Every year, the Working Group on Equal Opportunities (AKG) compiles a statistical report on gender distribution and the proportion of women at the mdw.

It is important to consider that, for instance, a high overall proportion of women in an overview of all the occupation groups in the individual institutes is not always a positive sign. When one looks more closely, it often emerges that the proportions of women are particularly high in the lower-level occupation groups. Such a gender distribution can indicate a horizontal segregation of the labour market, or the so-called “glass ceiling”, and reveal a gender stereotyping of specific personnel, professional and student groups.

In general, the use of “gender” in statistics is an ambivalent undertaking. Although gender-specific statistics make gender-segregated inequalities visible and can thus be used as an action guideline for equal opportunity policies, they must also be regarded as problematic for at least two reasons: firstly, gender-specific statistics harbour the risk of reinforcing gender as a category, contrary to the endeavours of Gender Studies, and secondly, both the University Studies Evidence Act (UniStEVO) and the Austrian Civil Status Act (PStG) currently present gender as a dichotomous variable, i.e. as exclusively “female” or “male”. On the one hand, this implies that they are homogenous groups, while on the other, it continues to promote a dichotomous view of gender, thus making transgender, intersex and non-binary people, in particular, invisible.