The use of actor-network theory (ANT) as a methodological (and ontological) framework has been increased dramatically in recent years. Researchers from a variety of fields have found some methodological and ontological intuitions in ANT. However, there have always been some ambiguities in what this framework really is and how it is applicable in qualitative researches. In this paper, we reconstruct the methodological framework of ANT; we propose a four-step methodological framework in which data can be gathered, organized, and evaluated. First of all, we will extract the key ontological elements of actor-network theory and based on that, we will talk about some of its general methodological rules based on the main sources of this theory. Then, using the tools or concepts of semiotics, phenomenology, and ethnography, we propose a four-stage methodological framework for ANT-based qualitative research along with their strategies, methods, and tools, and we will answer some questions.
Keywords: Actor-network theory, Bruno Latour, Methodology, Research, methodological framework. 
 
Introduction: The use of actor-network theory (ANT) as a methodological (and ontological) framework has been increased dramatically in recent years. Researchers from a variety of fields have found some methodological and ontological intuitions in ANT. However, there have always been some ambiguities in what this framework really is and how it is applicable in qualitative researches.
Materials and Method:
Based on the first-hand ANT literature, we reconstruct the methodological framework of ANT; we propose a four-step methodological framework in which data can be gathered, organized, and evaluated. First of all, we will extract the key ontological elements of actor-network theory and based on that, we will talk about some of its general methodological rules based on the main sources of this theory. Then, using the tools or concepts of semiotics, phenomenology, and ethnography, we propose a four-stage methodological framework for ANT-based qualitative research along with their strategies, methods, and tools, and we will answer some questions.
Discussion and result:
ANT is not a research method; it is not a data gathering/analysis/evaluation method, but it is a methodological framework in which those actions can be done. It regulates and directs our way of studying and our way of using research methods. We should also note that ANT is a framework suitable for studying networks and network-makings. It is a framework for qualitative researches in which a researcher goes into depth in a practice to get a rich or thick description of the relations of heterogeneous actors and their actions in texts and contexts. One can distinguish four steps in any qualitative researches done in ANT methodological framework. They are as follows:

Bracketing theories and familiarities; Understanding the possibility of bracketing will be easier noting our semiotic characters when we read fairy tales or watch movies. We bracket many familiarities with, for example, filmmaking techniques. We ‘assume’ that the actors in a movie really kill, die, and fall in love. That’s why we cry, laugh, fear, get upset, or cheer as we are watching a movie. We bracket ‘no one is killed in movie’ for a while. Furthermore, in reading a fairy tale, we ‘assume’ that a tree, for example, can speak or sing. We bracket our ordinary knowledge about trees and some other beings, for a while. In semiotic terms, we shift from reader-in-the-flesh (our real character) to reader-in-the-texts (our semiotic character) in such situations. The mechanism of this shifting is bracketing. In this way, researching is the act of a semiotic character.
Describing networks or network-makings and organizing data; this step includes identification numerous and heterogynous actors and their programs of actions, translation tactics by which the actors enroll each other. Researcher, through ethnographic observations, retraces how a network is solidified and constructed through immersing in it until she reaches a data-saturation point. Any actor, human or nonhuman, which has a role or agency in the network that you are studying is welcomed and should not be neglected. The important point here is that while we as researchers are studying networks and network-making, we are also building a network; we want to make something (an idea, a claim, a theory) stable; to attract or keep various actors interested. Therefore, in terms of network-making methods and techniques, there is no difference between the actors under study and the researcher. A researcher is involved in at least three types of network-making that are completely related: human network-making, non-human network-making, and textual network-making.
Writing a narration; Researcher writes the story or the narration of her encounter with the network or network-making she was studying, and at the same time this action is a kind of network-making, that’s textual network-making.
The trial of the strength of the findings: In the context of ANT, truth translates into the strength of a construct. Truth is actually the label we attach to well-crafted texts that stand the trials of the strength of other researchers. So, the evaluation question should be focused on how strong the network connections are; to what extent do the connections created in human, non-human and textual networks withstand the trails of others? Conventional methods such as triangulation, peer debriefing, audit trial can be used. This work may lead to removing the weak links of the network and, as a result, increasing its strength.

Conclusion:
 The first three steps of this framework are related to data gathering and organizing, and the last one is connected with the evaluation of research findings. This framework helps the researcher recognizes her agency as an actor who is building a network. The concept of methodological symmetry implies that the researcher's work is not fundamentally different from the activities of the informants/actors she studies; both activities are network-making and use more or less the same tools. More than that, since network-making in research is a design and not a mere descriptive/explanative activity at first place, that is it enacts something in the world, it would be very socially and even morally important what kind of network the researcher wants to build.