DIFFUSION OF KNOWLEDGE AND RURAL TOURISM DEVELOPMENT – EXAMPLE OF VOJVODINA DIFFUSION OF KNOWLEDGE AND RURAL TOURISM DEVELOPMENT – EXAMPLE OF VOJVODINA

Changes in contemporary rural space have influenced new perception of rural way of life. This has affected changes in economic reproduction of rural communities towards diversification. Rural tourism is one of the possible directions in achieving it. As a form of innovative rural economic practice, rural tourism should be based on diffusion of knowledge and information (DKI). Therefore, extension service can be of a great assistance in rural tourism development.


Introduction
Travelling and tourism entails changes of physical space, but social relations, also. Both of them are essential in understanding tourist motivation, needs and expectations, but also in recognizing the hosts` ability to indulge them.
For the last three decades, global (rural) sociology has been showing rising interest in rural tourism. 5 It arose from the analysis of needs and models of rural development and corresponded with the new theoretical paradigms in understanding contemporary rural way of life. In present-day Serbian science, rural tourism has mostly been the issue of agricultural economic analysis or analysis of tourism researchers, geographers, etc. Most of them dealt with the issues of rural tourism statistics, its natural and social development potentials (Bošković et al., 2013;Đukić Dojčinović, 1992;Košić, 2012;Stankov, 2007;Todorović, Bjelјac, 2007;Todorović, Štetić, 2009), destinations and offer in rural tourism 6 , benefits from rural tourism (Đurović, Cvejić, 2011;Đorđević Milošević, Milovanović, 2013;Muhi, 2010;Stankov, 2007;Radovanović, 2010), marketing in rural tourism (Muhi, 2009), publicprivate partnership in rural tourism (Bogdanov, Zečević, 2011), etc. There are few analyses in Serbian (rural) sociology dealing with the specified issue (Markov, 2006;Rajković, 2012;Šlјukić, Šlјukić, 2011). Therefore, by focusing on diffusion of knowledge and information (further: DKI), we tried to point out the significance and possible outcomes of a sociological perspective in researching rural tourism.

Rural tourism from the sociological perspective: basic concepts
One of the key sociological subjects of interest is the relation between society and space. Space is one of the four dimensions of social structure, therefore, conditio sine qua non of societies. In sociology, space is understood as both physical and social (Tripković, 1998;Vujović, Petrović, 2005;Lefebvre, 1991). The type of social interaction influences the type of social space and vice versa. Sociologists often speak of differences between urban and rural space, but also the interactions. Contemporary rural space profoundly differs from a traditional one. Rural communities, especially in developed societies, are integrated within global society, mostly by exchange of various forms of capital. They depend on global societies, but also influence them. Therefore, contemporary transformation of rural space (Marsden, 1998) deeply transforms rural way of life.
How does it imply on rural tourism? Sociological analysis of rural tourism begins (and ends) with the analysis of rurality, as a specific type and structure of social relations. Opportunities for development of rural tourism, the way they are experienced, evaluated and, consequently, used are under direct influence of characteristics of rurality. Rurality also is influenced, among other, by characteristics of rural space. Nowadays, we emphasize transformation and multifuncionality of rural space. It is not only the place of production (of food and raw materials), especially in developed societies. As Bessière wrote (1998), 5  Structures of the contemporary rural communities change due to their specifics, which influence rural social vitality (Čikić, 2013). Changed dynamics of rural space enable rural communities to reproduce in a new manner. This implies the creation of new social roles and relations, new economic activities, new rural culture, etc. Reproduction of contemporary rural communities (especially, economic reproduction) enables, but also requires diversification, which originate from the characteristics of rural space and rurality. Rural tourism is one way in achieving it. It is not a brand new phenomenon. In the post-modern societies, it reaches new meaning and importance. Even in the era of globalization (or in spite of it), rural way of life remains specific which becomes appealing to tourists, foremost, the ones who have not experienced a rural way of life on a daily basis. Therefore, pull-push mechanisms create market niches for development of rural tourism (George et al., 2009). Derived from the specific potentials of ruralilty, rural tourism has a potential to contribute to rural economy renewal and rural community development.

