This column has, in past issues, reflected on how ecosystems may appear degraded but sometimes retain higher than expected resilience which, if fostered, can lead to surprisingly linear restoration trajectories. But where ecosystems are more highly degraded (whether they show it or not) recovery trajectories can be marked by disjuncts and be far from predictable. And so it appears with restoration ‘culture’ itself. While we may hope that there will be an incrementally growing interest in restoration and a linear progress in establishing innovative policy and social participation, the progress of restoration as a social movement is often characterized by setbacks and unpredicted deviations. These may take us further from our projected course – a pessimistic view – or more deliberately optimistically, may provide new, untapped opportunities for us to reinforce the main message to a more aware society. There is perhaps no need to spell out that I make these comments in the context of a global, political and cultural climate that is far from optimal for ecological restoration. My preferred interpretation, however, is that what appears to be global regression, a pulling back from cooperation on environmental issues, may well be a digression or disjunct, rather than a fatal sign. Indeed, the wheels of research and practice must keep turning, albeit with somewhat changed targets, if a trend towards global environmental problem-solving is to re-emerge. And so it is in this context of the need to be ready for unexpectedly changed targets that I appreciate the contributions of this issue's authors. What we thought were yesterday's targets become different today because of some new disjunct, some new ‘surprise’. Two of this issue's authors, Shane Moloney and Cas Vanderwoude, for example, probably have more creative research projects to spend their time on, but are currently committed to supporting the Red Imported Fire Ant eradication program in the hope, presumably, that it will avoid an environmental disaster that could render much other research redundant. David Millsom's article also conveys a passionate commitment to testing saltbush direct seeding, chasing the hunch that it may offer a key to apparently worsening dryland salinity and biodiversity loss in rural Australia. Re-evaluating the role of ‘the living dead’– scattered paddock trees – is also a theme taken up by two of this issue's research reports, providing information relevant to what could be seen as an ‘eleventh hour’ management issue (see reports by Gibbons and Boak, and by Wilson). A healthy commitment to constructively critiquing restoration solutions themselves – again so that we can better steer our restoration trajectory – is also evident in a number of contributions. Oliver et al. call for a refocus on how we assess conservation value to ensure that our own good intentions do not facilitate the loss of undervalued ecosystems. Susan Moore and Stephen Renton also seek to address their observation that ‘more’ extension is not necessarily better, suggesting a need for greater focus on specific information for specific end-users. This theme of better targeted extension is also taken up by Robyn Edwards and Barry Traill in a short note that describes the results of shifting from a generalized to a more tightly targeted extension approach, with improved results. Fertile partnerships between research and practice are also critical to steering the trajectories of restoration, as is often observed by EMR authors. In this issue, Peter Grimbacher and Lesley Hughes, for example, combine with practitioners to provide insights into whether vegetation recovery at bush regeneration sites is coupled with faunal recovery; helping to refine future approaches. David Leslie and Keith Ward's short note on the release of environmental water allocations to the Barmah-Millewa forest is also clearly the result of a sound partnership, describing as it does the complex ecological and logistic considerations required for these environmental flow releases and subsequent widespread triggering of regeneration of flora and fauna. Finally, David Goldney points out in his guest editorial that the effectiveness of restoration will be largely guided by the quality of research that taps into diverse disciplines then relays knowledge back to policy makers, managers and consumers through participatory processes. And he points out something that has long been problematic in the restoration movements of both southern and northern hemispheres – a paucity of truly specialized restoration courses at tertiary level. Are we forgetting that one of the most useful tools of consistent and carefully considered progress are institutions of learning which, we hope, provide intergenerational mechanisms for refining and passing on knowledge? Indeed, how can we hope to optimize the trajectory of what Goldney refers to as the ‘Age of Restoration’ without tertiary courses fully dedicated to restoration and improved management?