It is difficult to be certain what your question is here.  If I have understood it correctly (probably not!) then it feels rather old fashioned.  I think the design research community, which is substantial these days, is far more concerned with understanding how deisngers do actually think and work than it is in the idea of creating or mapping out design methods as you call them.  The latter really died out many years ago.  Now for example I have studied how a significant number of admired deisgners think and work.  I articulate the methods they use in your language, though I doubt any of them would called them design methods.   For each of them these approaches are successful but many, probably all, would say they still strive to work better.  I think none would say they lay down methods for others to use.  The journal Deisgn Studies is an excellent source of work on design processes,  You can find many references on my lists here to illustrate this sort of work.

If I have misunderstood your question please say and explain further, then I might have other answers for you.

If I understood this question correctly, then what it means to me is an unfortunate exposition of the relationship between design research/inquiry (striving after exploring and testing some unknown knowledge concerning certain research phenomena or transforming known knowledge into other probable bodies of knowledge describing/explaining other phenomena) and design practice (pursuing possible solutions to defined and/or emergent problems based on synthesis of completely or largely known formal and tacit knowledge, intuition/creativity and real-life constraints) and a blurred combination of these two. These distinct activities typically assume different actors and/or roles that may obviously be the reason of and may give floor to misinterpretations, flawed implementations, or even to misuse. The bottom line is that this should be avoided and the inquiry activities and the exploitation activities are supposed to be combined only in a correct and rigorous manner. Safeguarding the proper use of knowledge and methods is a different issue.

Let me try to clarify. My question originates from multiple levels of observation.

1. In my own field of sustainable (product) design, I see at least two examples where dogmatic following/application causes problems. First, their is the tool of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). While it is not a fundamental limitation of the tool, it tends to trigger incremental optimisation work in practitioners who use it to incorporate environmental sustainability in their work. This practical limitation of the approach was one of the causes that trigger the Cradle to Cradle approach by McDonough and Braungart. They objected to "trying to be less bad, instead of striving to do good". However, they have their own dogmatic followers, who take one aspect "waste equals food" and consider that the solution to all design problems, always. 

2. On another level saw design students apply tools, techniques or methodologies because they like them (doing creative sessions/ co-creation with fellow students, doing context mapping), in projects where they may not be the appropriate choice, or at times during the process when they may not be most sensible. 

This overly-dogmatic application as well of the mis-use of tools and techniques is what interests me. We teach students to image potential mis-use of the products they design, and encourage them to account for those mis-uses whenever possible. Whenever someone proposes a new philosophical perspective on design (like cradle to cradle) or a new tool or technique, can and should they go through a potential mis-use mental exercise? I'm wondering whether there is something written about this in a generic sense, and if not, whether there are documented examples of cases where writers/developers did so?

Ah but what students do is learn, their outcomes are not really too important.  So they need to be directed to the process reasons for outcome deficiency.  Practicing professional designers are a different matter on the whole, and certain excellent designers are and this is what we really study now.  Proposing tools is dangerous and certainly mustn't be done on the basis of observing students.

My dear Academic Friends, I'm working on "architectural design" area, I don't know anything about any researching of engineering area.