It is said that the apparent historical analogy between the problems in electrodynamics at the end of the 19th century and the measurement problem in quantum mechanics inspired the quantum reconstruction program of research. But i think in retrospect a honest report would go something like: while the reconstruction program did illuminate on the mathematical structure of quantum theory (such as for the usuage of complex number, etc), it did not, at least not yet, achienve the analog of einstein's success for electrodynamics of moving bodies in two respects: it still did not clarify the ontology in an undisputable manner, and it still did not suggest future implications for physics.

I think a warning sign for hoping Einstein-style payoff existed already in the pre-reconstruction program quantum theory—the regular textbook version. Unlike in the Lorentz contraction for aether, everything in quantum theory worked and works perfectly, not just ad hocly

Perhaps that suggests that while the history of science can provide guidance, it cannot guarantee the same kind of success. The exploration, as much as the methods and direction of exploration, is to be actively figured out. 

Einstein himself did not imitate any method. In a way, his methods are his invention as much as his discoveries. The same holds for Newton. Heinseberg is an exception who borrowed Einstein's method, and it worked for him, but it may not work for everyone. 

But there are a few common thread among Einstein, Newton, Darwin, and others, regardless of their methods (the methods were contextual to their unique circumstance):

 Intellectual humility, honesty, rigor, clarity, independence to ask one's own questions, and a religious kind of curiosity. And those virtues, depending on the circumstances, take different forms. 

So if we are to imitate, we have to imitate the virtues, not the methods.