Final answer:
Armchair anthropology relies on secondhand accounts rather than direct observation and is characterized by a lack of participatory fieldwork, often leading to biased and unethical representations of cultures.
Step-by-step explanation:
Armchair anthropology is based on secondhand accounts of missionaries and merchants. This form of research, which provides a stark contrast to the participatory fieldwork that characterizes modern ethnographic practice, represents an early method of anthropological study. Armchair anthropologists like Lewis Henry Morgan based their theoretical constructions on the writings of others, often without engaging in direct field observation. These practices, now deemed unethical and exploitative, contributed to biased and inaccurate representations of cultures. Moreover, the legacy of armchair anthropology is complex, considering that some information was distorted when Native informants fabricated stories for personal gain. Similarly, the acquisition and sale of cultural objects by anthropologists to museums represented an exploitative dimension to early anthropological research. The failure to acknowledge the real hardships faced by studied cultures underscores a significant ethical breach in early anthropological practice. Contemporary anthropology has moved away from such ethnocentric, and at times, colonialist methodologies. Cultural relativism and striving to understand cultures from an emic perspective now represent core values of ethnographic research. Acknowledging the biases inherent in their own perspectives, anthropologists continue to refine their methods to provide more accurate and respectful representations of the peoples they study.