Diffusion of knowledge and information and rural tourism development
Sociological analysis of rural tourism has several focal points: a) social causes of rural tourism development, b) social repercussions of tourism development for the rural communities, but also society in general, c) stakeholders in rural tourism development, d) trends in rural tourism development, etc. Interpretation of rural development as result of interactions between endogenous potentials and support from the outside of the community enables contemporary sociology to point out innovations 7 as a driver for the rural modernization. This is particularly suitable for examining rural tourism.
Since it stands out from the typical/traditional rural economic activities, we hereby think of rural tourism as a form of innovative rural economic behaviour. As a form of experience economy (Pine, Gilmore, 1998), rural tourism development acquires continuous creation and diffusion of relevant knowledge and information (Rogers, 1995;Wejnert, 2002). This is where sociological perspective starts. First, DKI is crucial element in functioning of contemporary societies or cognitive capitalism, as Vercelone (2005) identified them. It gets more important when society has the interest in the subject/area. In addition, DKI is especially interesting under the conditions of heterogeneous knowledge sources and multiple communication channels. The researches of DKI in various areas of interest showed that in the early stages of development, DKI has one of the major roles as a driver of change (Rogers, 1995 Williams, 2007). Second, (rural) tourism is a highly competitive sector, which requires innovation in order to survive and be profitable. Thus, DKI contributes to the improvement and variety of service quality in rural tourism. As o form of niche tourism (Novelli, 2005), the success of rural tourism "rests upon a management perspective that focuses upon the dual innovative and entrepreneurial skills of the owner of the tourism organization and his/her ability to respond to the fastchanging sophisticated expectations of experienced tourists" (Carlisle et al., 2013). Thirdly, characteristics of human resources heavily influenced outcomes of rural tourism, as an experience economy. DKI is focused on building it up. Furthermore, DKI enables exchanges of information and experiences. It facilitates dialogue in problem solving. Therefore, DKI assists in the formation, functioning and development of rural tourism stakeholders` network (Caalders, 2002). On the other hand, networking facilitates creation of innovative milieu, necessary for development of rural tourism.
Societies with strong interest in rural tourism strategically guide its development by implementing adequate measures. This is why we speak of DKI in rural tourism through the experience of extension service. We should bear in mind that extension changes along with the changes in the rural way of life and rural economy. Jones and Garforth (1997) and Rivera (2001) argued that contemporary reforms of extension put focus on rural people in general, not only on those engaged in farming. Nowadays, extension is not only about raising yields, but, it "seeks outcomes of capacity building and resilience in individuals and communities" (SELN, 2006). Being focused on rural issues, contemporary extension service plays a major role as a broker within the rural tourism stakeholders` network.
Therefore, the goal of this paper is to address some issues regarding the role of extension service in rural tourism development. We advocate that rural extension can be valuable for the rural tourism development, but it`s contribution depends on internal (staffing, management, motivation, finances, etc.) and external factors (governmental support, characteristics of the clients/rural hosts, characteristic of actors` network in rural tourism, etc.). As a case study, we have chosen Agricultural Extension Service in Vojvodina (further: AESV 8 ). Our basic hypothesis is that AESV has limited potentials for providing professional support to rural tourism development, due to the insufficiencies in both internal (managerial) and external (mostly, financial) factors. EP 2015 (62) 1 (123-136)

Method and data resources
We focused our analysis of the DKI in rural tourism development in Vojvodina because of: a) tradition in rural tourism 9  The intensity of their influence depends on the development and characteristics of rural tourism, but also general characteristics of (rural) social structure. In the case of rural tourism in Vojvodina, we can speak of insufficient: a) financial resources (lack of investments and lack of financial flow from rural tourist), b) institutional support and institutional/individual interest in rural tourism, c) promotion of rural tourism, d) education of rural hosts, e) tourist infrastructure and f) inadequate strategies and legal framework. Those factors significantly contributed to its non-recognition, lesser quality of services and, consequently, low income.
Even though people often think that providing services in (rural) tourism is a piece of cake, the practice often shows quite an opposite. Success in rural tourism requires complex knowledge and skills in many different aspects: "marketing, hospitality, catering, heritage interpretation and guidance, visitor management, festival and event promotion, building conversion, in rural tourism strategy planning itself" (OECD 1994, 44). Why are knowledge, skills and information vital for rural tourism development? First, knowledge and skills are not important only for providing a specific service in rural tourism. They are, together with the broader set of information, vital to advance in entrepreneurial behaviour in rural tourism. In order to understand the significance of knowledge, skills and information on rural tourism development, we must take a step back. Rural hosts provide and, more importantly, sell an experience. Whether tourist visits rural areas for relaxation and fun, to learn, to have an adventure or for personal growth and a sense of identification, they seek for an experience. Rural tourism provides both dimensions of experience: a) participation in the experience (e.g. cooking traditional dishes, participating in farm activities) and b) connection with the event and/or rural hosts. As a form of experience economy, rural tourism must provide memorable and completely personalized offer (Pine, Gilmore, 1998 14 . Under such context, the role of professional help and support from extension service is of great assistance. Its role is getting more important when we take into account that in rural tourism, attempt to create and offer authenticity is in rural hosts`, mostly unprofessional, hands. They design experience based mostly on indigenous knowledge of local specifics and skills in providing services. Under such context, systematic and organized DKI can be crucial in building human resources. According to our research results, for the last several years, 1  The engagement of AESV in rural tourism development is generally determined by the level of its transformation from exclusively agricultural towards rural extension. By this, extension service traces changes of rurality. Internal and external factors influenced potential role of AESV in rural tourism development. By internal factors, we have understood general management issues in extension, such as management of human resources (staffing, motivation and education), finances, time management, task management, etc. External factors comprised characteristics of governmental support (to extension and rural tourism, as well), characteristics of the clients/rural hosts, characteristic of actors` network in rural tourism, etc.

