The second section introduces the methodology of this paper, which evolved during work on editing this issue, as I awaited the completion and delivery of all the contributions. The third section presents the results of a phenomenological content analysis and offers a simple model based on grounded theory (GT; Glazer and Strauss, 2017), which presents and explains the various aspects of psychological practice in Israel that are reflected in all the contributions to this issue. One unique aspect of this study is that all the analyzed data are transparent and accessible in the issue itself. The brief final section summarizes this study, and offers research future directions.
Three remarks for the reader: First, the interviews were conducted in Hebrew and therefore the translations include minor additions of words in brackets for the sake of clarity. Second, since the common expression for Covid-19 in Israel is ‘Corona’ or coronavirus, these terms will be used interchangeably. Third, all the participants in this issue are practitioners in various fields of psychology (and are not necessarily licensed psychologists in Israel). Therefore, in this study, participants are referred to as practitioners or therapists and their beneficiaries (who may be students, supervisees, or consultees) are referred to as clients.
Conceptual Framework
Coping With Crisis
The Covid-19 pandemic affects all areas of life: Individuals are exposed to a severe unknown disease, families are thrust from lockdown to quarantine, and sometimes their financial situation is radically changed for the worse. The status of entire communities is impaired: In Israel, for example, the Haredi (ultra-orthodox) community was forced to drastically realign its priorities in order to respond to the existential risks facing the healthcare system and the economy. In this study I will discuss the Corona crisis on two levels: the individual level and the societal level in Israel. The relatedness of these two levels is highlighted in these times, where a crisis that affects individuals is reflected in public opinion and in institutional considerations and decisions, and these affect individuals in turn. I will introduce the concept of crisis at the individual and societal levels as a conceptual foundation for this discussion.
Vigh (2008) defines a crisis as “an isolated period of time in which our lives are shattered,” as a result of which we lose balance in our lives and feel unable “to control the exterior forces influencing our possibilities and choices” (p. 5). The term crisis has many definitions; all refer to a sudden imbalance, a temporary situation from which individuals are ultimately expected to regain serenity and balance. I chose Vigh’s definition because I believe that it best fits our current reality, which has unexpectedly shattered the lives of many people. Lerbinger (2012) identified eight features of crises: sudden, unanticipated and unwanted, ambiguity surrounding cause, requires rapid decision making, triggers additional problems if no action is taken, and generates significant psychological stress (see comments on stress and anxiety, below).
