A 1976 essay by Joey Bonner split the Chinese critical reception of the novel into five phases:[3]
Pre-1791
Commentators on the pre-publication manuscripts, such as Rouge Inkstone and Odd Tablet, who mainly provide literary analysis of the first 80 chapters.
1791–1900
Post-publication questions over authorship of the addendum, speculation upon esoteric aspects of the book. After 1875 using the term "Redology" for the studies.
1900–1922
Political interpretations.
1922–1953
"New Redology" led by Hu Shih, approach questions of textual authenticity, documentation, dating, and a strong autobiographical focus. The labelling of previous periods as "Old Redology".
1954–current [1975]
Marxist literary criticism, the book seen as a criticism of society's failures. Li Xifan's criticism of both Old Redology and Neo-Redologists such as Hu Shih and Yu Pingbo.
Academic research institutes
There are many Redology academic institutions, especially university affiliated ones:
The Society of the Dream of the Red Chamber (中国红楼梦学会) in Beijing
The Cao Xueqin Society of Beijing (北京曹雪芹学会) in Beijing
The Cao Xueqin Center for Aesthetics and Art (北京大学曹雪芹美学艺术研究中心) at Peking University, Beijing
The Weiming Society for Hongloumeng Studies at Peking University, Beijing
Zhou Ruchang. Between Noble and Humble: Cao Xueqin and the Dream of the Red Chamber, edited by Ronald R Gray and Mark S. Ferrara. New York:Peter Lang, 2009