This research, like much research, was (and is) driven by engagement with a broader agenda and set of partners. As part of both an Australian Research Council Linkage Project (the ICGP between CAEPR and Reconciliation Australia, with the financial support of the Western Australian, NT and Federal Governments) and a Desert Knowledge Cooperative Research Centre (DKCRC) project (with 28 research partners), it is compulsory to cultivate relationships with these partners. As such, it is not ivory tower research as it aims to ‘make research count on the ground’ (Smith 2005: 5) in its applied approach. To do this, as researchers we have a responsibility to engage with government officials and non-government organisations, to both ensure the project is relevant and to disseminate the research findings. There is also a responsibility to work collaboratively with Aboriginal people with whom the research is being conducted. Indeed, through the DKCRC we received monies for collaboration in the field, which I will discuss further below. The Anmatyerr region, with the ACGC as its centre, is developing as something of a research hub for the DKCRC, with several other research projects underway, including desert or outback livelihoods and bush foods projects.

In our project, we discussed the research findings at length with officials in the local government department and in more restricted fashion with other departments, and with the Central Land Council (CLC).^[5] After, and sometimes before, each period of field research we held an ‘exit interview’, which served to brief the attending officers on the major findings of our period of research. In some ways, we were able to offer informed critique of policy implementation ‘on the ground’ and also offer informed perspective about Creek Camp and associated issues, such as housing supply in the Ti Tree town. Those participating in the local government department discussions tended to be the Community Development Officer for the region and the Regional Manager for Central Australia. Those in the CLC discussions were usually a policy officer and the regional anthropologist. These conversations were of course multi-directional, as we were also returning to our core audience—the ACGC and Creek Camp residents—with updates from these parties.

The collaborative aspect of the research with the ACGC and the Creek Camp residents evolved in a number of ways. Firstly, as we did not arrive with a ready made research topic, the development of the research agenda was itself collaborative. Although it would not be entirely correct to suggest that it was an Aboriginal driven research agenda,^[6] given that it was initiated by the NT Government, it was nevertheless a topic of considerable interest to both the Aboriginal councillors and the Aboriginal residents of Creek Camp and Ti Tree. Furthermore, the broadening of the research to include the Ti Tree residents and official possibilities for change was driven by Aboriginal interests.

As neither Sanders, nor myself, spoke Anmatyerr or Warlpiri and neither of us had experience working in that region,^[7] we engaged an Anmatyerr and Warlpiri speaker to act as both interpreter and research facilitator. We approached the ACGC for suggestions and a male councillor who lived at the nearby settlement of Pmara Jutunta, and who had training as an interpreter, was appointed. He was paid an agreed rate that equated to the council sitting fees and we bought him lunch each day.^[8] One of the challenges in undertaking research with a population that lives outdoors is that there are no doors to knock on. Having a local Aboriginal person introduce us to residents of the various camps was crucial in assisting us to navigate the spatial etiquette that defined the domestic arrangements. When our first ‘research facilitator’ was unavailable, as happened on our third trip, we were able to engage another female councillor from the same settlement. It was also decided by the ACGC that each interviewee of the Creek Camp should be paid $20 for each questionnaire. We continued this practice in our follow-up questionaries, as it was ‘work for the council’. When our research broadened to include residents of the town, however, it was not appropriate to engage Aboriginal research facilitation. Nor did we pay the significant majority of these interviewees.