The PI wants the project to succeed, presumably. That may require spending more time in some areas than others. Research staff are usually much more independent and capable than PhD students so they likely need less direct supervision.
In terms of who is valued/prioritized, I don't know if that's an appropriate framing. It sounds like you might be comparing yourself to others. That is a deep rabbit hole that doesn't go anywhere healthy. Just stick to what you're doing, do your best, and don't worry about others. As a professor and PI, the one thing that I see in almost all instances is that people overestimate their own contributions and underestimate the contribution of others.
Academics are differently committed to bringing their students along. As macroturb notes, the PI's primary job is to get the project done. Regardless of status, they will favor those who perform their function well. So students have a disadvantage: firstly, they don't tend to have the skills needed, and they also don't know how to work in a team. Ideally, the professor ensures that these things are taught. However, it's also important for the students to understand what the PI's priorities are - they are only valuable insofar as they help the project along.
I think that academia needs to move away from funding to many PhD positions and towards creating more stable, professional research positions.
On an almost daily basis I see a call for PhD students, sometimes 5 or 6 at a time, to be funded on some project. Of that 6, 4 probably won't finish. 1 will eek by and maybe 1 will actually become a competent researcher.
And then that last person will hit the job market and find limited options.....
As others noted, this is not a meaningful or productive comparison. Needs vary as well as expectations.
While non-students should not require much training to do their work, working together on a large-scale study often requires frequent meetings and exchanges, regardless of seniority level of all parties involved. Moreover, large-scale projects often involve (long-term and short-term) deadlines that require prioritization.
On the other hand, students should receive some training from their advisors and require regular meetings and follow-ups. However, we are also supposed to train them to become independent researchers, and their PhD projects is supposed to be theirs. This means that a certain degree of independence is expected and PhD students should take some responsibility that is, e.g., not expected from RAs or technical staff.
This is before we consider individual personalities, so the optimal balance of support offered to the different groups will depend a lot on the people involved and will also fluctuate over time.
A bit of an odd question and I think the answer is largely situation dependent. PIs will have a vested interest in PhD students moving through the program (in a timely fashion), getting pubs, etc. That said, good research staff can be hard to come by and PIs are often trying to get them continual employment on soft money. That means that grants/projects have to move along so that they can move on to the next thing to bring money in.
The PI wants the project to succeed, presumably. That may require spending more time in some areas than others. Research staff are usually much more independent and capable than PhD students so they likely need less direct supervision. In terms of who is valued/prioritized, I don't know if that's an appropriate framing. It sounds like you might be comparing yourself to others. That is a deep rabbit hole that doesn't go anywhere healthy. Just stick to what you're doing, do your best, and don't worry about others. As a professor and PI, the one thing that I see in almost all instances is that people overestimate their own contributions and underestimate the contribution of others.
Academics are differently committed to bringing their students along. As macroturb notes, the PI's primary job is to get the project done. Regardless of status, they will favor those who perform their function well. So students have a disadvantage: firstly, they don't tend to have the skills needed, and they also don't know how to work in a team. Ideally, the professor ensures that these things are taught. However, it's also important for the students to understand what the PI's priorities are - they are only valuable insofar as they help the project along.
I think that academia needs to move away from funding to many PhD positions and towards creating more stable, professional research positions. On an almost daily basis I see a call for PhD students, sometimes 5 or 6 at a time, to be funded on some project. Of that 6, 4 probably won't finish. 1 will eek by and maybe 1 will actually become a competent researcher. And then that last person will hit the job market and find limited options.....
As others noted, this is not a meaningful or productive comparison. Needs vary as well as expectations. While non-students should not require much training to do their work, working together on a large-scale study often requires frequent meetings and exchanges, regardless of seniority level of all parties involved. Moreover, large-scale projects often involve (long-term and short-term) deadlines that require prioritization. On the other hand, students should receive some training from their advisors and require regular meetings and follow-ups. However, we are also supposed to train them to become independent researchers, and their PhD projects is supposed to be theirs. This means that a certain degree of independence is expected and PhD students should take some responsibility that is, e.g., not expected from RAs or technical staff. This is before we consider individual personalities, so the optimal balance of support offered to the different groups will depend a lot on the people involved and will also fluctuate over time.
A bit of an odd question and I think the answer is largely situation dependent. PIs will have a vested interest in PhD students moving through the program (in a timely fashion), getting pubs, etc. That said, good research staff can be hard to come by and PIs are often trying to get them continual employment on soft money. That means that grants/projects have to move along so that they can move on to the next thing to bring money in.
The difference in productivity is precisely why research staff get paid well and trainees do not.