Jovana Čikić, Marica Petrović, Branislav Đurđev
Even though AESV agents have marked professional assistance and help as factor with highest impact on improvement of quality, quantity and diversity of services in rural tourism 15 , only half of them think that they should provide such assistance 16 . The AESV agents gave clear arguments why they should not be involved professionally in rural tourism development. First, most of them do not have sufficient knowledge and information about rural tourism. By vocation, AESV agents are experts in farming (crops, animal production, plant protection, fruit and wine growing, agricultural machinery, etc.), not in tourism. AESV agents have emphasized that improvement of rural tourism in Vojvodina is a complex issue. Accordingly, they have pointed out that tourism experts and economists should be dealing with such an issue. In addition, extension agents highlighted that they already have too many professional responsibilities. Additional professional tasks would only have a negative impact on the scope and quality of current extension work 17 .
Among AESV agents there are three distinctive groups regarding the issue of future interest in extension work relating to the rural tourism development. Almost ½ of the AESV agents thought that such interest would increase in the next five to ten years. Those are mostly agents with previous experience in extension work relating to the rural tourism 18 . Second group comprises of indecisive agents (42%). Only 8% of AESV agents said that there would be no increase in interest for extension work in rural tourism.
Under restrictive rural/agrarian budget (which is likely to be for the next several years), reform of extension service even more depends on restructuring of its internal resources (human resources, organization of work, budgeting, networking). As the most important activity in strengthening the role of EASV in rural tourism development, extension agents have pointed out selection among currently employed agents in order to choose the ones 15 Besides rural hosts` improvement of knowledge, information and skills, extension agents highlighted adequate state policy measures and general/tourism infrastructure as most important factors in rural tourism development. 16 This result is closely connected to the issue of extension service`s reform. Namely, in order to establish modern extension service in Vojvodina, stakeholders (government, extension agents, experts, etc.) often discussed opportunities and obstacles in its reform. The reform is expected due to the structural and functional changes in agriculture and rural structure. 17 Even though not statistically significant, there is a difference between AESV agents with and without the experience in extension work relating to rural tourism development in their opinion on whether they should be providing such professional help. AESV agents with the experience in extension work related to rural tourism are more likely to think that currently employed agents should be providing professional advices in rural tourism. 18 The independent sample test has also shown significant difference of means of depended variable between observed groups of AESV agents (agents with experience in extension relating rural tourism: M=1.38, SD=0.74; agents without experience in extension relating rural tourism: M=2.12, SD=0.96; MD= -0.74, 95%CI: -1.15 to -0.33 with eta square of 0.142). AESV agents who have been providing professional help relating rural tourism are keener to predict increase in interest in extension work regarding rural tourism in the next five to ten years, due to the direct insight in current state-of-art in rural tourism.
who are interested in extension work relating to rural tourism. Most of the AESV (57%) said that they are interested in providing professional help regarding rural tourism development. Those agents could be a potential group for selection, whereby estimation of the number of AESV agents should be based on the analysis of the rural hosts` needs and preferences for the systematic DKI.
According to the AESV agents, the second major factor of improvement of extension work in rural tourism development is increased available amount of finances for their professional engagement. Due to the previously mentioned restrictive state budget for extension service in general, the issue of finances raises issues of commercialization of extension work (Petrović, Janković, 2010) and alternative models of financing (e.g. project financing).
Thirdly, ¾ of the EASV agents emphasized necessity of upgrading the cooperation between extension service and local, regional and national authorities (especially those in rural tourism). Horizontal and vertical connections between stakeholders facilitate faster and superior information flow, which is crucial for the success of extension work. Besides, strengthening the actors` network in rural tourism in Vojvodina could contribute to the recognition of AESV as a referable institution in DKI and problem solving.

Conclusions
Politicians, but (rural) public also often lay high hopes in rural tourism. They think of it as a magic wand for all rural economic problems. There is no doubt that rural tourism could contribute rural economy renewal. However, rural tourism development requires a broad network of support, especially in its early stages of development.
The research results confirmed our basic hypothesis of insufficient internal/managerial and external/financial resources in improvement of AESV role in DKI in rural tourism. Even though extension work in rural tourism has been present for several years, AESV agents engaged in DKI in rural tourism have been facing (and still are) several problems relating to financing, lack of relevant knowledge and information (issue of area of expertise), too many other professional responsibilities, targeting in extension work.
There is no doubt that extension work has a significant role in the development and promotion of rural tourism. In order to improve the role of extension service as a broker in rural tourism stakeholders` network, it should be paid more attention on visibility and recognition of extension service (in our case, EASV) among rural hosts and other stakeholders in rural tourism. One of the ways to achieve it is to be precise when defining the target group of extension work. Due to the specifics of knowledge, skills and information in rural tourism as the content of DKI, extension work in rural tourism should be demand driven and tailor-made. Furthermore, the same principles should be applied in education and training of extension agents in rural tourism. Such approach should enable the rational use of the limited capacities of the extension service, especially under circumstances of social transition, economic crisis and restrictive rural/agrarian budget.