A Bolivian development NGO\u27s effort to increase the scope and value of ecological agriculture, agrobiodiversity and food sovereignty in its work with marginalized farming communities in Norte de Potosí, shares these concerns with the Bolivian State. Yet tensions run high between applying neoliberal frameworks to \u27empower\u27 farmers and resisting neoliberal approaches to strengthen Bolivia\u27s sovereignty vis-à-vis the global North. Despite a significant backlash, neoliberalism continues to complicate sustainable development, participatory ideals and local/scientific knowledges, by both facilitating and challenging efforts toward collaboration. This becomes most clear when examined through the lens of gender. To analyze this process, the conceptual framework casts a wide theoretical net, drawing on critical development theory literature. The farmers participating in the NGO\u27s projects also participate in a dynamic where they are positioned as lacking knowledge. Ironically, the agronomists -- in relative position of power -- who credit scientific and local knowledge with what they themselves know, play the role of holders of both types of knowledge, while the farmers often find themselves playing a role as holders of neither. A closer examination of the participation of women farmers with the NGO and governmental organization urges questions of what counts as \u27participation,\u27 and what purpose it serves. Yet power imbalances infringe on the possibilities for candid discussions among the farmers and the organizations, as well as between these Bolivian organizations and international funders. Further tension exists in the discrepancy between the Western ideal of gender \u27equality\u27 and the Andean cosmovision, with its ideal of gender \u27complementarity.\u27 The perceived need to showcase success in increasing gender equality in the NGO\u27s work interferes with transparency between them and their Canadian partner, highlighting persistent power inequalities. These types of inequalities - and importantly, those between agronomists and farmers -- are masked through development buzzwords, (e.g. \u27participation,\u27 \u27partnership\u27, \u27empowerment,\u27 etc.). Two additional concepts come to light in this dissertation: \u27leadership,\u27 and \u27exchange\u27 (i.e. \u27farmer experience exchange\u27), which gloss over tensions, legitimate development work, and impinge upon the degree to which collaborations of knowledge might transcend (gendered) power imbalances, even as they are used with sincerity and the best of intentions