb095c6c18147ee0fc6c2deb74cd56e788&itok=hIfupShl)
The impact of undergraduate research experiences (UREs) is supported by evidence from physical and life science fields, especially when student-apprentices work in traditional laboratories. Within social sciences specifically, some excellent student outcomes associated with UREs adhere to non–lab-based modalities like course-based research experiences (CUREs). Here, the authors evaluate the laboratory-based undergraduate research experiences (LUREs) as a potentially valuable approach for incorporating social science undergraduates in research. Using comparative analysis of survey data from students completing three types of social science-based UREs (n = 235), individual research experiences (IREs), CUREs, or LUREs, students perceived gains overall regardless of the type of experience, with some indication that LUREs are the most effective.