True. Reflexivity in ANT is not about power. Thought, I think that with reflexivity they mean that you should be able to apply your explanation to sociology itself.
This is in David Bloor Knowledge and Social Imagery - "strong programme"
That is the strong programme, i agree, which influences the symmetry principle of ANT, but ANT expands symmetry, well Callon's version does according to the book i mentioned. The Strong Programme's symmetry is less 'apply sociology to oneself' then 'all descriptions must be treated equally including the many possible stories of how the research was done' The latter implies the apply to sociology itself, i think.
Power is not a concept for
actor-network, it doesn't talk about power, it talks about who acts, where acting is something that objects can do as much as subjects. If you are interested in framing and power, you are doing something other than ANT.
False. Latour says somewhere that power is not the "cause" of actor-netwroking, but the "result" of actor-networking
but it is not in the analysis, it is after the analysis, it is conclusions. Power is, as such, just a description and can be described after one does the analysis symmetrically. It is something the researcher may concern oneself with, but only afterwards. One does not look for power 'in' the network or describe it 'in' the network, but 'from' the networks.