 Now we are going to discuss the research which is being done outside the traditional setting. Most of the issues discussed earlier apply to research which is conducted inside the walls of academic institution, probably hospitals, community engagement centers or maybe we can talk about different kind of the facilities which is being provided to the research assistants which can do a certain type of research while staying inside. But when we talk about going out of the traditional setting to do research, it means that the proper research setup will not be available to you that way but you will be doing research there. Data of significant interest of mental health professionals are sometimes collected from schools, colleges, public places and even from private homes. In these instances, some ethical requirements from structured settings do not translate well to these values and new ethical dilemmas could be faced. Sometimes when we are doing research from these places, we can face some ethical dilemmas. Participants in field research may not always be aware that they are being observed. If we talk about field experiments, we assume that all the people present there, if we study their behavior, if we see a passerby's behavior, if we study their behavior in a unique situation, then neither the informed consent will be taken from everyone there, nor will the briefing be given to everyone there. When we observe them, they do not know that they are being observed. Thus, limiting the need for an advanced voluntary and informed permission contact. For example, sometimes the participants are being simply observed in naturalistic settings. For example, you are seeing in a park how people behave, whether they are littering, how their social interactions are, or what is the overall situation there. So, this can be a situation. Without any experimental manipulation, you have not added any such situation because of which you will alter your behavior and for that, you will need their permission. At other times, the participants are deceived and their reactions are observed. For example, we often see that a camera is placed somewhere and people's emotions are first provoked, their behavior is studied, then it is told that look, here is the camera. So, at that time, they control their emotions, but the shade of their personality is basically being seen by them. So, while doing such things in research, we carefully look at whether the confit rate of our experiment, if it is being posted and we are studying something, then we debrief it or tell the purpose of the research and then we satisfy it. Not that we annoy a person and end the research. For example, a confit rate of an experimenter poses an obnoxious store customer and a sick person on the sidewalk while another confit rate records observer's reaction. In other words, we can see in such research that a person creates a scene in a store or shows such behavior, for example, it is bad for other people or they get angry or cross the line and go ahead, get their bill done first and then see how people respond to it. So, basically, we should have our confit rate there and then debrief it properly. Confidentiality and privacy problems are minimum in situation when naturalistic observations are being done. Obviously, if we observe in a natural setting, there will be no privacy there, there will be no confidentiality there. So, public behavior is basically to identify us. To see whether it is in privacy or confidentiality, it becomes a little challenging. However, while using technologies that allow visual or audio recordings of people's behavior, it is necessary to disguise or remove that possibility of recognition. If we are doing naturalistic observations and we have recorded people's natural behaviors with the help of audio or video cameras, then this is very much important that we disguise it because we can blur people's faces or change their voices and give them a different kind of identification. And in result to that, they would not be recognized and their privacy and confidentiality issues would not be a challenge for researchers as an unethical practice.