Still: a lovely thought from an interview with Jack Schulze by Kicker Studio, which illustrates that the question in it's simplest form is somewhat moot – both are necessary and interrelated (perhaps even more so in design – and design thinking – than generally).

“No one cares about what you think, unless you do what you think. No one cares what you do, unless you think about what you do. No one ever really cares what you say.”
(http://www.kickerstudio.com/blog/2009/05/six-qu...)

(Is linking to what he has to say (and replying to what you have to say) somewhat disproving the last bit? perhaps people only care what you have to say if you both think and do?)

One of the models of Instruction that I've found is often successful in teaching complex psycho-motor task (like skiing or using your mobile phone/computer etc.) is the EDICT model. Explanation-Demonstration-Imitation-Correction-Training.

As such I'm not saying there is no room for abstract thought, philosophy or strategy when it comes to design thinking. Far from it. The point I'm making is that this only forms the Explanation phase of the engagement process or the learning task. As you (and Elies) helpfully reinforce the next step toward implementation has to be a demonstration of this in action or in context if you want people to start building their own understanding (and empowerment).

I guess this is potentially where 'systems-thinking' and a lot of design falls down as often products/services/educational curriculums do not give user's enough space and guidance to re-adapt the model or product in this way.

Put simply, in order for ‘design thinking’ to be effective (i.e. make the transition from abstract theory or philosophy to a meaningful process of adding value) it has to applied or limited to a specific relevant context.

That really does seem to be the case, even if the 'specific relevant context' is just a really good example application that catches the understanding of designers and gets us engaged with the idea.

I was at a seminar at Loughborough on Friday where Elies Dekoninck (ex-Brunel Design, now Bath) presented part of a study showing different companies' success (or not) with 'innovation champions' who advocate and promote particular design methods / theories / tools, etc, within companies. If I'm paraphrasing what she said correctly, the best results came when the company actually had a successful example to point to, of how applying some method or theory had been applied in practice, i.e. it was even more effective to have a good real-life example than an über-enthusiastic design thinker.

Which seems to confirm what you're saying!