Because it isn't "in response to having particular ideas in mind", that's why. Once you've set the question you remain passive and allow the response to come through. Perhaps you should ask Elizabeth Brown why she didn't use it?Thanks. I couldn't find the term in any of the books I have, including Elizabeth Brown and Arthur Bailey. They seem to go out of their way not to use it. The best quote is from Arthur Bailey: "The dowsing instrument is basically an amplifier of muscular movement." but that doesn't include "in response to having particular ideas in mind".
Oh good grief, a more negative defeatist attitude would be hard to find. There are plenty of things in the public awareness which are complete bunk, and if you're agreeing with the pseudoskeptical understanding of dowsing then you might as well give up. Putting their world view into the public awareness has been the game of the pseudo-skeptics since the formation of CSICOP in the 1970s and they are very good at doing it. Just don't expect me to believe it because it is "out there". I might as well get my opinions from the tabloids.But I think it's too late, the best approach would be to agree, since it's true anyway. Apart from the dowsing wikipedia page it seems to be in the public awareness.
Nothing has been established except that the experiments the pseudo-skeptics have been doing don't work. The pseudo-skeptics don't have a theory of dowsing because they don't believe that it works. They just went ahead to try and test this rather vague and ill-defined notion of "dowsing works". The old rules page for the now defunct Randi prize (you could probably find it on the Wayback machine) specifically said that they didn't want to be burdened with theories of dowsing etc.A big advantage of going with ideomotor is that it establishes that dowsing is psychological not physical, and the experiments that got a null result were based on the physical theory, that it's a slight physical effect with abnormal human detection ability.