The coherence of academic legal research methodologies employed by critical legal studies (CLS) is seriously questioned by mainstream legal scholars. Some scholars also maintain that CLS has lost its appeal, if any, due to the shortcomings in these methodologies. On the other hand, there is another school of thought that considers that CLS is not so powerful for its philosophical contents as it is for its powerful and innovative methodologies. Faced with these arguments and counter-arguments, the present paper focuses on the methodologies as employed by CLS scholars to appraise their viability for present and future academic legal scholarship. Though the CLS methodologies such as trashing, dereification, deconstruction and genealogy are not free from imperfections, the paper argues that their essence and contribution in the field of academic legal research deserve acclaims and legal scholarship can still be benefited by these methodologies.