Final answer:
Armchair anthropologists based their studies on second-hand reports rather than direct fieldwork, which could lead to biased and inaccurate conclusions. This contrasts with public anthropologists, who make their research accessible and engage with communities.
Step-by-step explanation:
Armchair anthropologists were individuals who studied cultures and societies through the reports and accounts of others rather than through direct, personal fieldwork. Characteristically, these scholars relied on the descriptions given by explorers, missionaries, colonists, and other travelers to draw conclusions about distant ways of life. Often, armchair anthropologists never visited the locales they studied, which led to the risk of forming inaccurate and stereotyped views influenced by the writers' own cultural biases and issues such as ethnocentrism and colonial attitudes.
This term also reflects a period of history where many early anthropologists felt that intensive fieldwork was not necessary to understand cultures different from their own, under the assumption that their White privilege and ethnocentrism provided enough of a perspective. Public anthropologists, in contrast, strive to disseminate their research widely, often engaging with communities and seeking to make their work accessible to non-academic audiences. These efforts represent a shift towards more inclusive and responsible practices in the discipline of anthropology, underscoring the importance of direct engagement and ethical considerations.