If we accept PE and reject neo-Darwinism than scientists can start thinking overtly of a new mechanism that can cause speciation other than the neo-Darwinian mechanism. Until this occurs there will be no paradigm shift.
I think the answer may be found in genetics. I'm a design engineer not a geneticist. But I did read somewhere that most of the genetic code is not used or redundant or not fully understood.
We designers sometimes "design in" redundant and what the untrained eye would call "useless stuff". But the designer may have a reason for this "useless stuff". He may envisage a day in the future when he can utilize this extra stuff and have a design modification on the cheap when the time warrants.
Now Gould has speculated about rapid evolution required for his PE. Speculating that "some kind of severe stress" caused the organisms to change relatively (in geological time) rapidly. Maybe these "useless" genes hold a clue.
There is no PE vs. neo-Darwinism that I can see. There is the theory of evolution, and within that theory scientists from a variety fields are duking it out constantly--and interpretations are changing constantly, if not dramatically. But, scientists are closing in on what really happened. Much of this is not visible to the layman because it is hidden in journals which take up whole floors in major research libraries.
If there was a need for a paradigm shift it would be in the journals. First, in the lesser journals where folks early in their careers publish, then, if the ideas catch on, in the mainstream journals. Now, with the internet, things move much more quickly, and ideas are disseminated more widely.
In spite of this I still do not see a paradigm shift in progress. There is refinement and adjustment as more data come in. A paradigm shift would be, for example, something on the order that all evolutionary interpretations of fossil man are wrong because of some new findings of genetics or radiometric dating.
That simply hasn't happened yet. PE is not even close.